(03-13-2011 01:51 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  I think what bothers me about the NFL Players Union is that so many of its members who benefit exponentially more from their union's efforts than the average steelworker, et al ever will is how many of them go out into the world as Republicans. They end up voting, providing money and endorsements to some of the very people who wish to eradicate every last remnant of workers' rights.

I know that's far too close to painting with a broad brush. I know they're not all like that. But, many of them are, particularly the wealthiest and most famous.

Which is not to say I disagree, just that it complicates the issue more than just the disparity in dollars earned.

(03-13-2011 02:17 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(03-13-2011 01:51 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  I think what bothers me about the NFL Players Union is that so many of its members who benefit exponentially more from their union's efforts than the average steelworker, et al ever will is how many of them go out into the world as Republicans. They end up voting, providing money and endorsements to some of the very people who wish to eradicate every last remnant of workers' rights.

I know that's far too close to painting with a broad brush. I know they're not all like that. But, many of them are, particularly the wealthiest and most famous.

Which is not to say I disagree, just that it complicates the issue more than just the disparity in dollars earned.

Isn't this true of many liberals in general? After all there are a considerable number of people who are liberal when they are young but change sides when they become well off and start to think conservatism will suit their self interests more.

(03-13-2011 02:43 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(03-13-2011 02:17 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(03-13-2011 01:51 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  I think what bothers me about the NFL Players Union is that so many of its members who benefit exponentially more from their union's efforts than the average steelworker, et al ever will is how many of them go out into the world as Republicans. They end up voting, providing money and endorsements to some of the very people who wish to eradicate every last remnant of workers' rights.

I know that's far too close to painting with a broad brush. I know they're not all like that. But, many of them are, particularly the wealthiest and most famous.

Which is not to say I disagree, just that it complicates the issue more than just the disparity in dollars earned.

Isn't this true of many liberals in general? After all there are a considerable number of people who are liberal when they are young but change sides when they become well off and start to think conservatism will suit their self interests more.

I don't know if that's true or not.

I don't think younger people are more liberal than older people. I think that's a myth pushed by conservatives to try to paint older liberals as immature or just plain stupid.

People, in general, are selfish, and when you're young, authority of all varieties seems positioned against you. So, you rebel, and you get involved in things that seem liberal but only as a tool, not because of any deep, underlying ideological position. One of the harshest lessons of my young life was realizing that so many of my friends fit this description exactly. We all held the same opinions, mostly, right up to the time we hit our 20s and started more explicitly separating into those who held opinions for ideological reasons and those who held opinions because those opinions benefited them at the time.

And I don't think most young NFL players have much of an idea of what the union does for them, what their forebears had to suffer through to get that protection, nor that there is strength in solidarity with their poorer brothers and sisters.

Now that I would say is true of most young people.

(03-13-2011 02:46 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  This is strictly a personal observation, I have dealt with more conservatives that were former hippies or liberals (Reagan liberals) than I have liberals who were former conservatives. To be frank, I don't think I have ever seen a poll or study on this topic.

(03-14-2011 05:15 PM)USArmyParatrooper Wrote:  I believe the NFL starting salary is somewhere in the neighborhood of a half million dollars per year. I fully support their right to collective bargaining, because if you deny that right to them where does it end? But on an individual basis it's hard for me to feel sorry for them.

From a political standpoint I also don't think the NFL fight should be front and center. ALL NFL make tons of money, but when it comes to union jobs they are by far the exception and not the rule. It's too easy to paint them as "greedy" and then paint all union workers that way. For crying out loud the right has successfully been able to paint freaking school teachers as greedy, lazy slobs living large off the tax payer's time. It's maddening.

(03-15-2011 05:55 AM)CTLawGuy Wrote:  While I am an NFL fan, I see this struggle as millionaires vs. millionaires and I find it hard to come down on one side vs another.

I get very uncomfortable when people compare pro athletes to unionized workers like steel workers or truck drivers.

The players don't make 7 figures because of the union (their salaries are not even collectively bargained). How many other unions have been able to obtain 6 figure minimum wages for their workers? They make that money because they have very unique and virtually irreplaceable talents and abilities. While other union workers are not untalented and without ability, of course, they are not as irreplaceable as professional athletes. Thus, they don't make as much cash and they truly benefit from the protections of a union.

When I think "unions" I don't (and don't want to) think about comfy millionaires who get paid to play a game and fight over amounts of money that you or I would never see in our lifetimes. I don't think that helps the union movement in the long run.

(03-15-2011 05:55 AM)CTLawGuy Wrote:  While I am an NFL fan, I see this struggle as millionaires vs. millionaires and I find it hard to come down on one side vs another.

I get very uncomfortable when people compare pro athletes to unionized workers like steel workers or truck drivers.

The players don't make 7 figures because of the union (their salaries are not even collectively bargained). How many other unions have been able to obtain 6 figure minimum wages for their workers? They make that money because they have very unique and virtually irreplaceable talents and abilities. While other union workers are not untalented and without ability, of course, they are not as irreplaceable as professional athletes. Thus, they don't make as much cash and they truly benefit from the protections of a union.

When I think "unions" I don't (and don't want to) think about comfy millionaires who get paid to play a game and fight over amounts of money that you or I would never see in our lifetimes. I don't think that helps the union movement in the long run.

(03-15-2011 06:22 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The unions were instrumental in getting the players free agency, which eventually drove up the players salaries.

(03-15-2011 01:29 PM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote:  The last offer by the owners placed the two sides less than 2% apart relative to the overall pot of revenue. It was $150 million out of $9 billion. They also agreed to 5 years worth of audited team financial records, rescinded demands on an 18 game schedule, and gave several other key concessions. They went far further than halfway. The NFLPA did not even bother to counteroffer. And at a time when unions across the country are fighting for their collective bargaining rights, the NFLPA willingly gave theirs up.

No, the NFLPA's fight is not my fight. It's not anyone's fight but their own.

(03-15-2011 01:40 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  CP,

Things were a bit more complicated than that:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/making-sense-of-the-financial-divide-between-the-two-sides/

That goes into great detail exactly what was dividing the two sides.

(03-15-2011 02:47 PM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 01:40 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  CP,

Things were a bit more complicated than that:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/13/making-sense-of-the-financial-divide-between-the-two-sides/

That goes into great detail exactly what was dividing the two sides.

Fair enough that it's complicated, but my stumbling block in supporting the players is the point where valid offers and concessions were made by the NFL and the players refused to even counteroffer. I do not believe that the NFLPA wanted to get a deal done and preferred to go through the courts all along. And frankly, I think they are being grossly misrepresented by DeMaurice Smith, who seems more interested in making a name for himself than he is in getting a good deal for the players.

Furthermore, decertifying the union at this point in our history really sends a damning message for unions in general, does it not? That you're better off relying on the courts than you are unionizing? That going it alone is better for you than collective bargaining? That's frigging horrible, and only the bizarro universe that is professional sports could possibly put that up as an example of a good practice.

Finally, as others have said, we have millionaires squabbling with multimillionaires/billionaires over pennies on the dollar at the end of the day. That doesn't exactly make me relate to either side. Both sides owe it to the fans to get a deal done, and if the deal is being held up over a battle about who gets to add another wing to their mansion and who doesn't, I'm not going to exactly take on either side's fight as my own.

(03-15-2011 06:22 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The unions were instrumental in getting the players free agency, which eventually drove up the players salaries. As for the players vs the unions, it's important to remember three things:

1) Many players make less than a million and the average NFL career is 3.5 years.

2) It's billionaires vs the millionaires. Even the wealthiest of players can not afford to own a team

3) When all is said and done, the owners walk away from the game healthy and wealthy. Players on the other hand suffer wounds and injuries that last a life time.

(03-15-2011 06:07 AM)Julie Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 05:55 AM)CTLawGuy Wrote:  While I am an NFL fan, I see this struggle as millionaires vs. millionaires and I find it hard to come down on one side vs another.

I get very uncomfortable when people compare pro athletes to unionized workers like steel workers or truck drivers.

The players don't make 7 figures because of the union (their salaries are not even collectively bargained). How many other unions have been able to obtain 6 figure minimum wages for their workers? They make that money because they have very unique and virtually irreplaceable talents and abilities. While other union workers are not untalented and without ability, of course, they are not as irreplaceable as professional athletes. Thus, they don't make as much cash and they truly benefit from the protections of a union.

When I think "unions" I don't (and don't want to) think about comfy millionaires who get paid to play a game and fight over amounts of money that you or I would never see in our lifetimes. I don't think that helps the union movement in the long run.

I've decided you should just let me know when you post CTLawGuy so I don't bother. Once again you've posted my thoughts.

Julie

(03-15-2011 06:22 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The unions were instrumental in getting the players free agency, which eventually drove up the players salaries. As for the players vs the unions, it's important to remember three things:

1) Many players make less than a million and the average NFL career is 3.5 years.

2) It's billionaires vs the millionaires. Even the wealthiest of players can not afford to own a team

3) When all is said and done, the owners walk away from the game healthy and wealthy. Players on the other hand suffer wounds and injuries that last a life time.