The NFL Players Union . . . . what's your attitude toward it?

[Stinky The Clown]

Do you see it as a "real" union, on par with the teachers in Wisconsin, let's say, or the Steamfitters, or the Teamsters, or the Longshoremen?

Do you see their "struggle" with management/Owners on a par with other union fights?






I have a point of view and an opinion, but probably not the one you think it is. ( <----- Edit to change "tone" to "one" in this line.)

[TomClash]

1. I'm for the players

A worker is a worker no matter what you get paid. Not so long ago athletes got paid very little.

[glinda]

2. I think they have a right to have a Union. If it allows them to voice

concerns about the rough physical conditions as well as keeps the owners getting less profit hoarding, I think it is okay. But what do I know.
I do know that the St. Paul hockey Team, MN. Wild's owners have been trying to get rid of the Union. They want to cut back on the number of players and I read on a sports post board that the players were tired of getting slammed around and risking their bodies with the cutbacks. Just for profit.

[DonCoquixote]

3. Q and A

Do you see it as a "real" union, on par with the teachers in Wisconsin, let's say, or the Steamfitters, or the Teamsters, or the Longshoremen?

Not on par per se, but, it is a very good example of a union that has helped all, including the owners. Bill Maher and a few threads here made this point better than I did, but the rub is this, because Owners set some limits on themselves, it keeps them from making the sort of gigantic, greed-driven mistakes that have ruined Baseball.

Do you see their "struggle" with management/Owners on a par with other union fights?

Oddly enough, yes, because a victory against any union will be spun into a victory against all unions, especially by the Fox news machine. The whole reason labor is fucked right now is because we have been dividend against ourselves. To quote Ben franklin "if we do not hang together, we shall all hang separately."

[ieoeja]

13. Other unions ignored the air traffic controllers because the ATC members made a lot of money.

Day 1 of that strike my dad said if the other unions let them do it, then unions were dead in this country. And our unions have been shrinking ever since.

Any union member who sides with the NFL owners over NFL players is a complete fool.

[blondeatlast]

19. Ah, yes, I remember it well. Very good point. nt

[Uzybone]

37. "Any union member who sides with the NFL owners over NFL players is a complete fool."

well said

[Drale]

4. Without the Union in the MLB at least

the players where treated basically as slaves. They where forced to play for the same team every year until they either didn't want to play baseball anymore or they were traded. They were also not payed well and most had to have jobs in the off season such as selling cars and such. I'm not really up on the history of the NFL but I would guess it is the same there. So are they are real Union yes they are.

[KamaAina]

5. Lockouts are always wrong

Period.

[Horse with no Name]

6. The way I see it is...

They got "their deal".

It is my responsibility to get "my deal".

In no shape, form or fashion does "their deal" interfere with "my deal".

Am I envious? Hell yeah. Who wouldn't be?

But do I want to pull them down?

No.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. To those who refuse to think,

it sure seems like a life of glory, of riches, fast cars, fast women, and more.

The average professional life span of a pro player is 3 yrs. Injuries, cuts, being replaced by a younger specimen, - this is their norm.
Every player gets hurt. Every single season. Some play through it, others lose their careers, at the other end of the scale. To make 6 figures for three years, then face the fact that you are lame, potentially crippled, quite possibly uneducated and barely literate, and untrained for any other kind of profession or career, well, that is not a kind of trade I would make.

Then consider just how many years they trained just for three short years of pro play. Some grade school pony league, all four-six years of high school, 4-5 years in college, or more if they redshirt themselves, and then, some even play in Canada or Europe in the hopes of being noticed. 10-12 years of investment.

Yes, they are a real union. Yes, they deserve representation. Yes, the owners are some of the greediest bastards who treat people as fungible goods to be sold, traded and used until they are ready to toss them into the rubbish bin.

[FSogol]

8. Got to side with the workers. n/t

[W_HAMILTON]

9. I support the players.

Just because they are rich doesn't mean they can't be taken advantage of by "their owners." The league makes money off the players, not the owners.

I support unions (in general) making concessions in true times of crisis, but not just because an owner wants more profit. If the company is in trouble, then concessions should be negotiated. If a company wants to bump his ROI from 15% to 16%, he can go to hell. The NFL is certainly not in trouble, they just claim to be. Gee, it sounds like a familiar story, huh?

Go players!

[slackmaster]

10. I don't buy their product

So I really don't care.

[Populist_Prole]

14. I Couldn't care less either.

Whatever union vs management struggle dynamic some may hope this represents, is greatly overshadowed by it's lack of actual relevance to the plight of the working class - and - this is the worst part, just provides another "bread & circus" distraction from how we're getting the shaft by the far right lunatics.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. How is it not relevant? Their salaries?

They have an average career length of (wait for it)



3 years



Not all of them are big money/long career types.

[Populist_Prole]

35. Not relevant in the sense it's about sports, not working class folks

I side with the players for the same reason I side with any strikers against plutocratic maggots. The problem is, too many apathetic types will not make the connection. In other words, it's about sports and not the larger struggle of class warfare the plutocratic pricks are currently winning. It's just a distraction to prevent bread & circus types from connecting the dots.

Don't mean to sound like a snobby elitist prick: I'm done with trying to bang my head against the wall in attempt to arouse the necessary consciousness of frogs that don't care if they're being slowly boiled as long as their immediate needs for entertainment are met.

[Drahthaardogs]

65. So because they are making a lot of money

their position is irrelevant? I mean, there is 9 BILLION dollars on the table, the owners feel they should get at least fifty percent. PLUS they have gotten the taxpayers to buy most of their new stadiums with threats (extorts) to move the team if they don't vote it in. Meanwhile, Mr. NFL man has broken knees for life, a bad back and maybe a bit of brain damage.

Bullshit. Union folks deserve our support. Getting screwed by a billionaire when you are a millionaire is still getting screwed!

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Do you buy steam pipes?

Do you care about the steamfitter union members?

[slackmaster]

38. No, and yes.

Steamfitters are working class people, for whom relatively small differences in pay and benefits can have large effects on their families. Professional football players are not in the same league.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. So their union serves no purpose? They don't deserve collective bargaining rights?

Maybe if you thought of them as coal mine canaries . . . . ?

[slackmaster]

41. They're a bunch of overpaid. steroid-altered trained animals IMO

They can take care of themselves.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. That seems quite mean-spirited

I guess SAG is bad, too, huh? Equity probably has no validity either, right?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hfojvt]

60. their union serves one purpose

it makes unions look bad.

[ieoeja]

11. Yes. (nt)

[Upton]

12. The NFLPA is made of "workers" playing a game

that pays many of them more money annually than most folks see in a lifetime.

Do I see "their struggle with management/Owners on a par with other union fights?"...Absolutely not.

[ieoeja]

20. Which is the exact same logic used by non-union workers against union workers.

Those union workers make more money. So to hell with them.

:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

31. yep. that's how they divide people and make that divisive logic universal.

[hfojvt]

63. it was the unions who created the division

when they decided to stop fighting to change the system to benefit all workers and instead just decided to fight for a bigger slice for themselves in the same system. It just turned them into low-level elites within the system. All workers are equal, but some are more equal than others.

There is already a huge divide between $14 an hour plus benefits and $8 and no benefits and between that and being jobless. Jay Gould can exploit it, but he didn't create it.

The jobless are workers too, or would be. They want to provide for themselves and their families and have a decent life. Same with the $8 an hour worker.

When the $14 an hour person goes on strike, a strike that is about THEIR pay and benefits, it is illogical to not expect the masses of jobless or less well paid people to look at them and think "shit, I'd be happy to work for $12 and benefits."

The answer to that is not to wag your finger at the poorer workers and scream "Think you fools, we are all in this together." That just flies in the face of reality. Because more money for ME doesn't really help you. The fact that a gravy train exists does not help the people who cannot get a ticket to ride. So they don't care.

The answer is to fight half as hard to lift those other people up as fight for their own gravy. Don't point a finger because they won't fight for the unions, not until the unions have spent some time fighting for them.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. So what is it that bothers you? Their salaries?

Are you of an age to remember Patco? They were vilified for high salaries, too. Reagan busting their union started the slide to oblivion that organized labor has been on since then.

[Upton]

50. I doubt if anyone from PATCO made this kind of money..

The following 3 players have all agreed to be name plaintiffs in an antitrust suit the players will file against the NFL if no labor agreement is reached..

Here are their salaries for 2010:

Tom Brady: $18 million

Peyton Manning: $15.8 million

Drew Brees: $10 million (Brees, who btw considers himself underpaid, is also a member of the NFLPA executive committee)


The NFLPA is obviously not your normal union...

[Bluenorthwest]

51. What do the bottom scale players make?

And tell me this, what protections do they have against career ending injury? That is, if one is hurt early in one's career, is that the end of all, or are there protections and benefits? If there are protections, where did those come from, the huge hearts of the owners?

[Upton]

53. The league minimum

is $325,000 for a rookie. The league average is more than twice that...close to 800,000 per in 2009. The high profile skill positions average more than a million a year. It must be rough living on that kind of money..

As for injuries and a possible shortened career, nobody is forcing these players to compete in the NFL. If these poor downtrodden millionaires, er, players don't wish to be troubled by such things, perhaps they should get themselves REAL jobs and join a REAL union.

[CC]

15. They are a union, with workers

vs owners/bosses. I'll side with the players. Is it on par with other unions, I don't know. Are all unions on par with each other? I don't think so. Players have a unique skill set that takes work to reach and maintain at a professional level. I doubt fans are going to pay the prices they do to see amateurs.

I just don't see how it is fair to ask players to give up their hard won contracts and perks just because the owners can't con/blackmail taxpayers into building new stadiums with more high priced sky boxes or lost money gambling on/because of Wall St. As far as I know TV revenue is where it has always been or higher. I haven't seen a price cut on tickets either. Players risk their health, shorten their lives and do much more than play on the field for their money. On top of that the highest paid players live their lives in a fish bowl with every move watched, reported and judged by strangers. I don't think there is enough money in the world to pay me to live like that.

Just my opinion but I'm not a huge football fan and will never forget how much damage one owner can do.

[Old and In the Way]

16. Supply and demand is a seperate issue from the rights to organize.

The players are the ones taking the risks. They are the ones that make the NFL the mega-sport it is today. Ticket holders don't show up every Sunday because they really like the stadium or the owners...they come to see their favorite players/team complete. Because the labor pool is so limited, salaries for quality players get bid up. I think revenue sharing ought to be part of all union contracts in the private sector. Profits can be fudged, revenue can't. Without a union, it's the individual against the corporation. Guess who wins 99.999% of the time?

[damntexdem]

17. It's a real union, and needed for the non-stars who can't largely write their own contracts.

[blondeatlast]

18. Interesting that you enclose "real" and "struggle" in quotes.

A union is a union is a union--they are my brothers just as much as AZ's remaining Mine Workers are.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. See? You made an assumption about me.

You drew an inference about me from two sets of quote marks while seemingly ignoring my saying you shouldn't assume my stance by my having posed this question.

I am fully on the union's side.

[Omaha Steve]

21. They are AFL-CIO, need I say more?

Several players & x-players have rallied in Madison and Ohio.

I'm on the players side!

[annabanana]

22. A Union is a Union

I have nothing to add to that.

[Spirochete]

23. Without it

the players would be out on the field, risking permanent injury, for whatever pittance the greedy owners wanted to pay them, so yes, it's on a par with the other unions.

[TheKentuckian]

24. What other way is it to look at it than they are a real union with a real struggle with owners?

I don't get the slicing up of workers.

[ipfilter]

28. I support the right of anybody to organize and collective bargaining.

See my sig...It applies to everyone.

[Hannah Bell]

30. yes. just because they make more money than most workers doesn't mean they're not workers.

the management & owners make a hell of a lot more than the players. that's why the players are well-paid.

[old mark]

32. K&R- I strongly support the Union-these guys make a lot of money, certainly,

but many of them suffer terrible injuries and lifelong disability to do it.


mark

[Missy Vixen]

33. I support the NFLPA

The VAST majority of NFL players do not become instant millionaires.

The NFL made $9 billion in profit last season. The owners got $1 billion off the top, despite the fact they have multiple income streams and don't have to pay to construct/maintain their own stadiums.

Yes, the NFLPA is a union, and should be respected as such.

[AngryOldDem]

34. I'm for the players.

And yes, it IS on par with other union fights.

[Uzybone]

36. yes its a real union

while their numbers are small and they are by and large very rich, they are still labor, and the owners (management) are trying to screw them.

[some guy]

40. I support unions,

so I support theirs.

It's a high-risk high reward profession, but that doesn't change the fact that those employed in the profession should be able to join together for their mutual benefit.

I've read stories about former players who have been badly treated by the union, but that would seem to be up to the members of the union to correct. If you're going to be part of any group, it's a good idea to pay close attention to your "leaders" and hold them accountable.

I'd really like it if the players and owners would work out some sort of deal where they set aside a portion of the overall revenue and use it to pay for stadium replacements / upgrades. I hate that stadiums are usually paid for by taxpayers of the city in which they are built.

[closeupready]

43. No, it is most certainly NOT on the same level at all.

I find the comparison offensive and ridiculous.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. What's your local?

Or are you management? As a Union member, I support Union Members, and the players are my AFL-CIO brothers.
Are you a Union member?

[closeupready]

54. New York, no I am not union, but I support the right of all workers to bargain collectively.

I guess the reason I find the comparison offensive is that the typical union member is struggling to support a family, whereas NFL players are rich. It's less of a union, in that respect, than a professional association.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time they did a strike?

[FLPanhandle]

44. Millionaires vs. Billionaires

But the players make a shit load of money because of their union, so more power to them.

However, it's not a fight that generates any sympathy from the average working people.

[Brickbat]

46. Yes, I see it as a real union, and I see it struggling with management, and I see it "on par" with

other union fights. I have also seen solidarity from NFL players in various teachers union fights, although they certainly could do a hell of a lot more.

[Ganja Ninja]

47. I support the players 100%

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Of course it is a Union, and of course I support the players

Pay scales are just one part of any labor issue, and pay scales are relative to the profit being made. If a worker is making piles of cash for an employer, that worker should get part of the pile, no matter how large that part might seem. What is being sought is equity, a fairness to the exchange, and that takes a Union, no matter what the pay scales might be.
Personally, I wish everyone had a Union, and pay like the players have, if not in amount, then at least in relation to the amount of money they generate in their own business.

[fishwax]

49. I support organized labor and hope that all unions are able to successfully bargain

[JVS]

55. Of course it's a real union. When workers choose to organize themselves collectively, it's always..

a real union. It's also not a company union, and by that I mean a union that was either founded or infiltrated with the idea of being an advocacy group for the company rather than the employees.


Furthermore as a fan of football on both the college and professional levels, I see the union as a good way to ensure that player's concerns are adequately addressed, individual players are afforded some protection from misfortune, and that there is a balancing force to the owner's whose interests have already pushed the season to such a length that injuries dominate the post-season.

[mythology]

56. My answer is a bit complicated

While I don't have a problem with the union getting the most money they can, I do think that it's different from other more middle/working class unions for a couple of reasons.

Obviously the money is one difference, but then again the money is different in terms of what the owners get as well. So that's largely a wash to me. But the union hasn't pushed for a smaller salary cap with guaranteed money. Players can get cut with no or at least limited repercussions. I don't know if it's the fault of the agents, the players or the bargaining between the union and the league, but it encourages seeing players as disposable and it makes it more likely that players will try to push through legitimate injuries thereby causing further more serious injuries.

The biggest issue is that the players union still doesn't do enough for former players considering the long term health impact of playing football and the fact that such a large percentage of former players declare bankruptcy relatively soon after retirement.

If I recall correctly players get health care for 10 years. The most serious issues such as joint replacements and the long term problems with concussions don't present until after that. Additionally the union has done an awful job of supporting retired players. Former players living with major life-altering injuries from before the modern era only get a pittance from the league.

Additionally given that so many players declare bankruptcy a few years after retiring, I'd like to see the union push for some form of delayed compensation or greater retirement financial planning such as a 401k or an increased pension.

Unfortunately those are both problems with having a union of people who are by in large in their twenties and have been relatively entitled their entire lives due to athletic ability. While not every 20something is incapable of thinking long term or gives in to entitlement, a large portion of our species has that problem when given large amounts of money and little in the way of consequences. Most unions have people across all of working age population and so have a greater likelihood of having enough members looking to temper the desire to get more money now rather than thinking about the future.

I know in theory the union is only supposed to follow the wishes of the members, but at some point I think the union should step in and explain how some changes are in the long term interests of its members.

I also have a problem with the current rookie pay for first round players, but that's relatively minor point given that it only affects the players taken in the first round.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. That's a good response

Good in the sense that, while you cite areas that in your view fall short, you are clearly accepting the unions, per se, as "real" union.

There are other responses that seem to indicate the responder sees the union as bad because it represent highly paid persons. I'm glad you wrote this. It points just how needed a union is for these people.

[MilesColtrane]

58. It is a real union.

I support the right of all workers to band together to get as much as they can out of owners and management.

The highest paid players certainly don't struggle with life's necessities. But, consider the difference in their salaries and the NFL owner's net worths.

Carson Palmer, with the second largest paying contract in football, would only begin to approach Bengals owner Mike Brown's net worth if he played for 65 seasons.

The principle of establishing fairness between workers and owners is the same, it is just a matter of scale.

[Lucian]

59. It's not even close to the same level as worker's unions.

The league minimum is what, ~ $325,000/year? How much does the average worker make in a union? ~$40,000/year? How are they even close?

I saw an article here the other day where we were supposed to feel sorry for certain players because they're living paycheck-to-paycheck on league minimum. How can I feel sorry for someone like that? Seriously? Seriously? I'm living paycheck-to-paycheck and I only make ~$11,200/year working at Walmart full time. Excuse me if I have no sympathy for them.

[Snotcicles]

61. Why does Walmart get to collectively bargain but you don't? nt

[Shandris]

62. I think they are every bit as much a Union as any Union, and in this case...

...I support their complaints against the Owners.

[Stinky The Clown]

64. After all the responses, I must say I find it sad that people presumably on the left side of . . . .

. . . . dial feel that unions are not needed or ought to be qualified by the wealth of the represented population.

A union is a union. This union is every bit the equal of any other union. I am no football fan. I think some of the players are undeserving thugs, some are perfumed princes, and some are dumb oafs. I think *most* of them are just ordinary people who have an extraordinary talent and are well compensated for it.

The history of football players is rich in tragic stores of injured brains and broken bodies, of impoverished lives and near slavery while actively playing. These "rich" people need a union as much as anyone. To be sure, they are more well off, and have a much higher likelihood than most of us mere mortals, of living a comfortable life. But keep in mind it wasn't always so.

The union made it so.

The union that is as valid a union as any other.

[TBF]

66. In solidarity with the player's union -

the owners make millions. Although some of the guys don't have much to worry about, all still play for a limited time and have the rest of their lives and medical expenses to worry about. Why should they not be able to negotiate when the owners make so much money off them? It's like anything else in capitalism... I support these workers and their right to organize and negotiate.

[underpants]

67. Real Union - have done great things to protect players but failed on retirees

the
NFLPA is the reason that there hasn't been a steroid or HGH problem widespread like in baseball.

The baseball steroids hearings a few years ago was part of the Republicans anti-union effort BTW.

[bigwillq]

68. A union is a union.

I support the players.

[KG]

69. a 'real' union - not the same as trade unions, but as legit and as neccesary.

the players are all independent contractors, not employees per se, but a union gives them a united voice.