Another two weeks before the lockout is over?

[ToxSocks]

I'm over this shit now....

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sp...-thats-a-sham/

Herald columnist Ron Borges from Atlanta: The union to recertify in a day? That’s a “sham”
Herald columnist Ron Borges is in Atlanta for the much-ballyhooed owners meetings where so many expect a settlement and a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Some expect it today.

In Borges’ view? Chill out a bit.

Here is the explanatory report he just filed:

By Ron Borges
ATLANTA – Once again, NFL owners want it both ways.

When the NFLPA tried to decertify the owners’ argument was that it couldn’t be done with by a simple snap of the union’s fingers. Time had to pass, they argued, or it was all “a sham,” a point they somehow won in front of the most conservative Federal appeals court in the country.

Now they are insisting that the NFLPA settle two multi-million dollar lawsuits, approve a new 10-year CBA that cuts their pay by hundreds of millions of dollars and recertify their union in a day.


The NFLPA has basically said they may be able to do the first two but recertification will take at least two weeks. The owners, as they always seem to be except when lining their pockets, are outraged and demanding a “global settlement’’ be completed today.

Now there’s “a sham,” because nearly 1,000 recertification cards have to be signed and returned, approving recertification before the union can re-form. And that takes a lot longer than 24 hours, according to the union.

With that as the latest background in what has become a far longer slog toward a settlement of the 132-day and counting lockout than either side expected, the owners are meeting in Atlanta poised to vote on approval of a deal with the players that they don’t yet have with the players.

“It’s an ongoing thing,’’ Indianapolis Colts’ owner Jimmy Irsay said. “Everyone is pushing in that direction but it’s never done until it’s done. We are hoping to get back to the business of football.

“You can only control what you can control. We’re going to try and do our part today getting something approved.’’

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, NFLPA head DeMaurice Smith is trying to corral angry plaintiffs in the Brady vs. NFL case and his own Executive Committee and team player reps to the point where he can get a majority to approve both the settlement and the 10-year CBA framework presently on the table.

He has yet been unable to do that which is why no vote was taken on Wednesday even though many felt it was some sort of fait accompli. Let me tell you something, at this point there is no fait accom-anything, although at some point there will be an NFL season.

Just not anywhere as quickly as fans hoped and the two sides thought possible. As NFLPA president Kevin Mawea ominously said Wednesday the players are not on a July 21 deadline for anything.

So the owners are expected to approve a deal they don’t yet have sometime today while now arguing that a union is a great thing for their business even though the players don’t have one any more.

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

greggrosenthalgregg rosenthal

ESPN.com article: NFLPA execs told Mort vote is likely Friday. NFLPA rep says no timetable. On ESPN. Confusion in nutshell.

[Three7s]

Originally Posted by -King-

They will.

I won't.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Laz

umm ... how is it illegal?

The owners have no legal authority to abuse. They put the CBA offer on the table and say you have XX days to accept/reject it.

nothing illegal about putting a time condition on your contract offer.

Apparently, saying "this deal requires that you form a union in a few days" is illegal coercion.

Not that the NFLPA would object, since they would be objecting to their own existence if they agree to re-certify, but some random disgruntled player could object saying the players were pressured into unionizing and a court could throw the deal out.

The NFLPA is basically saying the NFL screwed up the legal details and they might not be able to accept even if they wanted to. (which they probably don't anyway, since the NFL unilaterally imposed their will on the last few details yet to be agreed upon)

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by -King-

It's illegal to mandate a union be re certified by a certain time.

not if you don't have any authority to force them to do it.

The players have to certify before the CBA agreement can be completely therefore the NFLPA has to time limit of accepting/rejecting the CBA offer.

Here's you offer ... take it or leave it, you have XX days to decide

How is that illegal?

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

I get the legality of all that shit.

The players could recertify in about 10 minutes if they really wanted to get down to business and finalize a deal.

It's another strong arm tactic.

Fine, don't recertify. Drag it out and see if the fans ever come back.

They won't.

Absolutely.

The games that are being played hopefully don't kill the golden goose, they very well could.

The players could re-certify and get it signed right now (or probably weeks ago)

I highly doubt there was anything added to the proposed deal.

These lawyer ****s are just trying to get the next job and that litigation could go for a very long time and make him millions.

Like I said earlier, **** demaurice.

Haha that has a little ring to it.

Kinda sounds like **** tha police.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by alnorth

NFLPA is basically saying the NFL screwed up the legal details

ahhhh ... okay

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Laz

not if you don't have any authority to force them to do it.

A huge pile of lawyers say you are wrong.

If the players agree to re-certify and agree to the deal, a random unhappy player could complain that the players were pressured into it illegally, and a court could throw out the CBA.

The NFLPA is, I think, saying there's no point to agreeing if any old random player could screw up the deal.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Three7s

I won't.

You're here posting on a message board. The odds are that you'll return to watching the game. Even baseball had most people come back, and they took the World Series away from the fans.

[Titty Meat]

These guys make the Casey Anthony jury look competent.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by alnorth

A huge pile of lawyers say you are wrong.

If the players agree to re-certify and agree to reform, a random unhappy player could complain that the players were pressured into it illegally, and a court could throw out the CBA.

The NFLPA is, I think, saying there's no point to agreeing if any old random player could screw up the deal.

got it

do we know that the owners specifically used the language "certify in xx days or else" or did they just put a time limit on the CBA offer AND SINCE to sign the CBA the players need to be a union it was twisted by the media as being 'certify in xx days or else'?

[tk13]

Originally Posted by Laz

not if you don't have any authority to force them to do it.

The players have to certify before the CBA agreement can be completely therefore the NFLPA has to time limit of accepting/rejecting the CBA offer.

Here's you offer ... take it or leave it, you have XX days to decide

How is that illegal?

The lawyer on the NFL's own network said it was illegal. The owners could get the players to agree to something with the understanding that the union would re-certify at a non-specific date. But his understanding of how the owners phrased the ultimatum to re-certify by a specific time is the strictest sense of the law, not legal. It would be coercion.

[kcxiv]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You're here posting on a message board. The odds are that you'll return to watching the game. Even baseball had most people come back, and they took the World Series away from the fans.

No season games have been lost, up to right now, nothing has really changed.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Laz

got it

do we know that the owners specifically used the language "certify in xx days or else" or did they just put a time limit on the CBA offer AND SINCE to sign the CBA the players need to be a union it was twisted by the media as being 'certify in xx days or else'?

...NFL Network obtained a copy of the email, which took issue with the league setting a rough timetable for the NFLPA to reform as a union.

"In addition to depriving the players of the time needed to consider forming a union and making needed changes to the old agreement, this proposed procedure would in my view also violate federal labor laws," the email read. "Those laws prohibit employers from coercing their employees into forming a union, and could result in any agreement reached through the procedure being declared null and void."

The email say the league "demands that the players re-form as a union and provide evidence by Tuesday, July 26 that a majority of players have signed union authorization cards."

It also said that the new CBA includes "virtually all provisions of the old CBA" and that after voting on it, by July 26, the players would only have three days to bargain changes in terms. The agreement, it goes on, "would become final on Saturday, July 30. If the NFL does not agree to the players' proposed changed, the old CBA terms on benefits, discipline, safety, etc. will remain unchanged for another 10 years."

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

mortreportChris Mortensen

Good news. Players wrapped call, then leadership received final details. Vote can come tomorrow if they can satisfy a finishing detail or 2.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by tk13

The lawyer on the NFL's own network said it was illegal. The owners could get the players to agree to something with the understanding that the union would re-certify at a non-specific date. But his understanding of how the owners phrased the ultimatum to re-certify by a specific time is the strictest sense of the law, not legal. It would be coercion.

sounds like a huge pile of lawyer cow crap

you can want it,you can suggest it,everyone knows you have to ..... but you can't actually SAY IT.

that said, the NFL's lawyers should be beaten about the head with Al Davis' flaccid penis for failing to make sure it wasn't worded correctly.