kota Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Dalton said: No issue with him protesting on his time, his dime. Big issue with any employee protesting when they are working in an official capacity during work hours. If this was not the NFL there would not be a debate that it is inappropriate in a business environment. Every civil rights lawyer would disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knicks&Bills Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Dalton said: No issue with him protesting on his time, his dime. Big issue with any employee protesting when they are working in an official capacity during work hours. If this was not the NFL there would not be a debate that it is inappropriate in a business environment. Imagine if guys like me and you decided to protest at work. Yeah, that would workout well for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Owners are a bunch of cowards beholden to their advertisers. If an advertiser has an issue with someone kneeling during the national anthem they have bigger issues. 1 minute ago, Knicks&Bills said: Imagine if guys like me and you decided to protest at work. Yeah, that would workout well for us Labor unions go on strike all the time. The players are in a players union what's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Just now, kota said: Owners are a bunch of cowards beholden to their advertisers. If an advertiser has an issue with someone kneeling during the national anthem they have bigger issues. Viewers don't tune in to have political beliefs dictated to them. They tune into watch football. If viewers stop watching because of this, then yes advertisers will leave because viewership is down. It's not as simple as an advertiser not agreeing with whatever political stance is being displayed. 3 minutes ago, kota said: Every civil rights lawyer would disagree with you. No they would not. While on company time, you are beholden to the handbook. You cannot go on political rants to clients and expect to keep your job or be protected by law when the client complains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maybe Someday Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 56 minutes ago, Jobot said: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000926234/article/seahawks-postpone-workout-for-colin-kaepernick So I read this article that Seattle had planned to bring in Kaepernick for a workout, but they are postponing because they want to know if he will continue his kneeling during the anthem... Regardless of where you stand on for or against what he's doing....This sounds like it will seriously bolster any case Kaepernick has about being black-balled... Not sure what they were thinking with letting this information get out. As an employer, this would clearly be seen as discrimination based on a constitutional right. I look at it as just the opposite. If he was being black balled, Seattle wouldn’t have even considered bringing him in. I think the fact that they even reached out to him and then his response hurts his case. I also think what went down in Cincinnati a few days ago with the safety (Reid?) that knelt with him also hurts the overall collusion case. Teams are willing to sign the players that have knelt but aren’t willing to take the chance that their continued in-uniform political protests will alienate the fans because it ultimately impacts the bottom line. If Kaep came out and said that he would stand for the anthem and no longer discuss the issue while at team related activities, I think he’d be signed tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Jobot said: Okay so i guess the ongoing lawsuit of him being black-balled has no basis??? Proving the collusion has been the issue all along. Seattle just blatantly admitted to this. His lawsuit charges collusion against the league. In theory, every team could individually interview him and decide not to hire him for his persistent kneeling plans---and that still would not prove collusion. You need documentation that owners, you know, colluded to prevent this guy from being hired to win a case against collusion. 5 minutes ago, kota said: Owners are a bunch of cowards beholden to their advertisers. If an advertiser has an issue with someone kneeling during the national anthem they have bigger issues. Labor unions go on strike all the time. The players are in a players union what's the difference. Protesting isn't striking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadLandsMeanie Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 48 minutes ago, jo39416 said: For those discussing the analogy of wearing a uniform while doing something (like buying a drink) sounds like it is laid out in the company bylaws as a no-no. I think the argument is really that there is no rule against kneeling - thus him getting not hired - when there is little to no other work options, for breaking a rule that doesn't exist falls pseudo 1st amendment rights issues. So, Seattle stating they are cancelling his interview for potentially not violating a rule that doesn't exist is somewhat troubling. Do other individuals need to sign paperwork? If so, how are we determining who signs what? Things get murky fast. Things are only murky because you want to make them "murky". Someone stole from the company I work for last year. I was asked if there is a rule against stealing, or if Ihad a signed documents stating that employees can not steal. I said no. They still didn't get unemployment. Thee is no requirement that you must have written rules for every conceivable thing that can get you fired or make you undesirable to be hired. It isn't "murky". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo716 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Jobot said: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000926234/article/seahawks-postpone-workout-for-colin-kaepernick So I read this article that Seattle had planned to bring in Kaepernick for a workout, but they are postponing because they want to know if he will continue his kneeling during the anthem... Regardless of where you stand on for or against what he's doing....This sounds like it will seriously bolster any case Kaepernick has about being black-balled... Not sure what they were thinking with letting this information get out. As an employer, this would clearly be seen as discrimination based on a constitutional right. Its not a constitutional right and idk why people think it is An NFL owner is a private business owner and if he thinks that kneeling is hurting his bottom line he can fire you or make you stop... he writes their checks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: Viewers don't tune in to have political beliefs dictated to them. They tune into watch football. If viewers stop watching because of this, then yes advertisers will leave because viewership is down. It's not as simple as an advertiser not agreeing with whatever political stance is being displayed. No they would not. While on company time, you are beholden to the handbook. You cannot go on political rants to clients and expect to keep your job or be protected by law when the client complains. It's a slippery slope my friend. 1st amendment rights tend to win the court of law. Don't care about company time. They are at their job getting ready to do their job. Anyone who has an issue with what the players are kneeling for needs to open their eyes. Social injustices happen in this country everyday. These players don't need to kneel. They make millions of dollars. They aren't kneeling for themselves it's for everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: So the next time someone is fired for being racist (edit: off the clock), they can sue then right? Depends on their employment contract, but there are many scenarios where this could be a viable lawsuit. Most corporate policies have very specific and actionable language around the negative impact racism causes in the workplace, but there would be a burden of proof. In general most corporations protect this risk by refusing to get into specifics on the reasons for termination. State laws around this topic very widely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bomb Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 HAHAHAHAHHAHA Love it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Diver Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 And some people want to draft Kapernick light. I’d pass on any SJW’s. Entertainment and politics don’t mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfanAZ Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: So the next time someone is fired for being racist (edit: off the clock), they can sue then right? Lets not forget that Kap opted out of his contract and just wasnt signed by another team. So talking about someone being fired for something does not pertain to Kap. You can argue that he would have been cut, but a lot of players get cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFL Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, buffaloboyinATL said: None of those things apply to kneeling during the National anthem. By the way, gun ownership is a constitutional right. Protesting during company hours is not. If someone were to choose to wave an NRA flag on the football field during a game, they could be fired for that. Just to add.....just because you have your right to (insert constitutional right).....does not mean there isnt a counter to you. You have your legal right but every action has a reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 45 minutes ago, Nineforty said: Not saying it is a winnable case, idk. But there could be evidence not made public yet. There are exactly 2 ways he can win his grievance. 1) There is clear evidence that the league issued a mandate to teams to not hire him. 2) There is clear evidence that a team's decision making was altered due to pressure from one or more other teams. Unfortunately for Kaep, there are plenty of reasons that any given team wouldn't hire him that have nothing to do with pressure from the league or other teams. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadLandsMeanie Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 The only reason 95% of Kaep supporters are in his corner is because they agree with his cause. Let somebody protest for something vile that they disagree with at a game and they would all change their stance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Diver Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 A player protest against the erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights would be interesting. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: His lawsuit charges collusion against the league. In theory, every team could individually interview him and decide not to hire him for his persistent kneeling plans---and that still would not prove collusion. You need documentation that owners, you know, colluded to prevent this guy from being hired to win a case against collusion. Protesting isn't striking. Right- collusion implies all 32 teams got together and said “nobody hire that stupid a-hole that’s marginally better than ej manuel but a PR train wreck and gameday spectical until kickoff when he’s just warming the bench.” In his niavety it seems like collusion, but in reality his talent so very obviously isn’t worth the headache, that all the teams likely reached the same conclusion independently... Edited April 14, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Jobot said: Before or after they delayed his workout? They signed him after that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfanAZ Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, kota said: It's a slippery slope my friend. 1st amendment rights tend to win the court of law. Don't care about company time. They are at their job getting ready to do their job. Anyone who has an issue with what the players are kneeling for needs to open their eyes. Social injustices happen in this country everyday. These players don't need to kneel. They make millions of dollars. They aren't kneeling for themselves it's for everyone else. I dont think that is true. Lets not mix things up. You are allowed to protest free from persecution but that doesnt mean you wont get fired for doing it on company time. If you say bad things about the company you work for, it is your right. You wont get arrested but you will get fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts