Seattle postpones Kaepernick workout b/c of kneeling?

[jo39416]

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. 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by jo39416

[MJS]

If he was a better player he would be on a team. No matter what.

Edited April 13, 2018 by MJS

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

21 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.

 

Constitutional right to do whatever you feel like when you are at work? 

 

I’d certainly be fired if I did something offensive in front of my customers because I felt like it. 

 

And if if I said I’d continue doing that offensive thing specifically if hired at the next job interview, I’m not losing sleep waiting for the phone to ring. 

 

 I am positive every single employed poster on this board is in the same boat, unless you work at that Meryl Beach restaurant where you are supposed to be offensive  

[Nineforty]

11 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

You do understand that his grievance has nothing to do with discrimination against protected classes, right? It's a case for collusion, one that has very little evidence at this point.

Not saying it is a winnable case, idk. But there could be evidence not made public yet. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

33 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

Not true... you can't legally discriminate based on religion, sex, age, race, etc.... the problem is proving that this had occurred.  Seattle basically said they aren't going to work out Collin because of his stance during the anthem.

 

That would be like me saying I'm not going to hire any 'gun owners' to my business because I don't believe in the second amendment (this is not true, just an example)

 

No, it would be like you choosing not to hire someone who said they were going to use your business as a platform to promote their Second Amendment views, which is not their right to do.

[What a Tuel]

 

19 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

Constitutional right to do whatever you feel like when you are at work? 

 

I’d certainly be fired if I did something offensive in front of my customers because I felt like it. 

 

And if if I said I’d continue doing that offensive thing specifically if hired at the next job interview, I’m not losing sleep waiting for the phone to ring. 

 

 I am positive every single employed poster on this board is in the same boat, unless you work at that Meryl Beach restaurant where you are supposed to be offensive  

 

I wonder what would happen if someone started espousing political beliefs at the end of every work email they sent? After being fired, I wonder if the closest competitor would see that and hire that person. After not being hired by the closest competitor, I wonder if said (now former) employee attempts to consider why these companies aren't hiring him? He does a below average, maybe good enough to be a backup but not really, and will refuse to not espouse political beliefs on company time to clients.

Edited April 13, 2018 by What a Tuel

[Robert James]

24 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

I wrote an example up further, but would someone be legally be allowed to not hire a gun owner if he didn't believe in the second amendment?

 

 

The Second Amendment limits the actions federal, state, and local governments can take to restrict gun ownership.  Private employers are not government entities and as a result there is no "state action," and the Second Amendment does not limit their actions.  For the same reason, I could exclude gun owners from my home and kick people out of my home if I don't like their speech.  There are specific state and federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, and other grounds.  I am unaware of any state or federal anti-discrimination laws that seek to protect gun owners from discrimination by employers.  So yes, a private employer would legally be allowed not to hire someone based on the fact that they are a gun owner.  

 

 

[Alphadawg7]

39 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

Choosing to kneel does not make you a member of a protected class, therefore it does not provide him any special rights.

 

People have a pretty wide misunderstamding of how this works...basically in almost all states you can be fired for "any reason or no reason, just not an illegal reason."

 

Employer doesnt like your haircut. They can fire you. Doesnt like what you are wearing. They can fire you(unless its soemthing that makes you part of a special class like a religious garment). Dont like your cologne or perfume...fired.

 

These are extreme examples but they illustrate that you dont have a right to just keep a job because you are currently employed.

 

Thats actually not accurate, at least not in California.  You have to have “cause” here and it’s not easy to fire someone and you can be sued for wrongful termination easily and lose easily.  I know several people who have won cases on this matter.  If you fired anyone here for the reasons you stated, you would lose if sued for wrongful termination.  And more than likely your attorneys would tell you this and that it would be almost a certainty and advise you to settle before going to court.  I can’t speak on other states, just here.  

[Steve Billieve]

41 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

Not true... you can't legally discriminate based on religion, sex, age, race, etc.... the problem is proving that this had occurred.  Seattle basically said they aren't going to work out Collin because of his stance during the anthem.

 

That would be like me saying I'm not going to hire any 'gun owners' to my business because I don't believe in the second amendment (this is not true, just an example)

 

I'm not really sure there is an etc there.  You can't discriminate against protected classes of people but kneelers and gun owners aren't a protected class of people.  Also, it seems like this is evidence he isn't being "black balled" and that there is no conspiracy if Seattle is making up their own mind about pursuing him or not.  Teams just aren't interested in him being a huge distraction with mediocre talent.  People who are a huge distraction at work are definitely not a protected class.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

46 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

Not true... you can't legally discriminate based on religion, sex, age, race, etc.... the problem is proving that this had occurred.  Seattle basically said they aren't going to work out Collin because of his stance during the anthem.

 

That would be like me saying I'm not going to hire any 'gun owners' to my business because I don't believe in the second amendment (this is not true, just an example)

 

No, that would be like you saying you aren’t going to hire any who won’t agree to not bring their gun into work and twirl it around on their finger while saying insured by smith and Wesson to all your customers. 

 

So you cool with that?

 

Are you ok with your employees using an f bomb as every other word while dealing with your customers because of their freedom of speech? 

 

 

[Steve Billieve]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Thats actually not accurate, at least not in California.  You have to have “cause” here and it’s not easy to fire someone and you can be sued for wrongful termination easily and lose easily.  I know several people who have won cases on this matter.  If you fired anyone here for the reasons you stated, you would lose if sued for wrongful termination.  And more than likely your attorneys would tell you this and that it would be almost a certainty and advise you to settle before going to court.  I can’t speak on other states, just here.  

 

When two parties agreee to an employee employer relationship there are certain rules and expectations that are in place based on the situation, but that's not what we are talking about here.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

34 minutes ago, Tatonka68 said:

Kaeperkneel should try the CFL. 

 

Problem solved! 

[jaybee]

49 minutes 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.

 

Cant they (Seahawks) as a potential employer say:  We'll take a shot on you but while working for us there will be no protesting".  Why dont they do that?  Or is it union/NFL prohibited? 

 

I can understand why teams would shy away from him.  Its an emotional issue and you are alienating roughly half of your fan base if you hire him.  All comes back to $$$

[Green Lightning]

50 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

Yes Kaepernic would not play a single snap.  After every game Pete Carrol's first question will be, how do you feel about Colins kneeling?  The media circus is not worth it for a player that is noting more than an insurance policy to Russell Wilson.  

Yup. This. 

[2003Contenders]

54 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

Not true... you can't legally discriminate based on religion, sex, age, race, etc.... the problem is proving that this had occurred.  Seattle basically said they aren't going to work out Collin because of his stance during the anthem.

 

That would be like me saying I'm not going to hire any 'gun owners' to my business because I don't believe in the second amendment (this is not true, just an example)

 

There is an important distinction that you are missing.

 

You are correct that it would not be lawful for the Seahawks to refuse to hire Kaepernick based on his political beliefs. However, they can certainly request that he NOT protest based on his beliefs while he is "on the clock". Also, using your analogy, it would not be lawful for the Seahawks to refuse to hire a player who is a proud gun owner, but they can certainly ask him to not to be passing out NRA promotional materials on the sidelines during games.

[C.Biscuit97]

33 minutes ago, Epstein's Mother said:

 

Besides kneeling 2 seasons ago and suing the NFL this guy has been virtually invisible.  I thought maybe last year he would take some time to promote his cause.  Literally the only thing I read about him was his girlfriend called Ray Lewis an "Uncle Tom" for posing in a picture with the Ravens owner when Lewis insisted they were getting ready to make him an offer.

 

He’s donated millions to charity.  

 

I think Incognito was a complete scumbag before we signed him (he was).  He also loves Trump, who I do not.  But he was fine here and the top concern was getting the best players on the field as long as they aren’t scumbags.

 

for some reason now, we can’t tolerate people with different opinions than us.  

[BadLandsMeanie]

1 hour ago, Jobot said:

 

Not true... you can't legally discriminate based on religion, sex, age, race, etc.... the problem is proving that this had occurred.  Seattle basically said they aren't going to work out Collin because of his stance during the anthem.

 

That would be like me saying I'm not going to hire any 'gun owners' to my business because I don't believe in the second amendment (this is not true, just an example)

No. It would be like you saying you won't hire anyone who will bring a gun to work.

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.

Good luck. People REFUSE to understand that.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

5 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

He’s donated millions to charity.  

 

I think Incognito was a complete scumbag before we signed him (he was).  He also loves Trump, who I do not.  But he was fine here and the top concern was getting the best players on the field as long as they aren’t scumbags.

 

for some reason now, we can’t tolerate people with different opinions than us.  

 

Tolerating opinion has nothing to do with anything. 

 

Actions while performing the job is the issue. 

 

Hes is free to go home, play the national anthem repeatedly on his knees or while he’s taking a dump, but when he’s on camera, on game day- he’s on the clock. If that behavior doesn’t jive with the team’s conduct policy, feel free to protest however you wish in the unemployment line. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[BillnutinHouston]

56 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

Gotta love it. You can cost your employer millions of dollars with your actions and some people will still say that it's wrong that you can't get your job back!

 

Awesome.

I agree.  An NFL franchise is private property and owners have a right to protect the value of that which they own. 

 

 

[What a Tuel]

8 minutes ago, 2003Contenders said:

 

There is an important distinction that you are missing.

 

You are correct that it would not be lawful for the Seahawks to refuse to hire Kaepernick based on his political beliefs. However, they can certainly request that he NOT protest based on his beliefs while he is "on the clock". Also, using your analogy, it would not be lawful for the Seahawks to refuse to hire a player who is a proud gun owner, but they can certainly ask him to not to be passing out NRA promotional materials on the sidelines during games.

 

So the next time someone is fired for being racist (edit: off the clock), they can sue then right?

Edited April 13, 2018 by What a Tuel

[kota]

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.

 

[Knicks&Bills]

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

[kota]

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.

 

[What a Tuel]

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.

[Maybe Someday]

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. 

[Mr. WEO]

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.

[BadLandsMeanie]

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".

 

[Buffalo716]

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

[kota]

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.

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

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.  

[T-Bomb]

HAHAHAHAHHAHA

 

Love it!

[Sky Diver]

And some people want to draft Kapernick light.

 

I’d pass on any SJW’s. Entertainment and politics don’t mix.

[BillsfanAZ]

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. 

[RFL]

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.

[BuffaloHokie13]

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.

[BadLandsMeanie]

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.

[Sky Diver]

A player protest against the erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights would be interesting.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

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

[YoloinOhio]

1 hour ago, Jobot said:

 

Before or after they delayed his workout?

They signed him after that 

[BillsfanAZ]

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.