NFL owners consider voiding CBA

[Wassit3]

The NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement, as it now stands, may be a short-lived deal.

What it all meansConfused by the details of the NFL labor agreement? Fear not. Alex Marvez tells you what will happen — and what won't — if owners decide to opt out of the CBA. Check it out HERE. In a series of conference calls this week, NFL owners have seriously discussed voiding the current labor agreement, FOXSports.com has learned. Team owners believe the current labor agreement, which gives players 59 percent of the defined gross revenues, is too lopsided in favor of the NFLPA.

The opt-out could come at Tuesday's spring meeting.

After a conference call Friday between high-level owners and executives, indications are that the league is leaning toward opting out. NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw expects the deal to be voided on Tuesday, according to the players' association Web site.

Only nine votes from NFL owners are needed to abort the CBA in 2011 rather than 2013.

"It's hard to predict Tuesday that (owners) are going to nuke the CBA," a high-ranking team executive told FOXSports.com. "I don't think that's accurate right now, but the subject is going to come up whether this is a better time than in November. There's a broad concern that (the NFL) doesn't want this to become a focus that takes away from the regular season.

Everyone agrees that we want to maintain a strong, competitive league. There is a mindset that this is a step along the way that helps clarify things. It seems rather obvious the league is going to opt out. Rather than have that looming, let's get that behind us, roll up our sleeves and get to work on a new CBA."

League and union officials held talks about the labor agreement last week. Discussions will continue even if the deal is voided, sources told FOXSports.com, but no date has been set to resume talks.

Should the owners in fact make the move next week, it would dramatically alter the NFL's landscape for the next few years. Such a significant move would make the 2009 campaign the last year in which the salary cap is in effect. 2010 would be uncapped. The NFL would also still have a draft in 2011, but beyond that everything else would be up in the air.

The owners have until November 8th to void the current agreement.

"I think deadlines are helpful in trying to get things resolved," commissioner Roger Goodell said at April's NFL owners meeting. "Any time a deadline can be established to force us into reaching an agreement on a particular issue, that's helpful to us."

While it appears likely that owners will opt out of the deal, several owners and executives indicated Friday that things could still change once everyone comes together at Tuesday's meeting. Still, there seems to be a general consensus that if the decision is going to be made to void the deal, it makes sense to do it sooner rather than later.

Calls for comment to both the commissioner's office and Upshaw on Friday have not yet been returned. However, Upshaw and upper NFLPA management are expected in Atlanta, which could lead to CBA dialogue.

The NFL and the players association have renewed the CBA five times, the most recent coming in March 2006. In that vote, the owners ratified the agreement by a 30-2 count, extending the labor deal through the 2011 season.

"The objective is to get a labor agreement, one that works for both parties," Goodell said last month. "That's what we're working towards. Obviously as part of planning we have to look at various alternatives. The reality is, and I think the union understands this, and we certainly understand this, you can grow your business better if you're in partnership. That's what having labor peace helps you do. That's one of the things we clearly understand. I believe the union fully agrees with that. That's what we're going to continue to try to do."

Jay Glazer and Alex Marvez are senior NFL writers for FOXSports.com.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8146886?MSNHPHMA

[OldFatGuy]

It's funny how you had one option being "Unions suck period", but not the counter to that of "Unions Walk on Water" It's amazing to me how much this country has chosen to forget the blood, sweat, and tears shed by working people years ago to just get things taken for granted today, like WEEKENDS, a realistic workday and workweek, and if the next poster says "what are talking about OFG, we're working more hours now than we have in years and for less pay and benefits too", well, that's because of the loss of bargaining power of the working class. In the employee/employer relationship, it always has and always will be a stacked deck in favor of the employer. The labor movement, and labor unions, were just one way to lessen that advantage. And now the typical attitude (bought and paid for through years of propoganda) is "Unions suck period." And the result is that deck being further stacked in favor of the employer. I hope the next two generations don't find themselves in the situations faced earlier in our history where working people were basically "economic slaves" to capital and wealth, but it sure seems that's where we're headed.

[ohms_law]

I agree with what you're saying OFG, but the fact is that the time for Unions (and there most definately was a time for them) has passed. While I am in the tech sector, I'm certainly a member of the "working class". I've worked both Union and non-Union manufacturing jobs. The fact is that these days you really don't get anything from a union, except for higher costs both for the employee and the employer. That and the fact that we're (employees) all "mobile" now, which is actually probably the primary issue which makes unions all but useless in today's world. Employer mistreating you? Simple, just quit...
(which is something that I'm seriously considering doing right now)

Bottom line is that Unions were a great institution which has, largely, outlived it's usefulness. At least that's true in the US and Europe. Parts of Asia certainly seem like they could use some union representation, though (like... China! oh, the irony...).

[Arctic Blast]

I think that if unions were to go away, it would very quickly become apparent that they ARE still necessary in this day and age.

The problem with a lot of them is they've become too politicized, and they spend too much time worrying about themselves, instead of the WORKERS, which is supposed to be the point of their existence.

[ohms_law]

I don't think it would. The fact is, even the "working poor" can afford a car these days, where just 50 years ago (pre WWII) they largely couldn't. Without transportation (or with limited transportation), people are basically stuck in the community that they're in. If that's true, there's very limited job mobility. In todays world, it's not at all uncommon for semi-skilled and skilled laborers to change jobs, and doing so is actually easier if there isn't a union to get in the way.

Honestly though, I'm not really anti-union. It is nice to have a union looking out for your interests, but the problem is that they've become too bureaucratic and, as you mentioned, to political. They need to slim down and streamline their organization, and re-purpose themselves for the modern, mobile world. As a working class employee, I'd really rather just quit and look for a better (and often better paying!) job than stick around and deal with negotiations. We have the economic power of supply and demand behind us as employees now, which is something that didn't exist at all in the early and even middle industrial period.

[Reade]

All i know is without unions, here in TN, most factory jobs only start at about $9 an hour and tops out around $13-14 an hour, there is not one person that could support a family of 3 or 4 on that. **** I even know police officers and fireman that have to have a second job just to make ends meat. I also know the other end, I had a uncle work for Catapillar and was making about $30 an hour for sitting on his *** for 6 hours a day while his machine ran itself.

but the problem is that they'be become to bureaucratic and, as you mentioned, to political.

100% correct, except the spelling.

[Wassit3]

All i know is without unions, here in TN, most factory jobs only start at about $9 an hour and tops out around $13-14 an hour, there is not one person that could support a family of 3 or 4 on that. **** I even know police officers and fireman that have to have a second job just to make ends meat. I also know the other end, I had a uncle work for Catapillar and was making about $30 an hour for sitting on his *** for 6 hours a day while his machine ran itself.



100% correct, except the spelling.

yeah but the difference is that your uncle's job is considered skilled labor, that is why he gets what he does per hour nice usage of the word meat, the double meaning usage was slick anyway I agree with what you said though.

[Wassit3]

I don't think it would. The fact is, even the "working poor" can afford a car these days, where just 50 years ago (pre WWII) they largely couldn't. Without transportation (or with limited transportation), people are basically stuck in the community that they're in. If that's true, there's very limited job mobility. In todays world, it's not at all uncommon for semi-skilled and skilled laborors to change jobs, and doing so is actually easier if there isn't a union to get in the way.

Honestly though, I'm not really anti-union. It is nice to have a union looking out for your interests, but the problem is that they'be become to bureaucratic and, as you mentioned, to political. They need to slim down and streamline their organization, and repurpose themselves for the modern, mobile world. As a working class employee, I'd really rather just quit and look for a better (and often better paying!) job than stick around and deal with negotiations. We have the economic power of supply and demand behind us as employees now, which is something that didn't exist at all in the early and even middle industrial period.

[ohms_law]

Anyway, sports are inherently different. Athletes are beyond skilled labor... "super-skilled labor" and "super specialized labor" would be good descriptions... It's a completely different subject, really.

[Arctic Blast]

The working poor actually CAN'T afford that shiny new car, and that house, and everything else they're getting these days. We are seriously addicted to credit these days in North America, and people are gobbling up resources which they truly cannot afford. Financially, they aren't really all THAT well off, we've just become addicted to living beyond our means, and of course, the banks let us, because they make a killing on the whole deal.

[ohms_law]

I definitely can't afford a new car, but just about everyone in the US, Canada, and Europe can afford a car. I'm not "working poor", but I'm hardly rich either. It's a good point about credit, but there's also the fact that there's simply a lot fo wealth in the US. There are very few truly poor people in America or Western Europe.

[OldFatGuy]

There are very few truly poor people in America or Western Europe.

You should either

A) Get out more

B) Consider running for political office as a Republican

[ohms_law]

Please tell me, how many truly poor people are there in the country then? The homeless are about it. Acording to the US Census bureau:

The official poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent, down from 12.6 percent in 2005 (Table 3).
In 2006, 36.5 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2005.

and:

As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2006 was $20,614; for a family of three, $16,079; for a family of two, $13,167; and for unrelated individuals, $10,294.

Do me a favor though, take a trip to Sub-Saharan Africa and try to convince anyone there that poverty exists in the United States. Good luck.
I'm not saying that poverty isn't a problem in the US, but it's a question of scale. There are still far to many poor people in the US, but in terms of where we stand relative to the rest of the world or where we were 50 or 60 years ago, the fact is that the country as a whole is now unbelievably wealthy.

All of this really misses the point that I was originally making though. For the vast majority of citizens in the US, Canada, and Western Europe, the largest single factor leading to employee fairness today is simple competition. The fact is, we can easily change jobs in today's world. The fact that many companies will and do actually compete for workers is what keeps wages high and our standard of living among the best in the world. In this day and age, Unions have very little responsibility for that. They could have much more of a place, but they really need to be more flexible in how they operate. In my opinion, Unions in the western world should be much more like insurance and an employment agency rather than what they are now.