National Anthem Solution

[MAJBobby]

2 hours ago, Bruce_Stools said:

No sir, that is not correct.  If my boss says jump, I don’t even ask how high.  I jump or I’m fired.  If my boss says “I need you to take your lunch an hour late today”, I’m FORCED to oblige.  If my boss says something like “Here at company x, we have never and will not ever tolerate you kneeling during the national anthem. If you do choose to to kneel, exercising your own right to freedom of speech, our bottom line goes down and you will be asked to leave”, I will make damn sure I’m not caught kneeling during the national anthem if I value my job. 

 

Any other questions?

 

And I, again, have ask you about your job.  Can you do whatever you please at anytime when you are on the clock???

 

How does this not make sense to people??????

So still no Forced Patriotism. I see no Anthem. No pledge at your work. No Forced Patriotism to the Nation at your job i see

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Good question.  Pretty much as I read it,  it was so negotiated.  If it isn't specified in the CBA that the NFL Clubs can't, then they can:

 

Section 3 Management Rights:
The NFL Clubs maintain and reserve the right to manage and direct their operations in any manner whatsoever, except as specifically limited by the provisions of this Agreement.

 

 

 

 

Such a limited statement with zero context. 

 

But hey there was a fake vote that was i guess unanimous even though within 24 hours of said vote teams themselves going against said unanimous vote See Jets 

[mrags]

10 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

So, he’s wrong for having an opinion that’s different than yours? I believe his point was that he saw no disrespect, no point was made about the new NFL policy except by you.

You are the one that took offense to this apparently.

 

apparently you can’t deal with employees following the rules of their employers either. 

[mannc]

4 hours ago, Augie said:

 

I worked at a large bank that required permission to do any media interviews. They had people for specifically that. THAT was their job.  Anything political and I’d be sent packing immediately. I don’t know where that might be in writing, but I wouldn’t even ask to read it - it’s just so obvious that it I’d just get up and go.....if I were ever that stupid. On my own time, I could have all the causes I wished, but NOT representing my employer.  

Great.  That’s your experience.  It doesn’t mean all workplaces work that way (or should work that way).  Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?

4 hours ago, Bruce_Stools said:

I have forced “to stay in line and do what the f*** I’m told or I lose my job”

 

How about you?

Not me.

 

 Because you have to shut the hell up or be fired at your job, does that mean those rules should apply in all workplaces?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

Great.  That’s your experience.  It doesn’t mean all workplaces work that way (or should work that way).  Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?

 

If it's the NFL players you're referencing as "union-protected employees expressing their views in this way", why do you think

1) that employees, union-protected or not, should have the right to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

Union picket lines are manned outside the employer's property, for example, because even union-protected employees don't have a legal right to co-opt their employer's property for their protests.

2) that the union contract, the CBA, protects the rights of the players to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

At best, this is muddy.  You can bet the NFLPA will be looking for a basis to challenge the new policy, and thus, that the NFL's own lawyers were doing their own comb-through before the policy was released and think they're good.

[Augie]

27 minutes ago, mannc said:

Great.  That’s your experience.  It doesn’t mean all workplaces work that way (or should work that way).  Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?

 

You are trying to put words into my mouth. I’m not strenuously objecting to anything. It is what it is. I think most people are missing the point COMPLETELY because they have their own agendas.  I have said repeatedly that it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The only thing that matters is what is in writing in the CBA, players contracts or other enforceable agreements. My OPINION is that while you are at work your political, religious, social, etc. opinions should be kept to yourself. If I’m an owner I work to fix that if the CBA doesn’t cover it already.  They have already shelled out about $90 mil to correct this. 

 

You are free to do your own thing on your own time. I welcome that! It’s America! That’s what it’s all about. But don’t kid yourself, this will be negotiated to go away, and the players will get something else in return.  If the players DO currently have this right,  they will give this up for something they value more....something that benefits them more directly. 

 

 

. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Augie

[Hapless Bills Fan]

23 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

So still no Forced Patriotism. I see no Anthem. No pledge at your work. No Forced Patriotism to the Nation at your job i see

 

Playing of the National Anthem is not a regular part of the job, for most of us.  It is a regular part of the job, for football players, since it's played before every game. 

 

Maybe, when something is part of the regular job day, it has to be addressed, but if it's not, it doesn't - just a thought?   I have worked a job that required me to wear personal protective equipment over steel toed shoes.  By analogy, I should be holding that up to the players: "Still no forced lab goggles and forced steel toed shoes!" even though it's not part of their regular job and so not relevant.

 

23 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Such a limited statement with zero context.

 

Here you go, find all the context you like: https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

[ChicagoRic]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/09/28/standing-for-the-national-anthem-does-not-make-you-a-patriot-heres-what-does/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c18267261faa

 

[Bruce_Stools]

51 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

So still no Forced Patriotism. I see no Anthem. No pledge at your work. No Forced Patriotism to the Nation at your job i see

 

Such a limited statement with zero context. 

 

But hey there was a fake vote that was i guess unanimous even though within 24 hours of said vote teams themselves going against said unanimous vote See Jets 

Dude, they are employees. FACT. They are on the clock.FACT. They have zero right to freedom of speech while at work. FACT. 

 

The FACT that you cannot connect the dots has me puzzled.  Starting to wonder if you’re trolling or really not into facts.

39 minutes ago, mannc said:

Great.  That’s your experience.  It doesn’t mean all workplaces work that way (or should work that way).  Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?

Not me.

 

 Because you have to shut the hell up or be fired at your job, does that mean those rules should apply in all workplaces?

I didn’t say I had to shut the hell up. I have to follow the rules like everyone else. Unless you’re the boss, you don’t decide which rules you want to follow.

 

I simply stated that I follow the rules because I value my job and yes that does apply in all workplaces.  Try coming in 3 hours late while drunk and tell your boss to f*ck off.  Still think you’re untouchable??  That would probably be a very humbling experience for you. Then again, maybe not.  

 

If players take advantage of the stage they’re on for anything other than what their bosses allow, they should be reprimanded or let go.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bruce_Stools

[vorpma]

Regardless of all opinions stated, come December 2018 the NFL's bottom line is going to decide this! And if it alienates a large segment of its fan base it will lose fans and ratings again; that is a fact.

[Augie]

Just now, vorpma said:

Regardless of all opinions stated, come December 2018 the NFL's bottom line is going to decide this! And if it alienates a large segment of its fan base it will lose fans and ratings again; that is a fact.

 

And then even the players lose money (as a % of overall revenue). I really don’t care, even if I dislike the concept of an employee abusing his position. But I did have a friend at the Bengals game tailgate last year who refused to go in, even with a free ticket, and wouldn’t watch on TV either due to the protests. It surprised me, frankly. I don’t know how many of those people are out there, but it’s not zero. 

[Dr.Sack]

The NFL is all about protecting their image. Expect banning players from staying in the locker room next year, & a concession stand shut down for 5 minutes to honor Old Glory! 

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

The NFL is all about protecting their image. Expect banning players from staying in the locker room next year, & a concession stand shut down for 5 minutes to honor Old Glory! 

 

If there is anything they hold above their image, its the almighty dollar. I suspect the collection of money at concession stands will continue in full force!  ?

[SinceThe70s]

8 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

If there is anything they hold above their image, its the almighty dollar. I suspect the collection of money at concession stands will continue in full force!  ?

 

IMO this is spot on. As is a previous comment you made that ultimately if the league loses money than the players will too.

[Augie]

 

 

That actually makes me wonder....how much  cash does an NFL Team rake in in a mere 5 minutes period right before the game begins? I’m pretty sure I could be without a mortgage after 5 minutes of beer and hotdog sales. 

 

 

 

 

. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Augie

[H2o]

I just wish people would stfu about the whole thing. I have felt that way since a backup QB decided to make a spectacle of things by drawing attention to himself, more than likely because he was told to do so, and then claim it was for injustice. Is the world a jacked up place? In ways and at times most definitely. It wasn't for Colin though who was raised by white parents that adopted, loved, and raised him. ESPN loves this sh*t though and it gives the wonderful platform of the internet to jackasses like Jamele Hill to spew their own racial prejudice in the form of a "story".  This is that political bs they've become less watched for, on top of the fact their programming/personalities have severely declined. They love to try to divide us, which is why I'd prefer them (the media and the NFL and Trump) to stfu and let people do whatever it is they feel the need to do. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by H2o

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Dr.Sack said:

The NFL is all about protecting their image. Expect banning players from staying in the locker room next year, & a concession stand shut down for 5 minutes to honor Old Glory! 

 

Anything can happen but I don't expect this.  They make a lot of money from the concession stands right before kickoff.

 

I'm also going to guess that the stay-in-the-locker-room option was suggested by their legal team

[theRalph]

Here's a question: How many of the people against players for kneeling do themselves fail to remove their hat during the anthem..like you're supposed to at Church.  I care about the hats the same way that these folks care about the kneeling... And then, I don't. I might glance at a hat, but it really does not affect my purpose for being at the GAME.

 

And for that matter, nor do I think the majority of NFL fans really give a frozen NHL Hockey puck whether players kneel or not.  

It's really not an issue. I kneel to the Lord Jesus Christ... And the Bishop wears a really cool hat.

 

If you hate the kneeling, it's probably something else you hate and you're taking it out on the kneeling. NFL players pay a lot of income tax. The Constitution gives them and, us all, rights to do whatever we choose within the law. Its not like they're standing there shouting "f*** y** to the universe. But, FCC Rules aside, they could if they so chose. 

 

The the NFLPA would protest, but we need a 24 game season, so we can avoid having to spend words on this issue and get back to football. At what point would Josh Allen start in such a season??

[Rob's House]

What irks me the most about this "movement" has nothing to do with patriotism, the flag, or the anthem. The day I get my panties in a wad over some over privileged, semi-educated dip **** who wants to play the victim, remind me to go kill myself.

 

What I find most irritating is the sense of entitlement. These asswipes have a huge platform, that far outweighs that of most of their intellectual superiors, due to the celebrity status they enjoy by virtue of the fact thay they're in the NFL.

 

But for some of them that's not enough. They must also be permitted to shove it down our throats while they're at work. And our soy-based, pop culture media says "right on."

 

Apparently,  as long as you're part of an aggrieved minority group (even if you've never personally experienced "the struggle" of that group) you must be unconditionally permitted to "peacefully protest" anywhere and everywhere without risk of criticism. 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

What irks me the most about this "movement" has nothing to do with patriotism, the flag, or the anthem. The day I get my panties in a wad over some over privileged, semi-educated dip **** who wants to play the victim, remind me to go kill myself.

 

What I find most irritating is the sense of entitlement. These asswipes have a huge platform, that far outweighs that of most of their intellectual superiors, due to the celebrity status they enjoy by virtue of the fact thay they're in the NFL.

 

But for some of them that's not enough. They must also be permitted to shove it down our throats while they're at work. And our soy-based, pop culture media says "right on."

 

Apparently,  as long as you're part of an aggrieved minority group (even if you've never personally experienced "the struggle" of that group) you must be unconditionally permitted to "peacefully protest" anywhere and everywhere without risk of criticism. 

Quoting for truth in to ensure that it might be seen just one more time

 

PS, I set a reminder on my phone just in case for you. 

[Tuco]

10 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

So again What other Employer FORCES participation in the National Anthem?

 

What other employer gets money from the DOD?

 

But let's reflect. Long before kneeling for the anthem became a thing, standing along the sidelines in a uniform line with helmets under their arms was a standard practice. Never mind the often recited reports about how nobody stood for the anthem before 9/11. That's bull ****. It just wasn't a league wide rule until then. But lots of teams had a team rule that required the players to be on the field and stand in a prescribed manner while the flag was displayed and the anthem played. I attended lots of games before 9/11. Every single one of them had the players out and standing respectfully.

 

And you know what? Never, at any point until Colin Kaepernick decided to refuse to show pride in the flag (his words) did any player ever think of adhering to that team rule as "forced patriotism." What they considered it was part of their job. Their contracts explicitly state that the players will act  in a certain manner since they acknowledge the importance of the teams' and the game of football's public image. 

 

For all those years team rules requiring players to be on the field and stand respectfully for the flag were considered no more or less "forced" than any other team rule that has nothing to do with the game. Team rules requiring players to wear a suit and tie while travelling to road games were always adhered to. Nobody made a 1st amendment stink about it. Team rules requiring players to take turns signing autographs during camp were adhered to. Team rules requiring grown adults to be in their hotel rooms by 10:00 PM on game nights were adhered to, or consequences suffered. All these and many more (including standing respectfully) were simply considered standard practices agreed to when accepting employment.

 

But okay, somehow standing respectfully has become an issue that now has people comparing this so called "forced patriotism" to Nazi Germany and all sorts of other things. And many like to point to the article stating the league received $5.4 million from the DOD and saying ever since then the players have been "forced" to show their patriotism. How dare the league subject them to something that's actually been going on for decades?

 

But here's the real rub. There's a thing called the collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, along with  numerous references that give the league and teams the ability to impose rules like standing respectfully, there's also a guideline pertaining to what's known as "all revenue." All revenue means just that. The amount of money guaranteed to go to the players in the form of wages is based on a percentage of all revenues received by the league (minus, of course, a certain number of qualifying items that are specified therein).

 

So in case we've lost anybody, this means that (roughly) 47% of that often quoted figure of $5.4 million the league received from the DOD, or, $2.538 million of those DOD dollars, was earmarked and made its way into the players' paychecks. That fact, along with the numerous references in the CBA regarding the players' agreement to certain rules, and the fact that for decades the practice of standing respectfully, if for no other reason than the public image of the league, means the teams and league absolutely have the ability to enforce such rules. And any quibbling over the subject matter of the protests, or the constitutionality of the protests, or the fairly recent practice of referring to standing respectfully as "forced patriotism," are all inconsequential.

 

Thank you. Good night.

 

[bmur66]

17 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

Have cookouts and drink beer.

May as well. Obviously they won't be visiting any cemeteries

17 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Are people honestly this stupid? People have said nine million times it has nothing to do with the military.  In fact, Kaepernick was sitting and switched to kneeling after talking to Nate Boyer, who served.  Stop being dumb.

 

And it’s hilarious all the fake patriots that have suddenly emerged.  I’m a better American than you BS.  Forcing people to do something is stuff they do in North Korea.  I love how this idiot in office has conned his “base” into thinking he gives 2 craps about anyone but himself.  Patriotism isn’t forcing people to salute the flag.  It’s about making people want to salute the flag.

 

i won’t take a knee but it’s sad that some people can’t have empathy others.  It’s also pathetic that people had no problem with the scumbags who have been in the nfl for year but yet this is where they draw their line.

That’s what real Americans do!!!

Hey Ladies man. Freedom isn't free. One day out of the year we honor veterans that died protecting your right to be a dickhead. So go drink your Pabst Blue Ribbon and grill your corn king hot dogs but try to have some respect for one day will ya?

Edited May 26, 2018 by bmur66

[row_33]

I’m present to watch a football game.

 

its getting to be like going to an art museum and I’m told I have to read a 12 page manifesto to “understand” the work

 

oh don’t worry, I understood the work in a microsecond

 

 

[boyst]

5 hours ago, Tuco said:

 

What other employer gets money from the DOD?

 

But let's reflect. Long before kneeling for the anthem became a thing, standing along the sidelines in a uniform line with helmets under their arms was a standard practice. Never mind the often recited reports about how nobody stood for the anthem before 9/11. That's bull ****. It just wasn't a league wide rule until then. But lots of teams had a team rule that required the players to be on the field and stand in a prescribed manner while the flag was displayed and the anthem played. I attended lots of games before 9/11. Every single one of them had the players out and standing respectfully.

 

And you know what? Never, at any point until Colin Kaepernick decided to refuse to show pride in the flag (his words) did any player ever think of adhering to that team rule as "forced patriotism." What they considered it was part of their job. Their contracts explicitly state that the players will act  in a certain manner since they acknowledge the importance of the teams' and the game of football's public image. 

 

For all those years team rules requiring players to be on the field and stand respectfully for the flag were considered no more or less "forced" than any other team rule that has nothing to do with the game. Team rules requiring players to wear a suit and tie while travelling to road games were always adhered to. Nobody made a 1st amendment stink about it. Team rules requiring players to take turns signing autographs during camp were adhered to. Team rules requiring grown adults to be in their hotel rooms by 10:00 PM on game nights were adhered to, or consequences suffered. All these and many more (including standing respectfully) were simply considered standard practices agreed to when accepting employment.

 

But okay, somehow standing respectfully has become an issue that now has people comparing this so called "forced patriotism" to Nazi Germany and all sorts of other things. And many like to point to the article stating the league received $5.4 million from the DOD and saying ever since then the players have been "forced" to show their patriotism. How dare the league subject them to something that's actually been going on for decades?

 

But here's the real rub. There's a thing called the collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, along with  numerous references that give the league and teams the ability to impose rules like standing respectfully, there's also a guideline pertaining to what's known as "all revenue." All revenue means just that. The amount of money guaranteed to go to the players in the form of wages is based on a percentage of all revenues received by the league (minus, of course, a certain number of qualifying items that are specified therein).

 

So in case we've lost anybody, this means that (roughly) 47% of that often quoted figure of $5.4 million the league received from the DOD, or, $2.538 million of those DOD dollars, was earmarked and made its way into the players' paychecks. That fact, along with the numerous references in the CBA regarding the players' agreement to certain rules, and the fact that for decades the practice of standing respectfully, if for no other reason than the public image of the league, means the teams and league absolutely have the ability to enforce such rules. And any quibbling over the subject matter of the protests, or the constitutionality of the protests, or the fairly recent practice of referring to standing respectfully as "forced patriotism," are all inconsequential.

 

Thank you. Good night.

 

My employer gets money from the DoD. So, everything beyond that with your premise is flawed and ridiculous. 

 

As ridiculous as every morning we have a prayer in 16 different religions, must say the pledge of allegiance for all member countries of our make up and then drink a beer for America.

 

But, 99% of internet statistics are meaningless and those that aren't sourced go even higher.

8 hours ago, Dr.Sack said:

The NFL is all about protecting their image. Expect banning players from staying in the locker room next year, & a concession stand shut down for 5 minutes to honor Old Glory! 

The players are all about themselves, too. As a marketing ploy their face is their money maker. Having themselves be seen without the facemask is yuge. If that means more time in front of the camera protesting or answering questions about it that can be as powerful of marketing as standing for the camera.

 

The NFL is a different beast. We know NBA players and baseball players because we can see their faces.  NFL players are hid behind masks and most fans wouldn't recognize 80% of their own team I'd wager.

 

The entire dynamic of this and marketing the player vs team is amazingly complex and fascinating, as well.

[row_33]

Eventually one tells themself they have had enough of all of the product the NFL is currently offering.

 

[Thurmal34]

It’s amusing that American workers,

time and time again, despite being taken advantage of at every turn by management, consistently side with said management rather than the labor force they are a part of. 

 

Its also amusing that people say they don’t tune in to sports for politics, yet are here proffering their political takes. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Thurmal34

[row_33]

16 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

It’s amusing that American workers,

time and time again, despite being taken advantage of at every turn by management, consistently side with said management rather than the labor force they are a part of. 

 

Its also amusing that people say they don’t tune in to sports for politics, yet are here proffering their political takes. 

 

They should rise up and do what exactly?

 

 

 

You can be first in line to show us the better way.

 

[DaggersEOD]

22 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Maybe read the thread and see what the Vets are saying

 

If you are a vet, you know better than to say you speak for all of them. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, Tuco said:

 

What other employer gets money from the DOD?

 

But let's reflect. Long before kneeling for the anthem became a thing, standing along the sidelines in a uniform line with helmets under their arms was a standard practice. Never mind the often recited reports about how nobody stood for the anthem before 9/11. That's bull ****. It just wasn't a league wide rule until then. But lots of teams had a team rule that required the players to be on the field and stand in a prescribed manner while the flag was displayed and the anthem played. I attended lots of games before 9/11. Every single one of them had the players out and standing respectfully.

 

And you know what? Never, at any point until Colin Kaepernick decided to refuse to show pride in the flag (his words) did any player ever think of adhering to that team rule as "forced patriotism." What they considered it was part of their job. Their contracts explicitly state that the players will act  in a certain manner since they acknowledge the importance of the teams' and the game of football's public image. 

 

For all those years team rules requiring players to be on the field and stand respectfully for the flag were considered no more or less "forced" than any other team rule that has nothing to do with the game. Team rules requiring players to wear a suit and tie while travelling to road games were always adhered to. Nobody made a 1st amendment stink about it. Team rules requiring players to take turns signing autographs during camp were adhered to. Team rules requiring grown adults to be in their hotel rooms by 10:00 PM on game nights were adhered to, or consequences suffered. All these and many more (including standing respectfully) were simply considered standard practices agreed to when accepting employment.

 

But okay, somehow standing respectfully has become an issue that now has people comparing this so called "forced patriotism" to Nazi Germany and all sorts of other things. And many like to point to the article stating the league received $5.4 million from the DOD and saying ever since then the players have been "forced" to show their patriotism. How dare the league subject them to something that's actually been going on for decades?

 

But here's the real rub. There's a thing called the collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, along with  numerous references that give the league and teams the ability to impose rules like standing respectfully, there's also a guideline pertaining to what's known as "all revenue." All revenue means just that. The amount of money guaranteed to go to the players in the form of wages is based on a percentage of all revenues received by the league (minus, of course, a certain number of qualifying items that are specified therein).

 

So in case we've lost anybody, this means that (roughly) 47% of that often quoted figure of $5.4 million the league received from the DOD, or, $2.538 million of those DOD dollars, was earmarked and made its way into the players' paychecks. That fact, along with the numerous references in the CBA regarding the players' agreement to certain rules, and the fact that for decades the practice of standing respectfully, if for no other reason than the public image of the league, means the teams and league absolutely have the ability to enforce such rules. And any quibbling over the subject matter of the protests, or the constitutionality of the protests, or the fairly recent practice of referring to standing respectfully as "forced patriotism," are all inconsequential.

 

Thank you. Good night.

 

Well written post.

 

It's my understanding that, unlike the NBA, the NFL didn't have any formal anthem "this is part of your job" policy prior to this recent attempt.  Of course, most sport venues starting before HS do play the anthem and ask players and fans to "please rise and gentlemen to remove their hats" (ladies wearing baseball or sun hats do likewise, unasked)  So standing respectfully facing the displayed flag (if any) is a custom most NFL athletes have been part of since grade school.  At least in this part of the country.

I'm fairly certain the owners put the "may remain in the locker room" alternative into the contract at the advice of their lawyers, simply to provide a "reasonable accomodation" for someone who claimed it was against their principles.

 

My thing with the possible influence of possible DOD money, is that teams are a business.  And businesses need to mind the bottom line.  If an employees actions may impact that bottom line, why wouldn't a business direct their employees to take different actions to avoid impact to their bottom line?

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, Rob's House said:

What irks me the most about this "movement" has nothing to do with patriotism, the flag, or the anthem. The day I get my panties in a wad over some over privileged, semi-educated dip **** who wants to play the victim, remind me to go kill myself.

 

What I find most irritating is the sense of entitlement. These asswipes have a huge platform, that far outweighs that of most of their intellectual superiors, due to the celebrity status they enjoy by virtue of the fact thay they're in the NFL.

 

But for some of them that's not enough. They must also be permitted to shove it down our throats while they're at work. And our soy-based, pop culture media says "right on."

 

Apparently,  as long as you're part of an aggrieved minority group (even if you've never personally experienced "the struggle" of that group) you must be unconditionally permitted to "peacefully protest" anywhere and everywhere without risk of criticism. 

 

The "aggrieved minority group" and "protest anywhere and everywhere" pulls this beyond the scope of football-relevant political discussion, so I won't follow it up here, but I think you're mistaken in the whole premise.  Someone up thread called it right though - being criticized is actually the point of the whole protest thing.  If the protests weren't, in fact, controversial and criticized or were unconditionally permitted without criticism, they would be totally ineffectual as protests. 

 

I see a lot of media criticism as well as media support (again, maybe it's my part of the country) so I don't get the "soy based pop culture media" reference. 

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

2 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

It’s amusing that American workers,

time and time again, despite being taken advantage of at every turn by management, consistently side with said management rather than the labor force they are a part of. 

 

Its also amusing that people say they don’t tune in to sports for politics, yet are here proffering their political takes. 

Welcome to 1776.  Freedom is calling.  Will you answer?

13 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

So still no Forced Patriotism. I see no Anthem. No pledge at your work. No Forced Patriotism to the Nation at your job i see

 

Such a limited statement with zero context. 

 

But hey there was a fake vote that was i guess unanimous even though within 24 hours of said vote teams themselves going against said unanimous vote See Jets 

There are zero laws on the books prohibiting "forced patriotism."  So what are you talking about?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Welcome to 1776.  Freedom is calling.  Will you answer?

There are zero laws on the books prohibiting "forced patriotism."  So what are you talking about?

 

Here is where I wish one of our resident lawyers or legal experts would weigh in, but I think in a sense there may be laws on the books prohibiting just that, but they don't apply to the NFL.

 

I think employers are prohibited from imposing restrictions on employees that are extraneous to the job.  Example: a chemical plant is allowed to impose the restriction that employees wear long pants and steel toed shoes or boots because protecting feet and skin are considered appropriate to the job.  They aren't allowed to say men must wear kilts because "roooowrrrr men in kilts! hubba hubba!"  If they're hiring an accountant, they're not allowed to specify that the accountant must be able to lift 50 lbs, unless that's what the boxes of ledgers weigh and it's part of the job duties to regularly move around boxes of ledgers (dating myself).

What's the football relevance of this?  Well, the NFL is primarily an entertainment industry.   Appearances are relevant to entertainment - specific uniforms, presentation matters.    All kinds of stuff about media availability, image in the CBA.  If the owners consider that playing the anthem is part of the pre-game tradition of their entertainment, and that having players on the field respectfully acknowledge the anthem is part of the presentation/appearance their entertainment requires, then that's probably allowed just as it's allowed to make the players wear specific uniforms. 

 

Whereas if the owner of a chemical plant decided everyone should stand and recite the pledge of allegiance every morning then stand for the anthem (or wear football uniforms, or kilts), I believe the workers would have a strong legal case to object that both were extraneous to the job and should not be allowed.

The NFL included a "reasonable accommodation" for players whose principles don't allow them to stand for the anthem, by saying they may remain in the locker room.

 

Entertainment -> appearance/presentation considered relevant -> reasonable accommodation for individual principles -> not "forced patriotism"

Job where appearance/presentation not considered relevant -> could be "forced patriotism" and would likely not be legally allowed

 

Caveat that I am not a lawyer, just working off past OJT about employment law.

 

 

[nedboy7]

10 hours ago, Rob's House said:

What irks me the most about this "movement" has nothing to do with patriotism, the flag, or the anthem. The day I get my panties in a wad over some over privileged, semi-educated dip **** who wants to play the victim, remind me to go kill myself.

 

What I find most irritating is the sense of entitlement. These asswipes have a huge platform, that far outweighs that of most of their intellectual superiors, due to the celebrity status they enjoy by virtue of the fact thay they're in the NFL.

 

But for some of them that's not enough. They must also be permitted to shove it down our throats while they're at work. And our soy-based, pop culture media says "right on."

 

Apparently,  as long as you're part of an aggrieved minority group (even if you've never personally experienced "the struggle" of that group) you must be unconditionally permitted to "peacefully protest" anywhere and everywhere without risk of criticism. 

 

I'm glad you wear panties because it fits you.  The players who protest are dip *****?  asswipes?  intellectual inferiors?

You are out of line. 

Who is shoving anything down your throat? 

Do you not watch fox news?  I guess to you they are the real media? 

Seems to me you got some other underlying issue here. 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by nedboy7

[mannc]

14 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

If it's the NFL players you're referencing as "union-protected employees expressing their views in this way", why do you think

1) that employees, union-protected or not, should have the right to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

Union picket lines are manned outside the employer's property, for example, because even union-protected employees don't have a legal right to co-opt their employer's property for their protests.

2) that the union contract, the CBA, protects the rights of the players to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

At best, this is muddy.  You can bet the NFLPA will be looking for a basis to challenge the new policy, and thus, that the NFL's own lawyers were doing their own comb-through before the policy was released and think they're good.

1.  What Kaep and others are doing is not akin to picketing.  They aren’t asking people not to attend games or calling attention to poor working conditions.  Nor are they using up the boss’s time in their silent protest: they are kneeling while others are standing, doing nothing. They are not slacking off instead of working or distracting others from working.  They are simply refusing to comply with a forced show of (IMO, false) patriotism that has zero to do with football.  The “protests” need to be viewed in that light.

 

2.  I agree it’s muddy.  I don’t believe the CBA clearly addresses the issue, and what it does say also needs to be viewed through the lens of various arbitration decisions related to the CBA and the league’s ability to punish players for off-field conduct.  Despite what the CBA might say, the league’s authority in this area is not absolute.  And the answer is far from obvious.  Lawyers who have spent lots of time on this disagree about it.  Kaep’s grievance is proceeding and it might eventually answer a lot of these questions.

 

The fact that the new policy passed doesn’t mean the league’s lawyers necessarily think it will withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.  I think the owners are much more concerned with public perception than they are with the legal implications. 

[bobobonators]

11 hours ago, Rob's House said:

What irks me the most about this "movement" has nothing to do with patriotism, the flag, or the anthem. The day I get my panties in a wad over some over privileged, semi-educated dip **** who wants to play the victim, remind me to go kill myself.

 

What I find most irritating is the sense of entitlement. These asswipes have a huge platform, that far outweighs that of most of their intellectual superiors, due to the celebrity status they enjoy by virtue of the fact thay they're in the NFL.

 

But for some of them that's not enough. They must also be permitted to shove it down our throats while they're at work. And our soy-based, pop culture media says "right on."

 

Apparently,  as long as you're part of an aggrieved minority group (even if you've never personally experienced "the struggle" of that group) you must be unconditionally permitted to "peacefully protest" anywhere and everywhere without risk of criticism. 

 

You dont have to be a part of an aggrieved minority group to peacefully protest the fundamental human right to not get shot down in the street. 

 

And who hasnt criticized Kaep? If anything the guy has been overly criticized. 

 

If Kaep kneeling on a television screen is shoving something down your throat i suggest you take self-help classes on how to cope with the differing opinions of others. 

 

The guy wasnt kneeling to protest the price of his latte at Starbucks; he was kneeling to give a voice to those who cant be heard or no longer have one bc theyre dead. 

[loyal2dagame]

I read through the first 8 pages of this topic and for me it solidifies my opinion even more.

This country is screwed.

To much division between the people. It's always one groups opinion vs another's,  and if you don't agree with a certain take on an issue,  you are wrong.  Then the subtle insults start.  Then the arguement breaks out. Because nobody can simply compromise during discussions anymore,  it just gets louder and goes off the rails. 

The politicians and media consistently push this crap to distract people from important issues. 

I'm a veteran and could care less if people kneel or don't stand for the flag,  anthem,  whatever. 

I stand,  hat removed, hand on heart, for my flag. In this country,  I only have to answer for me and my actions. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

15 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

If it's the NFL players you're referencing as "union-protected employees expressing their views in this way", why do you think

1) that employees, union-protected or not, should have the right to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

Union picket lines are manned outside the employer's property, for example, because even union-protected employees don't have a legal right to co-opt their employer's property for their protests.

2) that the union contract, the CBA, protects the rights of the players to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

At best, this is muddy.  You can bet the NFLPA will be looking for a basis to challenge the new policy, and thus, that the NFL's own lawyers were doing their own comb-through before the policy was released and think they're good.

 

1 hour ago, mannc said:

1.  What Kaep and others are doing is not akin to picketing.  They aren’t asking people not to attend games or calling attention to poor working conditions.  Nor are they using up the boss’s time in their silent protest: they are kneeling while others are standing, doing nothing. They are not slacking off instead of working or distracting others from working.  They are simply refusing to comply with a forced show of (IMO, false) patriotism that has zero to do with football.  The “protests” need to be viewed in that light.

 

You are focusing upon one narrow aspect, and skipping the broader point.  I did not say what the players are doing is akin to picketing.  You brought up " Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?" 

My point is that union-protection does NOT entitle employees to co-opt their employer's property for their protests, or to protest on their employers time.   The placement of picket lines outside the employer's is an EXAMPLE of this principle - not an EXACT ANALOGY to the player's protests.  Therefore debunking the analogy doesn't address the point.

You have a viewpoint that the protests are OK because the employees (players) are not using up the bosses time or distracting others.  But that's from the viewpoint that football is just about the game, not about the whole "Fan Experience" or about entertainment in general.  The players who protest are clearly attracting attention to themselves and influencing public perception of the NFL.  (if they weren't, there would be no point to the protests).  The owners may take the viewpoint that non-football-game related factors within the stadium (and even outside it) are relevant to their "brand" - they require media availability of players, there's the whole NFL Code of Conduct" prohibiting "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League."

 

IOW, you can take the viewpoint that the national anthem and how players conduct themselves during it has "zero to do with football", but the NFL can the playing of the anthem as part of the "patriotism/family" connection they wish to market, and see protesting it as "conduct detrimental to the NFL". 

 

You may see football as a sport, where the only thing that matters is the game, but keep in mind to the NFL owners, it's "entertainment" and a "game day experience".

 

1 hour ago, mannc said:

The fact that the new policy passed doesn’t mean the league’s lawyers necessarily think it will withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.  I think the owners are much more concerned with public perception than they are with the legal implications. 

 

I don't think the league's lawyers were going to advise the owners draft and issue a statement that would be smacked down easily in court.  That would not help public perception.

[mannc]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

You are focusing upon one narrow aspect, and skipping the broader point.  I did not say what the players are doing is akin to picketing.  You brought up " Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?" 

My point is that union-protection does NOT entitle employees to co-opt their employer's property for their protests, or to protest on their employers time.   The placement of picket lines outside the employer's is an EXAMPLE of this principle - not an EXACT ANALOGY to the player's protests.  Therefore debunking the analogy doesn't address the point.

You have a viewpoint that the protests are OK because the employees (players) are not using up the bosses time or distracting others.  But that's from the viewpoint that football is just about the game, not about the whole "Fan Experience" or about entertainment in general.  The players who protest are clearly attracting attention to themselves and influencing public perception of the NFL.  (if they weren't, there would be no point to the protests).  The owners may take the viewpoint that non-football-game related factors within the stadium (and even outside it) are relevant to their "brand" - they require media availability of players, there's the whole NFL Code of Conduct" prohibiting "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League."

 

IOW, you can take the viewpoint that the national anthem and how players conduct themselves during it has "zero to do with football", but the NFL can the playing of the anthem as part of the "patriotism/family" connection they wish to market, and see protesting it as "conduct detrimental to the NFL". 

 

You may see football as a sport, where the only thing that matters is the game, but keep in mind to the NFL owners, it's "entertainment" and a "game day experience".

 

 

I don't think the league's lawyers were going to advise the owners draft and issue a statement that would be smacked down easily in court.  That would not help public perception.

I guess I just disagree that the players are “co-opting” the owner’s property.  How are they doing so?  They are refusing to participate in a compelled act of false patriotism.  Not the same thing at all.  Whether the owners have the right to enforce the policy under the banner of the “best interests of the league” clause is an open question.

 

My guess is that the lawyers told the owners the policy stands a good chance of passing legal muster, but no guarantees.  Even if they lose, they can still win the public relations battle because they “tried to uphold the flag”.

Edited May 26, 2018 by mannc

[PastaJoe]

If a player from both teams kneels, are they offsetting penalties, so no difference except for fine?

[26CornerBlitz]

10 minutes ago, PastaJoe said:

If a player from both teams kneels, are they offsetting penalties, so no difference except for fine?

 

The idea of a penalty was nor adopted.  Both teams could get fined by the NFL in that scenario with players subject to being fined by their respective teams. 

 

The NFL would have been better off leaving the issue alone as the protests were dying by the time the season ended.  They only made things worse with the unilateral move that enacted this new policy as part of league operations. 

[Happy]

15 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

The NFL would have been better off leaving the issue alone as the protests were dying by the time the season ended.  They only made things worse with the unilateral move that enacted this new policy as part of league operations. 

 

Perhaps the protests were dying toward the end of the season, but it would not take much to revive them - statement by a political figure, social justice warrior, etc.  IMO, the league did the right thing (finally) by enacting fines for not standing during the NA.  The NFL could have nipped this in the bud last September by not being so passive when the kneeling started.