The NFL Player Union's fight is our fight

[NJMaverick]

While some people may have a hard time relating to players who's top performers make millions, they are still in the same struggle, be it on a larger scale, as the rest of us. The billionaire owners didn't like the players making so much money. As a result they demanded that the players take a billion dollars worth of pay cuts on their say so (with out offering any real proof that they are making less profit, even though they are bringing in much more money). So does that fight sound like one we all can relate to? Billionaires telling the workers to get by with much less while they fatten their ever expanding wallets. Sure the billionaire owners have their own TV network and plenty of paid spokespersons to spread their own distorted view of the world (again that sound like a familiar situation?), but don't be fooled. This is about the wealthy elite wanting to bust another union because they wealthy elite don't believe in sharing (if any of them honestly did, they wouldn't be that filthy rich).

[RoyGBiv]

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.

[NJMaverick]

(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.

[RoyGBiv]

(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.

[NJMaverick]

(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.

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.

[RoyGBiv]

(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.

University of Michigan did several studies on this kind of phenomenon. I don't have access to it at the moment, so take this with a grain of salt. Plus, there were no hard conclusions to draw, just a lot of observations and data that could mean a lot of things depending on what you're trying to study.

But one of the data points involved people's mistaken perception of themselves when they were young. That is, there's an awful lot of people running around claiming to be old hippies who in fact just smoked a lot of pot and liked Jefferson Airplane. They never lived it. They were into the drug and sex culture and were around for the political stuff because it was fun. But they were never ideological.

There's less crossover than is commonly perceived. People's basic morality, which shapes your politics, is set relatively early in life. How it translates into politics very often doesn't even emerge until a person has a family and bills.

[NJMaverick]

Look who has lined up against the players:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President of Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits, Randel K. Johnson, issued the following statement today on the decision by the NFL Players Association to decertify as a union:

“We are troubled by the decision of the NFL Players to de-certify as a union so that they may litigate under the antitrust laws, with the prospect that once the litigation is over they will again claim they are a union. Gaming the labor laws and the antitrust laws offers a potentially disastrous model for labor-management relations in this country and raises serious questions of labor policy.”

http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/11/u-s-chamb...decertify/

[USArmyParatrooper]

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.

[RoyGBiv]

(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.

I agree with this.

From a messaging standpoint, paying too much attention to the NFL is a political loser. That doesn't mean I don't support the players because I do. The reason they're making half a million is because of the union and the use of collective bargaining. But I'm not going to run out there with a sign in my hand that in any way allows the right-wing to connect rich players to teachers who often can barely afford to pay rent.

[CTLawGuy]

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.

[Julie]

(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

[CTLawGuy]

(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

Thanks Julie! Great minds think alike I guess

[NJMaverick]

(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.

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.

[RoyGBiv]

(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.

Great for them. Really unpopular with fans. Again not a thing we really want to publicize as "our fight."

I get what you're saying, and I agree with the theory, but this is all intellectualized ideology. It doesn't play well with the public at all, and there's basically no way to paint it so it does. I appreciate the solidarity of players when they offer it (which is rare), but I'm not actively going to associate the player's union with, for example, a teacher's union.

[SeattleGirl]

(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.

You are correct, Mav. I've had professional baseball and football players as clients, and with the exception of two of them, they don't make millions a year. One thing they have all had in common is wishing they had stayed and finished college before entering the draft. If they can't go back to playing, they usually go back to school to finish their degrees. I do understand the allure of money, even if it's not millions, to a young person. I'm glad that the guys I worked with came to understand the value of an education.

[CTLawGuy]

(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.

The league minimum is a little under $300,000 ($285,000). If a player makes the minimum (call it $300,000 for simplicity) and plays 3.5 years:

- Even if he were the sole breadwinner, his family would be in the top 1.7% of household income earners each full year. (In that last half year of his career, if he didn't work for the remaining half year at all, his family would still be in the top 6.04% of income earners) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_i..._the_U.S.)

- Every liberal would be calling for higher taxes on him.

- His total salary for his 3.5 year career would be roughly equivalent (ignoring the tax implications and the extra income due to the time value of money) to making $30,000 per year for 35 years, or $60,000 for 17.5 years.

-he would make more per year than most union workers at the peak of their earning capacity

- he would face the prospect of injury, but so do many union workers. Police face the prospect of being shot and killed by some crazed criminal. Firefighters risk being burned alive or crushed by falling building pieces. And they don't make nearly as much as the league minimum player.

Sorry, pro athletes are way better off than most workers, union and non union, so its hard for me to get excited for them simply because they are in ONLY the top 1% - 1.5% while the owners are in the top 0.5 - 1%.

[The Capitol Punisher]

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.

[NJMaverick]

(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.

CP,

Things were a bit more complicated than that:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...two-sides/

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

[The Capitol Punisher]

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

Things were a bit more complicated than that:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...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.

[NJMaverick]

(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/201...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.

Capital here is the situation in a nutshell:

Owners- Hey players we are not making enough money so we want to cut your pay

Players- What do you mean you are not making enough money the league's income keeps skyrocketing?

Owners- Well we are not making the profit you think we are. So even though we are taking in more money we want you to make less.

Players- Well if we are going to act like partners in this venture and you want us to sacrifice how about showing us your books

Owners- No we are not going to show us your books, just shut up and take your pay cuts.

Players- No

Owners- How about we open the books real fast and quickly shut them. Will that make you believe us? Oh and how about we reduce the season from 18 games to 16?

Players- We play 18 games? I thought we already playing 16.

Owners- Just to show we are not all bad guys will make you a nice offer where we don't cut your pay as much as we originally said we would. Do we have a deal?

Players- No


In the end it's the player's efforts that produce the product that makes the owners billions. In my book the players deserve a fair slice of the pie they made. Their slice might be bigger than our slice but it's still about getting fair value for services rendered.

[The Capitol Punisher]

(03-15-2011 03:00 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(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/201...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.

Capital here is the situation in a nutshell:

Owners- Hey players we are not making enough money so we want to cut your pay

Players- What do you mean you are not making enough money the league's income keeps skyrocketing?

Owners- Well we are not making the profit you think we are. So even though we are taking in more money we want you to make less.

Players- Well if we are going to act like partners in this venture and you want us to sacrifice how about showing us your books

Owners- No we are not going to show us your books, just shut up and take your pay cuts.

Players- No

Owners- How about we open the books real fast and quickly shut them. Will that make you believe us? Oh and how about we reduce the season from 18 games to 16?

Players- We play 18 games? I thought we already playing 16.

Owners- Just to show we are not all bad guys will make you a nice offer where we don't cut your pay as much as we originally said we would. Do we have a deal?

Players- No


In the end it's the player's efforts that produce the product that makes the owners billions. In my book the players deserve a fair slice of the pie they made. Their slice might be bigger than our slice but it's still about getting fair value for services rendered.

That's an entirely unfair characterization of it. It's a negotiation. At the end of the day, the owners came way past the middle with their offer and the players barely budged.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion. We're going to have to disagree on this one.

[RoyGBiv]

Just to add another element to this, has anyone seen Adrien Peterson's comments on this, likening the situation to a "modern-day slavery"?

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/...n-nfl.html

These kinds of comments coming from someone who is in fact making millions do not help the situation.

One thing that's unfortunate about this is that he was making a larger and better point that his turn of phrase obscures. That point is the point I think NJMaverick has been trying to make. It's basically that, hey, the NFL has billions in revenue, and the argument here is about how to distribute it among those who do the work. The owners are saying they deserve most of it because they are owners. The players are saying they deserve most of it because without them, there is no NFL. Owners can be replaced. You don't strictly speaking even need *an* owner, i.e. Green Bay. But you have to have players.

That is the part of this that boils down to "their fight is our fight." It's about distribution of income. What is a fair/moral distribution of revenue among owners and employees.

And Peterson brought up another point that the players would do well to emphasize more often. The various little guys involved in making a game at an NFL stadium, everyone from the guy painting the stripes to the people who do the laundry to the vendors are a part of this as well, and they should be a part of the conversation. You don't have games without players, but if the players are playing on a patch of mud with no yard lines and no uniforms, and if you can't get a hot dog or a drink, does anyone come to the game? Does anyone even watch it on television?

I think the players representatives have always done this argument poorly, and I have trouble sympathizing with them because of it, even if I agree with the fundamental principle. But there are ways to do the argument better. That the lead reps don't only reinforces my belief that they themselves don't really understand the argument and are for the most part in it for selfish reasons and will abandon any thoughts of fair income distribution when they go to vote, endorse candidates, or go out into the real world and start businesses themselves. It's hard to take on their fight as our fight when that's the way they conduct themselves.