You apparently have never worked for someone who have asked you to take a pay cut in order to keep having a job. Another sign of a union member that has no idea how business works.
Originally Posted by chief31
I have been in the scenario you described. I had to take a pay cut, or be laid off. That was the choice. The company was losing money and could not afford to stay in business. So for me it made perfect business sense so I could stay employed with the promise that when things get better, I will get my money back.
Typical drival from a liberal that again has no idea how business is run.
Originally Posted by Coach
You can see the people who supports the owners, those who have business backgrounds, that understand what it takes to run a business and how sometimes when times are bad, concessions have to be made.
The others are typically pro union people who never want to give anything back even when faced with massive layoffs, company closures and massive bailout deals from the government.
Think about it, if GM and Chrysler could have gotten their unions under control, a massive bailout for those companies would not have been needed.
I think both sides have legitimate concerns, such as the players related to their healthcare & retirement, not wanting to risk more injuries going to an 18 game season, but as well can understand the owners side from a business perspective. I've been on both sides of the coin, so maybe that's why I'm in the middle, go back & forth with choosing a side. :/
Edit for after thought...'or maybe I can't make up my mind which side I'm on cause I'm female, and naturally am fickle? Nah, not me!! hahahaha
I'm fully on the owners side. These folks were very wealthy before they owned NFL teams. They were successful business minded people long before the nfl players were playing football. Matter of fact, most of these players would not even have played football if there were no NFL. Without the NFL there probably would not be college football, or at least it would not be what it is today. My point is today in America people criticize success and businesses that make profits, and employees all want more without doing more, then they wonder why there are no jobs, we wonder why companies move out of the country or move over seas.
These owners could and may just find better investments for their money.
There are many really good minded and smart players that would go far in any profession but than theres many of these NFL players would be nobody without the NFL players, ever wonder why many are wife beaters and commit sex crimes, some steal cars, commit violent gun crimes, walk on airplanes with guns.I believe by their actions many feel they are above the law. They should be thanking the owners and fans, from their heart and actions.
And yes, some wealthy successful business men are just pure evil too.
See what happened to Baseball, teams are going broke, there are very few profitable teams left, and out of those, they have the money to buy whatever players they want because fans like teams that win, Take the Royals for example, The local fans are disappearing and every year you see more Yankees hats and shirts.
Thats what happens when the Union wins, it spoils the free market and America looses.
I would love to hear you prove why the 1995 baseball strike is the cause of the poor attendance today in 2011.
Originally Posted by 70 chiefsfan70
If you apply full free market concepts, there should be no union, no salary cap, and the leagues would be only a sports regulator, everyone sells TV rights for their own.
Originally Posted by 70 chiefsfan70
In that case scenario, happens what is it in almost every sport outside USA, there are a few successful teams, and others that only exists. Who own those teams? Rich people that wants to own a team, not to make profit.
What should have a good CBA? I think:
* minimum salaries
* maximum work burdens (games, OTA's, etc)
* health protection
* salary protection
* salary scale for rookies
* free agency rules
* salary cap according to profits
But that's pretty much what was last CBA. What is that owners want? More risk-free money. What??!!!! Hey an entrepreneur is exactly the opposite, someone that can risk his own money to make profits.
In this, I'm on players side (I don't think they are totally right thou).
PS: I have a master in business, I own a small company, I'm not a union man. I can make profits without a risk-free CBA.
I would agree with this. I think any CBA has to have a salary cap for all the teams to have a shot to win it all. I hate that MLB doesn't. Being an Indian fan sucks when you see players the indians drafted, worked throught the farm system, Brought to the majors. A couple of years later sign with the Yankees,Red sox, Phillies. (see the 09 world series game 1 starting pitchers.) If an agreement is reached without a salary cap I will proabley not be as into football as I am now.
Originally Posted by pojote
Originally Posted by Hayvern
I have been in two contract negotitations with the UAW and both times, concessions were made, including my taking four dollars an hour less than the previously hired, in order to keep jobs. (Even though the company just loop-holes their way aroound the agreement and move jobs out anyway.)
But best to just make assumptions on a whim, isn't it?
Not to mention I was in construction for over a deaced before joining The UAW.
You have no surprise cards to play in how your business runs.
I know all about it.
Primarily how non-union construction employees are treated.
As for your having been in that situation.... That was a different situation that you gave. It was not the same.
Your situation showed a company that was going to fail if you did not accept a paycut.
This is The NFL. There will be no failure for a very long time.
This is about somebody just wanting a higher profit than the ridiculous amount they already get.
But I will just take your word that you were not smart enough to go shopping around the indusrty for a better situation, and took whatever the owners offered without a second thought.
I believe that.
I just don't believe that you think that makes sense.
What is the common ground? Yes there is money, or profits to negotiate over. The problem is, no representation from players to negotiate. There is no union, they disbanded it, they are the ones going to court over this. Players are suing the owners. The owners want to negotiate, players want the courts to decide. I am all for some of the issues on both sides. Especially the retirement and pension items for retired players, but I am disappointed in the way the players never negotiate in good faith. To me that says, they do not care, they just want money.
IDK, I just wish I had some opportunity in my life that I could make the minimum salary that they all get. So in reality thinking. They are all, both sides, pissing me off!
In the last 20 years there have been 12 different teams to win the World Series and 13 different teams to win the Super Bowl. Seems salary caps dont make that much of a difference. Every team in MLB has the opportunity to go after big name players, they just choose not to.
Originally Posted by matthewschiefs