Who do you side with in this debacle? Owners or Players?

[DoTheDew]

Unions are essential in todays world. They are basically legal representation for the average worker to attain fair wages, a safe work place vacation and family time etc. Without a "contract" ( I am a meat manager in a huge grocery chain) they could cancel my accrued vacation time, lower my wages etc, for the sake of profit and shareholders. And trust me they would. As more and more non union workers keep getting screwed for the sake of profits, shareholder's and CEO salaries and bonuses, the more it will eventually sink in the need to organize.

This is contrary to empirical evidence, where in the USA, unionizationhas been declining for 40 years, yet real wages and workplace safety have risen steadily over the same time. Fact of the matter is, the businesses that offer the best benefits to their employees end up with the best employees. There are numerous companies who treat their employees well without a union, it really varies company to company. Sure without a union they "could" do those things, but angering your employees never benefits a company in the long run because there are competitors out there to take away the good ones like yourself I'm sure.

But yes, regular union rules don't apply to sports because of monopolization.

 

[TJ]

This is contrary to empirical evidence, where in the USA, unionizationhas been declining for 40 years, yet real wages and workplace safety have risen steadily over the same time. Fact of the matter is, the businesses that offer the best benefits to their employees end up with the best employees. There are numerous companies who treat their employees well without a union, it really varies company to company. Sure without a union they "could" do those things, but angering your employees never benefits a company in the long run because there are competitors out there to take away the good ones like yourself I'm sure.

But yes, regular union rules don't apply to sports because of monopolization.

100% correct

I used to work in the LTL shipping industry, which used to have several union companies in the '60s (40 at the time IIRC). By 2005, when Consolidated Freightways went under, there were 4 left. And now, the companies who are non-union are profiting far more and gaining more business than those with union representation. I believe today, non-union LTL companies are making approx 5-12 cents on the dollar, while union LTL companies make approx 3 to negative 3 cents on the dollar. It takes 2.5 cents on the dollar to remain sustainable in this industry (upkeep on warehouses, upgrading and repairing trucks and trailers, paying employees, and other essentials to staying afloat).

These companies are becoming unsustainable and eventually will cease to exist.

 

[overseascardfan]

Some 19% of Americans will tell you, when polled, that they're in the Top 5 percent of incomes. In this case, you're brutally wrong:





I'm not crying for NFL player salaries, but this is just a dumb argument. People who argue that if players don't like what they're being paid should go work at WalMart are making a stupid argument. I don't understand where the anti-labor sentiment in the United States comes from.

I'm talking base salaries not stock options and bonuses. I am not anti-labor but I think athletes make entirely too much money. Think what you want but I don't sympathize will people who are making more than most people in a lifetime and want more, I know I could live off $1,000,000 a year. Players are the cause of the risks they take with helmet to helmet hits and the physical demands of the game.

 

[kerouac9]

K9, you obviously don't understand contracts. Both sides agree to the terms up front. Everyone knows there is a certain dollar value to any contract. If you don't make your incentives, you don't get the money. If you fail to perform, you are cut. It's all part of the contractural obligation and is spelled out completely.

NFL contracts ARE guaranteed. You have to look at the contract and not listen to what some agent is bragging about.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, 40. You know that when an NBA player signs a contract, or an MLB player, he's guaranteed the entire value of the contract. I mean, you know that, right?

When an NFL player signs a "contract," they're guaranteed the signing bonus. Until a player has 3 years in the league (is a vested veteran), he could be cut in week 8 and not get paid for the rest of the season.

It's only player contracts that are like this. If the Cards fired Whis after this season, they'd still have to pay him for the remainder of his contract. The NFL's is the only CBA that I understand in all of professional sports when a player can be fired for no reason (a FS is released because there was an injury on the DL and they need to replace that guy) and not have any recourse.

It's one of the things that makes the league great and competitive, but let's not pretend that contracts mean anything from the team's side of the deal.

This is contrary to empirical evidence, where in the USA, unionizationhas been declining for 40 years, yet real wages and workplace safety have risen steadily over the same time. Fact of the matter is, the businesses that offer the best benefits to their employees end up with the best employees. There are numerous companies who treat their employees well without a union, it really varies company to company. Sure without a union they "could" do those things, but angering your employees never benefits a company in the long run because there are competitors out there to take away the good ones like yourself I'm sure.

But yes, regular union rules don't apply to sports because of monopolization.

Poppycock:

You must be registered for see images

Real median income has declined since 1971, when unions started to decline in the United States. If the Mean income has increased, it's because the top wage earners have translated the increase in productivity from 1970s onward into their own wealth, without pushing it back to the consumer in the form of lower prices or to the labor force in the form of higher salaries.

You put me and Bill Gates in a room and suddenly the average wealth in that room is $1 billion dollars. But that doesn't mean that we're both toasting with Kristal. Turn off FOX News and really ask yourself if it feels like America still has a booming middle class.

 

[WildBB]

Real median income has declined since 1971, when unions started to decline in the United States. If the Mean income has increased, it's because the top wage earners have translated the increase in productivity from 1970s onward into their own wealth, without pushing it back to the consumer in the form of lower prices or to the labor force in the form of higher salaries.

You put me and Bill Gates in a room and suddenly the average wealth in that room is $1 billion dollars. But that doesn't mean that we're both toasting with Kristal. Turn off FOX News and really ask yourself if it feels like America still has a booming middle class.

The US corporate structure has been at war with unions and has successfully dismantled and opposed them from expanding throughout the country. This much has been clear for the past 40 years especially.

In the 50's ONE WAGE EARNER could buy a family a house, a car, feed the family, furnish the home, provide for all insurance and health benefits and afford to take a two`weeks vacation with a family of four or more, and put the dog up in a shelter.

Try to do that today, that's even if you can find a job at all without having to leave the country!

Now state legislatures are disbanding state unions because of the fallacy that their robbing public coffers. States are becoming broke because there are NO JOBS. No jobs equals no tax $$$$'s coming in. Are the multinationals making up for that difference, for lack of tax dollars coming in? That's a question I'd like to know. I'd wager politicians, who are in their (corporations) pockets and no longer represent average citizens (workers) have given them cart blanch, to operate outside of the US and not have to pay what the taxpayer would have paid, if the jobs would have been required to have been kept here in the US.

An obvious example of this are the maquiladoras operating as sweat shops right across the US borders. These were set up SPECIFICALLY to exploit cheap labor and undermine union representation and hard fought for benefits by American workers to earn a fair wage and LIVABLE benefits. I've gone across the border and seen them, visited inside and talked to the workers. They are barely able to eek out a living. Most work for $100 dollars or less a week, pay MORE for what we do in the states for groceries. Many provide barracks style assisted living which are hardly conducive to raising a family.

AND they MAY NOT ORGANIZE FOR BETTER CONDITIONS AND WAGES. If they do they are shown the door. Many leave after a few years because of these conditions. Many multinationals threaten that they'll just close the doors if the workers organize, or they tell them that they'll make operations in a different country that's ready to be exploited through this corrupt practice. All in the name of making hundreds of billions instead of hundreds of millions for the already mighty corporate structure. It's the new American way.

This is the reason the average American has fast become a 3rd world resident unto his own. A slave to a corporate system. A debtor not an owner, for the majority.

http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/maquiladoras.htm

 

[Mulli]

I side with the players, just how I roll That said, I am done with the whole thing until they get it resolved. That means I don't buy anything either side says at this point.

 

[Chopper0080]

The US corporate structure has been at war with unions and has successfully dismantled and opposed them from expanding throughout the country. This much has been clear for the past 40 years especially.

In the 50's ONE WAGE EARNER could buy a family a house, a car, feed the family, furnish the home, provide for all insurance and health benefits and afford to take a two`weeks vacation with a family of four or more, and put the dog up in a shelter.

Try to do that today, that's even if you can find a job at all without having to leave the country!

Now state legislatures are disbanding state unions because of the fallacy that their robbing public coffers. States are becoming broke because there are NO JOBS. No jobs equals no tax $$$$'s coming in. Are the multinationals making up for that difference, for lack of tax dollars coming in? That's a question I'd like to know. I'd wager politicians, who are in their (corporations) pockets and no longer represent average citizens (workers) have given them cart blanch, to operate outside of the US and not have to pay what the taxpayer would have paid, if the jobs would have been required to have been kept here in the US.

An obvious example of this are the maquiladoras operating as sweat shops right across the US borders. These were set up SPECIFICALLY to exploit cheap labor and undermine union representation and hard fought for benefits by American workers to earn a fair wage and LIVABLE benefits. I've gone across the border and seen them, visited inside and talked to the workers. They are barely able to eek out a living. Most work for $100 dollars or less a week, pay MORE for what we do in the states for groceries. Many provide barracks style assisted living which are hardly conducive to raising a family.

AND they MAY NOT ORGANIZE FOR BETTER CONDITIONS AND WAGES. If they do they are shown the door. Many leave after a few years because of these conditions. Many multinationals threaten that they'll just close the doors if the workers organize, or they tell them that they'll make operations in a different country that's ready to be exploited through this corrupt practice. All in the name of making hundreds of billions instead of hundreds of millions for the already mighty corporate structure. It's the new American way.

This is the reason the average American has fast become a 3rd world resident unto his own. A slave to a corporate system. A debtor not an owner, for the majority.

http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/maquiladoras.htm

I totally agree that Unionization leads to higher wages than non, that is a fact. The argument against Unionization is that for the higher wage, you don't necessarily get better work, and the Union isn't willing to police itself due to the potential to undermine itself. One thing that Unionization has done is decrease the number of blue collar jobs as their strict demands have encouraged companies to move these jobs to other countries where they can lower worker wages and increase profits without a tremendous decrease in quality (especially with the impact that technological advances have changed the blue collar work place).

As far as your bottom statement, false. The American lifestyle has led Americans to becoming corporate slaves and debtors, not a lack of Unions. Americans now choose to spend money they don't have to buy items they don't need. Americans choose the instant gratification of credit than the patient satisfaction of cash. Americans choose to live in houses before they afford them, and with more square footage than is necessary. Americans choose to work tirelessly for 50 years hoping that Social Security will take care of them rather than saving on their own, and planning their retirement. Our choices and nothing more.

 

[40yearfan]

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, 40. You know that when an NBA player signs a contract, or an MLB player, he's guaranteed the entire value of the contract. I mean, you know that, right?

When an NFL player signs a "contract," they're guaranteed the signing bonus. Until a player has 3 years in the league (is a vested veteran), he could be cut in week 8 and not get paid for the rest of the season.

It's only player contracts that are like this. If the Cards fired Whis after this season, they'd still have to pay him for the remainder of his contract. The NFL's is the only CBA that I understand in all of professional sports when a player can be fired for no reason (a FS is released because there was an injury on the DL and they need to replace that guy) and not have any recourse.

It's one of the things that makes the league great and competitive, but let's not pretend that contracts mean anything from the team's side of the deal.



Poppycock:

You must be registered for see images

Real median income has declined since 1971, when unions started to decline in the United States. If the Mean income has increased, it's because the top wage earners have translated the increase in productivity from 1970s onward into their own wealth, without pushing it back to the consumer in the form of lower prices or to the labor force in the form of higher salaries.

You put me and Bill Gates in a room and suddenly the average wealth in that room is $1 billion dollars. But that doesn't mean that we're both toasting with Kristal. Turn off FOX News and really ask yourself if it feels like America still has a booming middle class.

K9, when you look at a NFL contract, you only look at the guaranteed portion and all NFL contracts have a certain portion that is guaranteed no matter what happens.

If a player has a guarantee of $5 million over a 3 year period, he will get that amount regardless of injury or poor performance. If an owner wants to fire this person and he has only paid him $2 million to that point, the owner will have to come up with $3 million when he does fire the player and this amount will immediately go against the team's CAP.

Both sides know this is the case when the contract is signed. The inflated amounts put out by the agents who negotiate for the players are just pie in the sky to make them look better. Everyone knows these figures will never be realized.

 

[40yearfan]

Gentlemen, we have gotten a little off subject, but it is a great discussion none the less. A serious discussion argued intelligently with passion, but without animosity.

If we could get our 2 major parties to discuss our country's problems as well as this discussion, we could solve a lot of problems and get this country headed back into the right direction.

Regardless, any time I think the middle class is this country is not doing so well, I drive to Scottsdale or Paradise Valley and look at all the multi-million dollar homes. There are literally thousands of them.

 

[Totally_Red]

Owners in the narrow sense that the NFLPA apparently hasn't negotiated in good faith and wanted all along to take it to litigation.

 

[freebyrd]

neither i side with the fans, we pay a lot of money to watch grown men play a kids game, and to make other grown men incredibly rich,

no matter what happens there is only one loser the fans, screw them both

 

[Mulli]

neither i side with the fans, we pay a lot of money to watch grown men play a kids game, and to make other grown men incredibly rich,

no matter what happens there is only one loser the fans, screw them both

So, one solution is that we stop spending any money on the NFL.

 

[FArting]

Players

 

[40yearfan]

neither i side with the fans, we pay a lot of money to watch grown men play a kids game, and to make other grown men incredibly rich,

no matter what happens there is only one loser the fans, screw them both

So you are saying there are only 2 fans left?

 

[slanidrac16]

This is contrary to empirical evidence, where in the USA, unionizationhas been declining for 40 years, yet real wages and workplace safety have risen steadily over the same time. Fact of the matter is, the businesses that offer the best benefits to their employees end up with the best employees. There are numerous companies who treat their employees well without a union, it really varies company to company. Sure without a union they "could" do those things, but angering your employees never benefits a company in the long run because there are competitors out there to take away the good ones like yourself I'm sure.

But yes, regular union rules don't apply to sports because of monopolization.

I whole heartedly agree with you. In a perfect corporate world there would be no need for a Union. The problem is corporate greed has become so rampant that far too many companies look at their employee's as red ink. It has become:
1. CEO
1A. shareholders
2. workers

There are many companies that treat and pay their work force fairly. If anybody tried to get them to organize, they'd laugh at them. But those companies are far out numbered in today's world and the gap is widening.

IMHO our problems stem from self serving politicians who are also in the back pockets of corporate america. I don't know when it all began to go downhill but I believe it was the day corporations decided to move there factories out of the country. When they did that there should have been a HUGE tariff placed on their products. Instead the only thing that changed was their bottom line.

The world and America as we know it will crumble the day the U.S. dollar is no longer recognized as the world standard. Trust me my friends, the day that happens none us will give a crap about the NFL.

 

[Catfish]

Initially I stood with the players on this issue, but after seeing what the players assn. turned down at the negotiating table, I am wholly on the side of the owners. (That being said, I still cannot stand Jerry Jones-----but then he sort of places himself above the other owners anyway).

The 8 points that the owners were willing to concede should have been MUCH MORE than enough for the union to drop any further demands. Hell, merely fixing the rookie pay scale, maintaining the 16 game season, and forming an 82 mil. fund for older retired players who need help should have been enough to do the job. Opening their books for the past 5 years was icing on the cake-----they didn't have to do that.

The players union was foolish to turn down this offer. They should have jumped on it, and while they were at it, they could have done away with their posse's and used the money they saved on that to match the owners fund for older players.

All in all, DeMaurice Smith, came up with a huge case of ophtal-rectumitus, and ended up mouthing all the wrong things, and the stupid players followed him out of the negotiations and into the courtroom where only the lawyers will win. I guess that was bound to happen though, because none of these people EVER had to pinch pennies to see that their families were fed, clothed, educated, etc. They have ALL been given far too much, and have no perspective of how the real world works. Some of them are about to find out.

 

[40yearfan]

Have you noticed how this has been running at about 60% in favor of the owners? National polls all show the same thing.

 

[kerouac9]

Have you noticed how this has been running at about 60% in favor of the owners? National polls all show the same thing.

Link? I've seen some voluntary polls where people can vote as often as they like or whatever, but I haven't seen legit polls that describe support for one side or another.

 

[TJ]

Link? I've seen some voluntary polls where people can vote as often as they like or whatever, but I haven't seen legit polls that describe support for one side or another.

61%

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-110312-nfl-poll,0,5302933,post.poll

 

[kerouac9]

61%

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-110312-nfl-poll,0,5302933,post.poll

So... you're posting a link to a voluntary poll where someone can vote as often as they want. Do you even read the posts? Good lord.

Show me some legit polling by a legit polling firm where people are called to ask their opinions and I'll think about it.

 

[TJ]

So... you're posting a link to a voluntary poll where someone can vote as often as they want. Do you even read the posts? Good lord.

Show me some legit polling by a legit polling firm where people are called to ask their opinions and I'll think about it.

Well...it is a poll voted by the public on the Chicago Tribune, a legit publication. Not sure what else you want to see that in reality will advance your argument.

I read the post but only digest those with which I feel are worth while. Like the players, you're asking for too much

 

[RugbyMuffin]

If your company came to you and said "We are reducing wages by 12.5%" across the board take it or leave it, you could leave it.

That is free enterprise. That is not the NFL.

Bullcrap.

The players don't want to take the pay cut then they can find another job.

They have the SAME EXACT freedom to walk away from the job that is cutting its pay across the board that we do.

Just because they choose to walk away from the job of playing football instead of design/production engineering doesn't mean jack!

Same thing happens in businesses across America. The worker than can only do one specialized skill losses the freedom to be able to leave that work genre for another one with better options.

If the football players don't like the pay cut then they can walk, or strike. But, don't tell me it is any different than any other situation in the country.

Not saying the owners are right, not saying the players are right, but definately saying the statement above is not entirely true.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Have you noticed how this has been running at about 60% in favor of the owners? National polls all show the same thing.

I don't know how there can be any support for either side.

Both sides are way to lazy to negotiate, IMO. Bringing it to court is the product of laziness, IMO.

And thinking that "the truth" will be forced out because the situation is in a court is laughable.

 

[kerouac9]

Well...it is a poll voted by the public on the Chicago Tribune, a legit publication. Not sure what else you want to see that in reality will advance your argument.

It's a web poll buried inside the Trib's sports page. How is it any more or less legit than the web poll found on this board.

Maybe you didn't take statistics at the U of A, but if you had you'd know the many, many flaws that take place when you post polls like these and expect accurate results back.

If I posted a sign on the wall of a school that said, "Should Marijuana be leaglized", would the results of that poll be an accurate reflection of the opinion of all students, or the students who take time to stop in the hallway and read a sign and then pick up a pen and write down their opinion?

 

[TJ]

It's a web poll buried inside the Trib's sports page. How is it any more or less legit than the web poll found on this board.

Maybe you didn't take statistics at the U of A, but if you had you'd know the many, many flaws that take place when you post polls like these and expect accurate results back.

If I posted a sign on the wall of a school that said, "Should Marijuana be leaglized", would the results of that poll be an accurate reflection of the opinion of all students, or the students who take time to stop in the hallway and read a sign and then pick up a pen and write down their opinion?

Ohh good God K9! There you go again with the UofA crap. Sorry if it offends you that I went there, but you'll just have to accept that fact. And yes I took statistics and I was required to take it for each of my three separate degrees. Enough to know that many flaws exist in ANY statistical analysis, whether it be opinion or push polls.

If this concerns you so much, why dont you whip out the white pages and start calling everyone listed asking their opinion on the matter, then report back to us.

But as it stands, 40year and I see what is available to you and I. If something else exists otherwise, I know you'll try and serve me crow.

And BTW, does it really matter either way? We are having a reasonable argument. No need for it to turn into monkeys flinging poo