VDT wrote:An employee can see any medical expert he wants to see and the employer has no right to know anything about.
In theory yes but in practice? The Sixers outright discredited the third party medical professional that Markelle Fultz used. Similarly, people (not the Sixers themselves so far, at least) are discrediting the NBPA's medical professional. The Sixers keep insisting that Ben uses their own medical team (just like they did with Fultz) despite the fact that the Sixers' medical team has been proved to be untrustworthy in those matters. So, yeah, the practice is different from the theory and that's an issue.
VDT wrote:However, when the employee cannot fulfill his part of the contract for medical reasons, naturally, the employer needs to have some proof of it. I am pretty sure everyone understands that. In particular in the NBA, based on the CBA excerpt that has been quoted before, the team needs to be provided any required information about the treatmnt that the players receives and the timeline of his recovery. It's something that the players have agreed to and its not unreasonable imo.
The CBA excerpt in question was very murky when it comes to mental health related services, though. It is not clear what kind of information Simmons would have to provide the team, if any. We'll see how it goes in the following days. This definitely isn't the last we hear about this topic.
VDT wrote:Also, trying to compare NBA players with regular employees is quite disenginuous. They are getting all these money (unreasonably imo), doing something not essential for the society, not only because they are good at their jobs but because the league t=can monetize the entetainment that they provide. Trying to extrapolate the NBA player rights (and their ridiculous salaries) to normal workers doesnt make much sense. They are a modern day gladiators in the colloseum and they are paid handsomely to do their part. If they prefer a 9-5 job they are of course free to elect that, but i suspect none will.
Is it actually disingenuous, though, or is it something that you just personally disagree with? You can definitely say that athletes do not provide anything essential for society but the same goes for a ton of other jobs, some of which are paid even more than athletes. A prime examples? NBA team owners. They provide a lot less than the players and make almost 10 times more. These are the same people that a lot of posters in this thread have been defending, by the way. That's rather **** up, if you ask me.