Green Bay Packers Forum

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
5 Pages«<345
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Pack93z  
#41 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 9:16:22 PM(UTC)
Rank: Select Member

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Applause Given: 437
Applause Received: 1,237
PackFanWithTwins said: Go to Quoted Post
As i read the article and section what it says, as it pertains to the subject at hand. That the NFLPA would need to show that the league adding playoff teams, would significantly affect the terms and conditions of their employment.

It doesn't say that any change to the bylaws or nfl constitution has to go through the PA. Only if the change would significantly affect the terms.

And I don't see how they would establish significant change when the compensation and structure is already set.



92 additional players performing in the postseason would not constitute a significant change? And the other teams players having to perform in additional games as well because of the add.

But yet changing the cutdown days would be a significant change? Adding a IR exemption that would effect at the max 32 players is considered a significant change. Yes, adding a playoff team to each league is a significant change to the bylaws. Citing case example, the IR exemption was almost shelved because the NFLPA and NFL couldn't originally come to terms on concessions.. eventually they came back to the table and hammered it out.

Continue to believe as you may.
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#42 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 9:42:11 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 26
Applause Received: 962
Pack93z said: Go to Quoted Post
92 additional players performing in the postseason would not constitute a significant change? And the other teams players having to perform in additional games as well because of the add.

But yet changing the cutdown days would be a significant change? Adding a IR exemption that would effect at the max 32 players is considered a significant change. Yes, adding a playoff team to each league is a significant change to the bylaws. Citing case example, the IR exemption was almost shelved because the NFLPA and NFL couldn't originally come to terms on concessions.. eventually they came back to the table and hammered it out.

Continue to believe as you may.


No 92 additional players wouldn't be a significant change as it pertains to the CBA. It is still 4 wild card games being played and the same number of players playing in them. And the payment and practice schedules are specified. Players are getting paid for the games they play.

And yes, cut down days, IR exemption was significant because how and when the players can practice and come is something that had to be spelled out that wasn't.
Offline Pack93z  
#43 Posted : Monday, December 17, 2012 9:56:05 PM(UTC)
Rank: Select Member

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Applause Given: 437
Applause Received: 1,237
PackFanWithTwins said: Go to Quoted Post
No 92 additional players wouldn't be a significant change as it pertains to the CBA. It is still 4 wild card games being played and the same number of players playing in them. And the payment and practice schedules are specified. Players are getting paid for the games they play.

And yes, cut down days, IR exemption was significant because how and when the players can practice and come is something that had to be spelled out that wasn't.



But that is the thing... the IR and cut down days/player counts were defined. They amended the bylaws to change them.

In the same fashion that adding work days to at least 92 players is a significant change to their contract, the league year and schedules. I say as least 92 players, as there are other players that will be required to practice and prepare for additional games. Matters little that the compensation is set, it does matter that at least 92 players are putting their bodies and careers at risk for additional games. Hence why it would amount to a significant change.

The roster counts and cutdowns is a more valid comparison, the league is asking for and extending the work schedule for union workers. Similar to what they are asking for by adding playoff games.


Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#44 Posted : Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:11:22 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 26
Applause Received: 962
Pack93z said: Go to Quoted Post
But that is the thing... the IR and cut down days/player counts were defined. They amended the bylaws to change them.

In the same fashion that adding work days to at least 92 players is a significant change to their contract, the league year and schedules. I say as least 92 players, as there are other players that will be required to practice and prepare for additional games. Matters little that the compensation is set, it does matter that at least 92 players are putting their bodies and careers at risk for additional games. Hence why it would amount to a significant change.

The roster counts and cutdowns is a more valid comparison, the league is asking for and extending the work schedule for union workers. Similar to what they are asking for by adding playoff games.




It isn't adding work days to what any player expects or hopes to be playing when the preseason starts. You seem to be thinking of it like they are being told they have to work labor day. If it went to court, all that would need to be done is ask any player. When the season starts, do you hope to be playing in the playoffs. they would all answer yes.

A similar situation would have been when the pro-bowl was moved from after the SB to before. It made it so None of the players in the superbowl could play so an additional group of players had the chance. It isn't an increase in the number of players who have to play, only a change in which players have the chance.
Offline Porforis  
#45 Posted : Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:17:56 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Applause Given: 346
Applause Received: 645
This is PackersHome.com, not FootballLawyersHome.com.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 12/18/2012(UTC)
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#46 Posted : Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:37:36 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 26
Applause Received: 962
I've been staying at a Holiday Inn Express just for this conversation. Don't want to waste it.
Offline Pack93z  
#47 Posted : Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:21:48 AM(UTC)
Rank: Select Member

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Applause Given: 437
Applause Received: 1,237
PackFanWithTwins said: Go to Quoted Post
It isn't adding work days to what any player expects or hopes to be playing when the preseason starts. You seem to be thinking of it like they are being told they have to work labor day. If it went to court, all that would need to be done is ask any player. When the season starts, do you hope to be playing in the playoffs. they would all answer yes.

A similar situation would have been when the pro-bowl was moved from after the SB to before. It made it so None of the players in the superbowl could play so an additional group of players had the chance. It isn't an increase in the number of players who have to play, only a change in which players have the chance.


While I agree that the players might want to be in and still be playing, it doesn't mean that it doesn't affect the # of work days expected to the labor pool. It does and affects the work schedule for players, so the union is going to want to be involved. Even if it is just to get other concessions from the owners. It is the overstep that is the definition of today's unions, even when the change assists the workers, they still want to get more out of it. As much as I don't like union tactics overall, it doesn't change that the union is there and the legal contracts maintain that the union has to sign off on it.

Much like the IR exemption, it only helps players by being able to return to the field and possibly earn more incentives in their contracts. Yet the Union was standing in the NFL's path to make sure they approved a change to the possibly work contract of a player.

Players across the league are signed to a NFL contract, in that contract they are signing on for the defined league year as defined in the Bylaws and adopted by the CBA. Any change to that contract, which includes the playoffs, is changing the defined work agreed upon by the Union and NFL.

As far as the Holiday Inn comment, this is one area in which I actually have both experience and education. 5 years managing a Union Shop glass plant and 3 years of Business and Corporate law in college. There isn't a judge out there that is not going to agree that this isn't a significant change in the defined labor agreement.
Offline PackerTraxx  
#48 Posted : Friday, December 28, 2012 9:37:06 AM(UTC)
Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 8/13/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 139
Applause Received: 237
Don't expand.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
5 Pages«<345
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Fan Shout
GoPack1984 (5m) : Dismal season? I think that's too harsh.
uffda udfa (6m) : Packers should have never been 4-6. Dismal season.
GoPack1984 (9m) : ...with the current defense.
GoPack1984 (9m) : Good season. Great rebound from 4-6. Would have loved to have seen them go to the Super Bowl and win, but I don't know if that was realistic
uffda udfa (15m) : •thanks Shakespeare.
The_Green_Ninja (24m) : Mike at the end of the day is with the team every day and knows what is needed and not needed. Don't be surprised if Mike helps push the cha
Nonstopdrivel (28m) : Bated*
uffda udfa (31m) : It won't change until Ted is gone. I await that day with baited breath.
uffda udfa (32m) : Nobody has ever lost a championship game by as big of a margin as us. Title Town revolt.
uffda udfa (32m) : Did I hear wrong or was that the biggest beatdown in championship game history? Nice.
Nonstopdrivel (35m) : ndedly fill in all the holes on the roster.
Nonstopdrivel (42m) : I do get the same sort of complacent vibe from the Packers front office that cost Bill Polian his job. You can't rely on the QB to single-ha
The_Green_Ninja (55m) : Thomas Brady has been given tools his whole career. It's up to the Packers to start doing the same.
The_Green_Ninja (55m) : As much as I loved brett, Aaron is right. We need more tools and HE is the QB that deserves the tools
shield4life (57m) : & management
shield4life (57m) : Blame the coaching
The_Green_Ninja (58m) : This is near the same time Brett started saying the same stuff.
uffda udfa (1h) : That is exactly what Aaron is saying. We don't do what needs to be done to win. Same song over and over.
uffda udfa (1h) : Aaron is a troll and a hater and doesn't understand the game. Who is he to say such things?
Zero2Cool (1h) : Probably reading into it wrong, but I think he's saying to front office. Do. More!
Zero2Cool (1h) : Rodgers says "We just gotta make sure we're going all-in every year to win....we can take a big step this off-season"
uffda udfa (1h) : MM: We ran into a buzzsaw today. LOL. U came with no tools at all.
hardrocker950 (2h) : They showed up and played, we crawled in and died...
mojaveson (2h) : Kudos to the Falcons. I hope they win the Super Bowl.
uffda udfa (2h) : All credit to ATL. Not a word about needing to get better.
Zero2Cool (2h) : Ran out of talent, something we didn't have a plethora of on defense (my opinion)
uffda udfa (2h) : MM: Ran out of gas but proud of his guys.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions

Think About It
Think About It

Recent Topics
5m / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis

8m / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis

12m / Around The NFL / mojaveson

17m / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis

49m / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

1h / Announcements / wpr

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / mojaveson

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / mojaveson

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / mojaveson

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis


Packers Headlines