The Home of Arena Football Fans since 1998

ArenaFan.com :: View topic - ? on CBA
AlbumAlbum   FAQFAQ    SearchSearch  ProfileProfile  Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages  
? on CBA
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic Reply to topic    ArenaFan.com Forum Index -> AFL
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gigisa
Veteran

Joined: 01 Jan 2001
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:47 am    Post subject: ? on CBA Reply with quote

I have a question, maybe silly or naive, but someone could explain to me why the AFL without CBA can not play while the other Indoor Leagues can do it?
_________________
Ciao
Giancarlo
ArenaFan #1 in Italy
ArenaFan AFL Pick'Em 2008 Champion
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageAIM AddressYahoo Messenger
afdave
ArenaFan Staff

Joined: 01 Jan 2001
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only reason I can think of is that there are players who have signed on "legally" through the AFLPU, so, if the AFLPU can't come to an agreement with the AFL as an entity, any of those players (who would all be considered AFL "stars" I assume, as much as there are any "stars" in the AFL anymore) would be effectively "crossing a picket line" (and in addition may face legal ramifications from the AFLPU for doing so) if they signed an AFL contract without a CBA in place.

So, from an AFL teams perspective, to get access to those "premier" players, they need the CBA. The question becomes... are those players "worth" the hassle? Why not just go "sorry you signed up with the idiots at the AFLPU... call us up when you get out of your AFLPU contract" and go forward like the rest of the leagues as you are saying, without any sort of "player/union agreement".

I'm no lawyer though, so, others might have a better understanding.
_________________
Play FREE Online Trivia for Prizes, CLICK HERE!

Arenafan on Twitter | Arenafan on Facebook
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageAIM AddressYahoo Messenger
Big Mike
Starter

Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Location: Coventry, Rhode Island
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I know none of the other leagues have players' unions.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Firstnten.net
Ironman

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm under the impression the players can play without a CBA. But that wouldn't stop Soto and the AFLPU from filing a bunch of complaints with the NLRB and basically legally stopping the AFL from functioning. This of course is what I gleaned off of the NLRB site and case history. And I'm no lawyer.

Storm should be able to better clarify this stuff since he's has labor law background.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
billscarnage
MVP

Joined: 27 Jun 2013
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They could play, but like Dave and Firstnten mention there would likely be legal issues for players under contract.

A more likely and easier option is the players vote to de-unionize. The players all become FA's and can sign wherever they want. Of course they lose the support/protection of the union for various costs and expenses.

A good owner would take care of the players union or not, but it can be a dicey situation when it comes to an injury and medical costs.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
AFLNerd36
All Pro

Joined: 19 Jun 2016
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

billscarnage wrote:
They could play, but like Dave and Firstnten mention there would likely be legal issues for players under contract.

A more likely and easier option is the players vote to de-unionize. The players all become FA's and can sign wherever they want. Of course they lose the support/protection of the union for various costs and expenses.

A good owner would take care of the players union or not, but it can be a dicey situation when it comes to an injury and medical costs.


Voting to de-unionize might be the best option at this point... and then re-unionize without Ivan Soto at any level.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
sportsrankings
 

Joined: 04 Mar 2015
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw the demands they’re asking for, yikes

I would imagine the insurance for the league kills it or do they just use workers comp?


Last edited by sportsrankings on Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
TargetToad
Hall of Famer

Joined: 31 May 2017
Location: Lutz, FL
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sportsrankings wrote:
I saw the demands they’re asking for, yikes

I would imagine the insurance for the league kills it or do they just workers comp?

Workers Comp might have been the major factor, other than the Butera-Fry hissyfit, as to why San Jose didn't return in 2016.
_________________
Storm 5ever, Sharks & Preds Nev3r #TT4AFLcommish BRING BACK IRONMAN FOOTBALL
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailAIM Address
gigisa
Veteran

Joined: 01 Jan 2001
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you all for the answers ...
... even more so I still do not understand how the parties can not agree to save our League: January 10 and no good, indeed no news at all.

As much as you want to see the glass half full, I do not know if we'll make it this time Crying or Very sad
_________________
Ciao
Giancarlo
ArenaFan #1 in Italy
ArenaFan AFL Pick'Em 2008 Champion
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageAIM AddressYahoo Messenger
mactheknife
MVP

Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AFLNerd36 wrote:
Voting to de-unionize might be the best option at this point... and then re-unionize without Ivan Soto at any level.


There is precedent for this, but for different aims: the NFLPA has, on at least two occasions, decertified itself from union status. How that's done or what that would do to extricate the AFLPU from that idiot Soto I don't know, but such a move would not be without precedent.

An AFLPU decertification would not however, make everyone a free agent. Whether or not there is a union in place doesn't affect that aspect of a contract between a team/league and a player.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
afdave
ArenaFan Staff

Joined: 01 Jan 2001
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah... and just to be clear, I never claimed that... the contract between a player and the league is certainly different than any agreements/contracts between the player and the AFLPU. The latter is what I was talking about... if certain (and "high profile") AFL players are "bound" to the AFLPU, if there is no CBA with the AFLPU while it is "certified", then they would be barred (I'd imagine?) from playing or signing an AFL contract.

That is what the impasse is about right now I'd imagine. If a player like Radenbaugh lets say is bound to the AFLPU, then, the league needs to get the CBA done to have him back at QB for the Soul. The question remains, as I brought up... at what point is it worth it to the league to just say "Fine, we'll go forward without those 'AFLPU' bound players, see ya".
_________________
Play FREE Online Trivia for Prizes, CLICK HERE!

Arenafan on Twitter | Arenafan on Facebook
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageAIM AddressYahoo Messenger
4th&long
Hall of Famer

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

afdave wrote:
Yeah... and just to be clear, I never claimed that... the contract between a player and the league is certainly different than any agreements/contracts between the player and the AFLPU. The latter is what I was talking about... if certain (and "high profile") AFL players are "bound" to the AFLPU, if there is no CBA with the AFLPU while it is "certified", then they would be barred (I'd imagine?) from playing or signing an AFL contract.

That is what the impasse is about right now I'd imagine. If a player like Radenbaugh lets say is bound to the AFLPU, then, the league needs to get the CBA done to have him back at QB for the Soul. The question remains, as I brought up... at what point is it worth it to the league to just say "Fine, we'll go forward without those 'AFLPU' bound players, see ya".


If they (philly or any team) jumps leagues they can kiss the CBA issues goodbye. They lost 2 long time well run franchises- that fit the so called Butera model - its time to move on. Only thing I could see is a short 4 team season to see how the NAL does this year and then flip to them in 2019.
Soto has nothing but his d__k in his hand and NO leverage in a dying league and is playing hardball, 2 franchises down, 3 more to go and an expansion team. AFLPU is out of touch.
_________________
4th


Last edited by 4th&long on Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
AFLNerd36
All Pro

Joined: 19 Jun 2016
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

afdave wrote:
Yeah... and just to be clear, I never claimed that... the contract between a player and the league is certainly different than any agreements/contracts between the player and the AFLPU. The latter is what I was talking about... if certain (and "high profile") AFL players are "bound" to the AFLPU, if there is no CBA with the AFLPU while it is "certified", then they would be barred (I'd imagine?) from playing or signing an AFL contract.

That is what the impasse is about right now I'd imagine. If a player like Radenbaugh lets say is bound to the AFLPU, then, the league needs to get the CBA done to have him back at QB for the Soul. The question remains, as I brought up... at what point is it worth it to the league to just say "Fine, we'll go forward without those 'AFLPU' bound players, see ya".


Theoretically, then, you could play with a bunch of NFL rejects without a contract with the AFLPU... or NAL/IFL/CIF/AAL rookies... that's an interesting twist....
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
LoveFB
 

Joined: 30 Aug 2017
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Contrary to popular belief, when the Union started, a majority of players were not on board. In very basic terms, to get started they needed a mere 30% of the players to sign cards indicating they want a union. Then, an election is held almost immediately. If a majority of those voting voted for the union, a union is created. Note I said a majority of those voting, so if only 10 voted, 6 votes "for" would carry the day for hundreds of players. When the CBA was originally started, less than 20% of the players wanted this, either because they chose not to attend the vote, or could care less. But a very few amount of players did vote, and a union was created. Now to get rid of it, they have to de-certify which is another procedure. The ultimate bottom line was the only ones benefitting from the union were those being paid nice sums to run the union. Even though most players did not care to vote in the election for whatever reason, they were forced into the union and the resultant astronomical dues each must pay out of their pay check by automatic deduction, to pay the salaries of the union operatives who generally are not players. It was a vicious cycle and really (IMO) not worth any benefit to the players. But the reality is, if you get 2 players to try and start up a union, all they need do is acquire 30% of the members to back them, have the election, and if only 10 people show up to vote in the election, a 6-4 vote for the union would create a union for ALL the players. Not really fair but this is the power of the teamsters. Did the players reap benefits? Not really - all it did was drive up the costs for every one involved. And no, workers comp insurance has nothing to do with the union. Bottom line is the only folks benefitting are the union bosses.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
TargetToad
Hall of Famer

Joined: 31 May 2017
Location: Lutz, FL
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LoveFB wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, when the Union started, a majority of players were not on board. In very basic terms, to get started they needed a mere 30% of the players to sign cards indicating they want a union. Then, an election is held almost immediately. If a majority of those voting voted for the union, a union is created. Note I said a majority of those voting, so if only 10 voted, 6 votes "for" would carry the day for hundreds of players. When the CBA was originally started, less than 20% of the players wanted this, either because they chose not to attend the vote, or could care less. But a very few amount of players did vote, and a union was created. Now to get rid of it, they have to de-certify which is another procedure. The ultimate bottom line was the only ones benefitting from the union were those being paid nice sums to run the union. Even though most players did not care to vote in the election for whatever reason, they were forced into the union and the resultant astronomical dues each must pay out of their pay check by automatic deduction, to pay the salaries of the union operatives who generally are not players. It was a vicious cycle and really (IMO) not worth any benefit to the players. But the reality is, if you get 2 players to try and start up a union, all they need do is acquire 30% of the members to back them, have the election, and if only 10 people show up to vote in the election, a 6-4 vote for the union would create a union for ALL the players. Not really fair but this is the power of the teamsters. Did the players reap benefits? Not really - all it did was drive up the costs for every one involved. And no, workers comp insurance has nothing to do with the union. Bottom line is the only folks benefitting are the union bosses.
and that is why, in general, unions are bad for the worker.
_________________
Storm 5ever, Sharks & Preds Nev3r #TT4AFLcommish BRING BACK IRONMAN FOOTBALL
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailAIM Address
famicommander
Starter

Joined: 13 Jul 2009
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Labor union" is Orwellian doublespeak for employment cartel.
_________________
------
Waiting rather impatiently for Arenaball to return to Denver.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
AFLNerd36
All Pro

Joined: 19 Jun 2016
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

famicommander wrote:
"Labor union" is Orwellian doublespeak for employment cartel.


Especially in this case....
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
famicommander
Starter

Joined: 13 Jul 2009
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AFLNerd36 wrote:
famicommander wrote:
"Labor union" is Orwellian doublespeak for employment cartel.

Especially in this case....

In every case.

Labor unions have always rested on the threat of physical violence, either by the union itself or the government acting on its behalf. Not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain with their employers, nor that the employers are always in the right. But when you're enforcing it with the threat of violence, that's not a "bargain" anymore, it's theft.
_________________
------
Waiting rather impatiently for Arenaball to return to Denver.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
Shaun_Albany
Starter

Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Location: Albany, NY
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LoveFB wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, when the Union started, a majority of players were not on board. In very basic terms, to get started they needed a mere 30% of the players to sign cards indicating they want a union. Then, an election is held almost immediately. If a majority of those voting voted for the union, a union is created. Note I said a majority of those voting, so if only 10 voted, 6 votes "for" would carry the day for hundreds of players. When the CBA was originally started, less than 20% of the players wanted this, either because they chose not to attend the vote, or could care less. But a very few amount of players did vote, and a union was created. Now to get rid of it, they have to de-certify which is another procedure. The ultimate bottom line was the only ones benefitting from the union were those being paid nice sums to run the union. Even though most players did not care to vote in the election for whatever reason, they were forced into the union and the resultant astronomical dues each must pay out of their pay check by automatic deduction, to pay the salaries of the union operatives who generally are not players. It was a vicious cycle and really (IMO) not worth any benefit to the players. But the reality is, if you get 2 players to try and start up a union, all they need do is acquire 30% of the members to back them, have the election, and if only 10 people show up to vote in the election, a 6-4 vote for the union would create a union for ALL the players. Not really fair but this is the power of the teamsters. Did the players reap benefits? Not really - all it did was drive up the costs for every one involved. And no, workers comp insurance has nothing to do with the union. Bottom line is the only folks benefitting are the union bosses.


Your premise that the majority of players didn't want the union, based on the fact that most did not vote is flawed. If players really didn't want the union they would have voted, and voted no. The fact that most didn't cast a ballot is only proof of apathy, not lack of desire for the union, or desire not to have one.

Further proof of that fact is that, as you point out, there is a process for getting rid of a union - decertification. The fact that the players haven't chosen to launch a decertification is proof that there isn't an overwhelming desire to not have a union.
_________________
Building an Empire
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Firstnten.net
Ironman

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaun_Albany wrote:
LoveFB wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, when the Union started, a majority of players were not on board. In very basic terms, to get started they needed a mere 30% of the players to sign cards indicating they want a union. Then, an election is held almost immediately. If a majority of those voting voted for the union, a union is created. Note I said a majority of those voting, so if only 10 voted, 6 votes "for" would carry the day for hundreds of players. When the CBA was originally started, less than 20% of the players wanted this, either because they chose not to attend the vote, or could care less. But a very few amount of players did vote, and a union was created. Now to get rid of it, they have to de-certify which is another procedure. The ultimate bottom line was the only ones benefitting from the union were those being paid nice sums to run the union. Even though most players did not care to vote in the election for whatever reason, they were forced into the union and the resultant astronomical dues each must pay out of their pay check by automatic deduction, to pay the salaries of the union operatives who generally are not players. It was a vicious cycle and really (IMO) not worth any benefit to the players. But the reality is, if you get 2 players to try and start up a union, all they need do is acquire 30% of the members to back them, have the election, and if only 10 people show up to vote in the election, a 6-4 vote for the union would create a union for ALL the players. Not really fair but this is the power of the teamsters. Did the players reap benefits? Not really - all it did was drive up the costs for every one involved. And no, workers comp insurance has nothing to do with the union. Bottom line is the only folks benefitting are the union bosses.


Your premise that the majority of players didn't want the union, based on the fact that most did not vote is flawed. If players really didn't want the union they would have voted, and voted no. The fact that most didn't cast a ballot is only proof of apathy, not lack of desire for the union, or desire not to have one.

Further proof of that fact is that, as you point out, there is a process for getting rid of a union - decertification. The fact that the players haven't chosen to launch a decertification is proof that there isn't an overwhelming desire to not have a union.


So the fact the a majority doesn’t vote is proof they are for something they didn’t vote for or even bother to participate in.

I could maybe buy into that had a player has to travel a distance to vote maybe
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic Reply to topic    ArenaFan.com Forum Index -> AFL View previous topic :: View next topic  
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group