Trump disinvited Eagles to the White House

[*Nately120*]

(06-05-2018, 04:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump also says that teams staying in the locker room is just as disrespectful as kneeling during the anthem.  Does not accept the NFL's new rule that allows that option.

Gee, who saw that coming?  It does amuse me that so many NFL owners who donated to Trump's campaign are now watching him use his presidential influence to damage their business.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2018, 11:14 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Gee, who saw that coming?  It does amuse me that so many NFL owners who donated to Trump's campaign are now watching him use his presidential influence to damage their business.  

To be fair, the NFL hurt its own business by completely screwing the pooch in their response to the protests.  A simple edict from the league office stating protests of any kind are not permitted while in uniform or on league property.  Problem solved.  Instead they tried to straddle the fence and the only thing that accomplishes is squashing your nuts.

[Dill]

(06-05-2018, 08:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Agreed.  I honestly think the left-wing would be complaining about everything any Republican president does, even if he didn't happen to spend the last 30+ years and the entire campaign cycle being a giant d-bag.

I am pretty sure that, since Washington left office, the party out of power has complained about the president of the party in power. And we have just come out of 8 years of the right wing complaining about everything a democratic president did, one who hadn't spent the last 30+ years and two entire campaign cycles being a giant d-bag.

But there is a difference between complaints--like opposition to Reagan's tax cuts and use of attack adds--and COMPLAINTS--like opposition to authorizing burglary and lies which lead the country to unnecessary war and thousands of unnecessary deaths. 

What is interesting about the current conjuncture is that we have president who has violated more of the unwritten political norms which both parties agree are necessary to good government, generated more scandal and behaved more "unpresidentially" than any previous president except Nixon, and appears to be rearranging our international alliances without knowing anything about foreign policy--yet people speak as if the admittedly unprecedented volume of criticism this generates is as much or more a problem with the character of Trump's opponents than the president himself.

[*Nately120*]

(06-06-2018, 11:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To be fair, the NFL hurt its own business by completely screwing the pooch in their response to the protests.  A simple edict from the league office stating protests of any kind are not permitted while in uniform or on league property.  Problem solved.  Instead they tried to straddle the fence and the only thing that accomplishes is squashing your nuts.

Yeah, but I have to assume the NFL wasn't as sure that it could just fire any player who protested if enough players called their bluff on it.  That's what Trump and his supporters want, I assume.

At any rate, the NFL doing anything in an attempt to please Trump and/or convince him to stop targeting them would be a fool's errand in my mind.  They have an entire labor pool to worry about, because Trump is never going to stop this.

[Au165]

(06-06-2018, 11:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To be fair, the NFL hurt its own business by completely screwing the pooch in their response to the protests.  A simple edict from the league office stating protests of any kind are not permitted while in uniform or on league property.  Problem solved.  Instead they tried to straddle the fence and the only thing that accomplishes is squashing your nuts.

They can say it but any establishment of player punishment would have had to been collectively bargained. Basically, they can outlaw it but can't do anything about it. This is why in the new rule they are punishing the teams for any players who violate this rule.

[*Nately120*]

(06-06-2018, 11:35 AM)Au165 Wrote: They can say it but any establishment of player punishment would have had to been collectively bargained. Basically, they can outlaw it but can't do anything about it. This is why in the new rule they are punishing the teams for any players who violate this rule.

Not to mention the SB winning team, a team which had no players kneel during the NFL season, was uninvited to the white house because they aren't standing for the anthem...apparently.  The idea that the NFL can do anything to placate Trump when he's making such a splash by throwing gasoline on this fire is a larf.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2018, 11:32 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, but I have to assume the NFL wasn't as sure that it could just fire any player who protested if enough players called their bluff on it.  That's what Trump and his supporters want, I assume.

I've made this point in the past.  Willie Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats to raise domestic violence awareness.  His mother was murdered in front of him by his father.  If you can punish that guy for that gesture then you can easily punish people for protesting, or making any statement not approved by the league, while on the job.  Any such policy, executed consistently and fairly (admittedly not a Goodell strong point) will be upheld in court and the players will eventually acknowledge the league's right to this position.

Quote:At any rate, the NFL doing anything in an attempt to please Trump and/or convince him to stop targeting them would be a fool's errand in my mind.  They have an entire labor pool to worry about, because Trump is never going to stop this.

You're looking at this through Trump glasses.  Trump didn't create the situation, he exacerbated it.  Yes, I've heard the arguments that the protests were dying down before Trump reignited them.  I think that's a bit of revisionist history but I also know that people who were upset about the protests didn't start being upset the minute Trump weighed in.  Quite simply, Trump just kept the issue in the mainstream limelight, but NFL fans already had their opinions on the subject decided.


Trump is very good at finding meaningless issues he can whip up a furor over.  The NFL's mistake was in letting there be an issue for him to target.  They made the classic business mistake of doing nothing rather than taking decisive action.  They let the tide and currents of the news cycle control this topic and shape the narrative.  They have no one but themselves to blame for the current situation.

[Au165]

(06-06-2018, 11:39 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Not to mention the SB winning team, a team which had no players kneel during the NFL season, was uninvited to the white house because they aren't standing for the anthem...apparently.  The idea that the NFL can do anything to placate Trump when he's making such a splash by throwing gasoline on this fire is a larf.

Except this narrative is false.....the Eagles did not have anyone kneel during the season ( one guy who was cut did in preseason).

[Au165]

(06-06-2018, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've made this point in the past.  Willie Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats to raise domestic violence awareness.  His mother was murdered in front of him by his father.  If you can punish that guy for that gesture then you can easily punish people for protesting, or making any statement not approved by the league, while on the job.  Any such policy, executed consistently and fairly (admittedly not a Goodell strong point) will be upheld in court and the players will eventually acknowledge the league's right to this position.

False. The uniform was collective bargained and any changes are spelled out as having a penalty. Creating new working conditions requires collective bargaining and therefor could not be imposed unilaterally.

Side note: there has been discussion that the NFLPA may go after the NFL for the new rule, but they worry they can not win because there is no real punishment to the players. In reality it is the owners punishing the owners if the players violate the rule which would be outside the purview of the NFLPA.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2018, 11:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: False. The uniform was collective bargained and any changes are spelled out as having a penalty. Creating new working conditions requires collective bargaining and therefor could not be imposed unilaterally.

Not false.  Employers have wide latitude under US and state law to prohibit workplace activity.  Every potential infraction does not have to be listed for it to be addressed punitively.  Quite simply if the owners punished a player for failing to follow league rules then the courts would absolutely uphold it.  The CBA absolutely has a clause regarding player conduct and using the NFL to promote your political beliefs is certainly covered by that.

Quote:Side note: there has been discussion that the NFLPA may go after the NFL for the new rule, but they worry they can not win because there is no real punishment to the players. In reality it is the owners punishing the owners if the players violate the rule which would be outside the purview of the NFLPA.

The PA will lose because there is clear and well established precedent in US law that employers can censure the speech of their employees while in the workplace, and sometimes outside of it.  If you doubt me then ask yourself why Jamele Hill didn't sue ESPN regarding her suspension over twitter posts.

[Millhouse]

(06-06-2018, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've made this point in the past.  Willie Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats to raise domestic violence awareness.  His mother was murdered in front of him by his father.  If you can punish that guy for that gesture then you can easily punish people for protesting, or making any statement not approved by the league, while on the job.  Any such policy, executed consistently and fairly (admittedly not a Goodell strong point) will be upheld in court and the players will eventually acknowledge the league's right to this position.


You're looking at this through Trump glasses.  Trump didn't create the situation, he exacerbated it.  Yes, I've heard the arguments that the protests were dying down before Trump reignited them.  I think that's a bit of revisionist history but I also know that people who were upset about the protests didn't start being upset the minute Trump weighed in.  Quite simply, Trump just kept the issue in the mainstream limelight, but NFL fans already had their opinions on the subject decided.


Trump is very good at finding meaningless issues he can whip up a furor over.  The NFL's mistake was in letting there be an issue for him to target.  They made the classic business mistake of doing nothing rather than taking decisive action.  They let the tide and currents of the news cycle control this topic and shape the narrative.  They have no one but themselves to blame for the current situation.

Thing is though it was dying down, until  Trump called kneelers "son of bitches" at some rally down in Alabama early on in the season. Then kaboom. But that is classic Trump. Rather than try to work through an issue like this with others, he doubled-down on his stance in an absolute way.

As Obi-Wan once said, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes".

[Au165]

(06-06-2018, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not false.  Employers have wide latitude under US and state law to prohibit workplace activity.  Every potential infraction does not have to be listed for it to be addressed punitively.  Quite simply if the owners punished a player for failing to follow league rules then the courts would absolutely uphold it.  The CBA absolutely has a clause regarding player conduct and using the NFL to promote your political beliefs is certainly covered by that.


The PA will lose because there is clear and well established precedent in US law that employers can censure the speech of their employees while in the workplace, and sometimes outside of it.  If you doubt me then ask yourself why Jamele Hill didn't sue ESPN regarding her suspension over twitter posts.

Employers have no latitude in a collectively bargained work agreement beyond the scope of the agreement. You are confusing unionized vs non unionized labor. The NFLPA has won many times over in court that changes to working conditions and terms of employment must be collectively bargained, this prohibition of how you may or may not protest would in fact be a change to terms of employment. Had it been there when the contracts were signed it would have been allowed but since it is not in this CBA they may not change those terms of employment. This doesn't fall under the personal conduct policy as defined by the CBA, this doesn't fall under game day procedures because those procedures offered no punishment for not following them when the CBA was negotiated. Everything else would fall outside the purview of the CBA so simply put, you are wrong no matter how much you want to believe they could have done something about it.

A professor at Harvard Business Law, Ben Sachs, who specializes in union labor laws basically said even the newest rules they just passed probably wouldn't hold up in court.

"The clearest illegality derives from the fact that the league adopted its new policy without bargaining with the players union. When employees, including football players, are represented by a union, the employer — including a football league — can't change the terms of employment without discussing the change with the union. Doing so is a flagrant violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith."

[*Nately120*]

(06-06-2018, 03:01 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Thing is though it was dying down, until  Trump called kneelers "son of bitches" at some rally down in Alabama early on in the season. Then kaboom. But that is classic Trump. Rather than try to work through an issue like this with others, he doubled-down on his stance in an absolute way.

As Obi-Wan once said, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes".

I think I'm fairly in tune with politics in my lifetime, but this is the first time I can recall when the president has actually stated that protesters should leave the country.  That sort of statement is what leads me to believe that there is no meeting Trump halfway on this one.  He's admitted that he says stuff he doesn't believe in order to get a reaction out of people, or to further his cause, but it's clear he's not going to show any amount of leniency on this one.

The NFL needs to order its players to leave the locker room and stand for the anthem or else fire them on the spot.  Until the NFL does this, Trump will gleefully point out what veteran-hating bastards they all are and then he will honor our great heroes of the military by fumbling his way through the anthem himself.

[HarleyDog]

(06-06-2018, 11:02 AM)Dill Wrote: Just curious--what past behaviors or policies made you feel disrespected and taken advantage of?

And are you saying that now, under Trump, you are respected and no longer taken advantage of?

This is a fair question. Although I don't have a lot of time to address, I want to. I will attempt to address this when I have time. But I can tell you, I feel there have been a lot of positives. The economy has had a shot in the arm. Many jobs are out there and they pay better. People are getting some of their (as Pelosi calls it) bread crumbs back to feed their own families. Plus, working in a very overregulated trucking industry, there has been some relief. Jobs are being saved and the (rather you have been informed or not) driver shortage that was quickly going to cripple this country could possibly be on the cusp of a turn around. There are several reasons why I say what I say and these are just a few.

My taxes are lower, I keep more money, and even though there is a lot of work to be done, I'm hoping he goes there. He has kept more promises than any President that I can remember, and has also failed a few. 

TBH, I dislike the left and the right. I think neither have our best interest at heart. But in my 50yrs of hearing promises with most not being answered and many times voting for the lesser evil? He's done better than most. 

[fredtoast]

(06-06-2018, 05:57 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: This is a fair question. Although I don't have a lot of time to address, I want to. I will attempt to address this when I have time. But I can tell you, I feel there have been a lot of positives. The economy has had a shot in the arm. Many jobs are out there and they pay better. People are getting some of their (as Pelosi calls it) bread crumbs back to feed their own families. Plus, working in a very overregulated trucking industry, there has been some relief. Jobs are being saved and the (rather you have been informed or not) driver shortage that was quickly going to cripple this country could possibly be on the cusp of a turn around. There are several reasons why I say what I say and these are just a few.

My taxes are lower, I keep more money, and even though there is a lot of work to be done, I'm hoping he goes there. He has kept more promises than any President that I can remember, and has also failed a few. 

TBH, I dislike the left and the right. I think neither have our best interest at heart. But in my 50yrs of hearing promises with most not being answered and many times voting for the lesser evil? He's done better than most. 

What specific regulations has he removed from the trucking industry.

Regulations do not just arise out of thin air in attempts to harm industry.  Regulations generally arise out of a need to protect the general populations.  And although I hear a lot about "over regulation" I can usually not get any details when I ask exactly which regulations need to be repealed.  So I am interested in hearing some details about what he has done to help the trucking industry.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2018, 03:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: Employers have no latitude in a collectively bargained work agreement beyond the scope of the agreement. You are confusing unionized vs non unionized labor. The NFLPA has won many times over in court that changes to working conditions and terms of employment must be collectively bargained, this prohibition of how you may or may not protest would in fact be a change to terms of employment. Had it been there when the contracts were signed it would have been allowed but since it is not in this CBA they may not change those terms of employment. This doesn't fall under the personal conduct policy as defined by the CBA, this doesn't fall under game day procedures because those procedures offered no punishment for not following them when the CBA was negotiated. Everything else would fall outside the purview of the CBA so simply put, you are wrong no matter how much you want to believe they could have done something about it.

A professor at Harvard Business Law, Ben Sachs, who specializes in union labor laws basically said even the newest rules they just passed probably wouldn't hold up in court.

"The clearest illegality derives from the fact that the league adopted its new policy without bargaining with the players union. When employees, including football players, are represented by a union, the employer — including a football league — can't change the terms of employment without discussing the change with the union. Doing so is a flagrant violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith."

Let me give you a for instance.  Player walks onto the field, in uniform, waiving a Confederate flag.  Claims he's doing to so to raise awareness of US history and plans to do it every game.  You think he get away with this every week with no action taken by the league or the team?

[fredtoast]

(06-06-2018, 10:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let me give you a for instance.  Player walks onto the field, in uniform, waiving a Confederate flag.  Claims he's doing to so to raise awareness of US history and plans to do it every game.  You think he get away with this every week with no action taken by the league or the team?

Sure he would.  NFL owners do whatever Trump tells them.  No way they would punish a member of his base.

[Au165]

(06-06-2018, 10:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let me give you a for instance.  Player walks onto the field, in uniform, waiving a Confederate flag.  Claims he's doing to so to raise awareness of US history and plans to do it every game.  You think he get away with this every week with no action taken by the league or the team?

Depends, is there something in the CBA preventing it? If not then no, action can't be taken against said player. This is why labor negotiations get so heated, because they literally have to fight for every little detail on working conditions. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-07-2018, 08:06 AM)Au165 Wrote: Depends, is there something in the CBA preventing it? If not then no, action can't be taken against said player. This is why labor negotiations get so heated, because they literally have to fight for every little detail on working conditions. 

So then you admit that you're not sure if the current CBA prohibits political protest while "on the clock".  I can't imagine it doesn't, in some fashion, as every employer in the United States has some rule against political activity on the job.  Hell, even bars have a rule against talking politics.  

[Au165]

(06-07-2018, 10:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So then you admit that you're not sure if the current CBA prohibits political protest while "on the clock".  I can't imagine it doesn't, in some fashion, as every employer in the United States has some rule against political activity on the job.  Hell, even bars have a rule against talking politics.  

No, not what I said at all. In your example you mentioned a flag and tied a "protest" to it. I was saying does the CBA prevent you from carrying a flag, similar to how it doesn't prevent them from kneeling. The CBA doesn't stop political speech as it isn't referenced anywhere in it and would have to have been collectively bargained for it to appear, in fact the NFL has said on multiple accounts now and in the past it supports it's players first amendment rights to speech of all kinds. That is why it would be required that the action itself is banned by the CBA not the "meaning" behind the action. 

As much as you want to act like they could do something, you are severely under appreciating the power of unionized labor and the protections the CBA affords the players as that labor force. As we saw in the last CBA negotiations and all the legal battles over punishments since, courts continually differ to the CBA and the agreed upon working conditions negotiated by the two parties. This is why Tom Brady and Zeek Elliot's suspensions were upheld in court. The courts said that based on the CBA no matter how crazy their "findings" were, that power to punish for these instances were given to the commissioner in the CBA. No power was ever granted to the league to punish for pregame political displays.