Hplarrm Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Exactly. That is why the NFL is taking the position that the NFLPA* is not entitled to invoke the provision of the prior agreement. Yet, this maneuver whether a transparent tactic or a legitimate contractual move merely underscores the point that what we have here is a dispute between forces who are arguing for a free market approach (this is the basis of the NFLPA claim that the workers are independent contractors) and reliance on a more socialist system where the NFL restrains individual rights through its social compact. Om the end conservative justices will have to choose between their faith in a free market or their endorsement of a socialized system which benefits a few team owner. In the end I hope conservative minded judges will stick to a belief in free markets. If the courts side with owners it simply defines the golden rule as he who who has the most gold rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Yet, this maneuver whether a transparent tactic or a legitimate contractual move merely underscores the point that what we have here is a dispute between forces who are arguing for a free market approach (this is the basis of the NFLPA claim that the workers are independent contractors) and reliance on a more socialist system where the NFL restrains individual rights through its social compact. Om the end conservative justices will have to choose between their faith in a free market or their endorsement of a socialized system which benefits a few team owner. In the end I hope conservative minded judges will stick to a belief in free markets. If the courts side with owners it simply defines the golden rule as he who who has the most gold rules. This isn't a battle between left or right. God why does everyone want every issue to be a battle of that? OK the NFL having a capped system with rules on player movement isn't some socialist system. Revenue sharing also isn't some sort of leftist plot. Nor is the players wanting to be independent contractors some sort of right wing libertarian plot. The teams in the NFL aren't competing against each other. They are competing against other forms of entertainment like the MLB, NBA, NHL, UFC, WWE, and Boxing. They are making rules and crafting a system that helps them to compete in a free market by insuring the health of the league. When the whole league is healthy it makes it much more competitive up against other leagues, brands, and companies. (And if you don't believe me that was Rush Limbaugh's take when asked if buying the Rams was buying into a socialist system). The players are claiming independent status as a means to end the lockout. The owners are trying to claim that is BS in order to protect the lockout and their investment. Its hard to side with either side. Rather than hash this out without scumbag lawyers they decide to take it to court. Its a sad day when two sides would rather kill the golden goose than compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) 8th Circuit grants stay The 8th Circuit reportedly has granted the NFL's request. We will see when the order is issued. ESPN Link Edited May 16, 2011 by Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 8th Circuit grants stay The 8th Circuit reportedly has granted the NFL's request. We will see when the order is issued. ESPN Link The 8th Circuit formally refused to lift the injunction in the following decision: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3788031.0.pdf More importantly is that they strongly indicated that they agree with the owner's jurisdiction argument, which will result in a continuing lockout until the NLRB (not the District court) hears the case regarding the validity of the decertification. From the decision: "The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the Players no longer are represented by a union. See id. at *24. We have considerable doubt about this interpretation of the Act. The plain language of the Act states that a case involves or grows out of a labor dispute when it is “between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Act does not specify that the employees must be members of a union for the case to involve or grow out of a labor dispute." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts