Re: Has anybody seen Rusty?
posted at 12/2/2011 1:34 PM EST
In Response to Re: Has anybody seen Rusty?
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Has anybody seen Rusty? : You're wrong. It was a lockout, not a strike, which means the owners had leverage. You seem to ignore this. The NBA just went through a similar mess, but their dumb leader waited too long to de-certify. They then caved, because paychecks were needed by some silly NBA players who live paycheck to paycheck. Another concept that you were warned about with regards to why the union in the NFL had little leverage. The union used their leverage, the owners moved, and the deal was struck, but you are in denial if you think the owners didn't get what they wanted. They did. They were also more than fair to the union, with the deal being clearly more healthy than the last one. They had all the leverage. You don't know how to read between the lines, which is not my problem. The owners conceded at the end, but those minor concessions were a plan to use their leverage to make it seem like they were concessions. It was a win/win, but the owners never would have signed off if they didn't generally get what they wanted when opting out from the last deal. Why do you think they opted out? Boredom? lol I also stated repeatedly that the owners weren't; looking to punish the players and the union failed the union itself, incuding former players in the last deal, by being so shortsighted. I told you the owners would help with a proper legacy fund and I was right. You spun the owners as criminals which proved to be absolutely false, led by Bob Kraft, our owner. Case closed on that topic, one you still can't admit. Unreal.
Posted by RidingWithTheKingII[/QUOTE]
So the NFL's plan was to start a lockout only to come back and accept the original deal that they deemed worthy of locking the players out over?
I just want to be clear on this ... because it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. The NFL lost money in the lockout, and gained nothing in negotiations because of it.
You are saying it closes a case ... but the numbers and timeline I just demonstrated shows that the NFL quite clearly didn't get what they wanted and didn't want to continue in court (where they have a history of getting defeated).
If that was a tactic, it was very, very poor.
Oh, and FWIW, the fact that the owners locked the players out gives the players leverage in court, not the owners.
Unions cannot bring suit (which is what they did) if they go on strike, because anti-trust exemptions like this only apply while active negotiations are taking place ... and striking is a negotiation tactic performed by a union, and unions cannot sue Anti-trust exempt bodies like the NFL. Only classes can sue, hence the decertification.
In labor negotiations the party that breaks off negotiations generally has the disadvantage. That's why the NFL owners kept trying to move it to the NLRB by stating the lawsuit was really a ""continuance of negotiation."