The Law Is on the N.F.L. Players’ Side

[CaliCat 3,957]

WTG.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/opinion/law-nfl-protests.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

 

As National Football League owners and players’ union representatives meet in New York today and tomorrow to discuss the players’ recent demonstrations — the kneeling, linking arms or raising fists during the national anthem — they should know how the law views these protests. This will not only tell them what the league lawfully can do; it also will reveal something about American values.

There has been some confusion about the law and the anthem protests. Because the First Amendment generally treats government and corporate power differently, allowing a business to impose on its workers what the government could not demand from its citizens, many people assume the N.F.L. has the legal authority to “bench” the protesters, as the Dallas Cowboy owner Jerry Jones threatened, or to say, in the words of President Trump, “Get that son of a off the field right now, out, he’s fired.”

But in this case, that analysis is mistaken. In fact, a confluence of bedrock laws are on the players’ side. Stifling the protests would be illegal.

Start with the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, which protects free speech and free association, the president of the United States could not enforce a law that, say, required football players to stand during the anthem. During World War II, the Supreme Court struck down such a demand for a flag salute during the Pledge of Allegiance. (Striving to distinguish the United States from its authoritarian adversaries, the court said its ruling gave “strength to individual freedom of mind in preference to officially disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a disappointing and disastrous end.”)

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

What about the NFL rule book that states that players will stand on the sidelines during the playing of the anthem?  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

What about the NFL rule book that states that players will stand on the sidelines during the playing of the anthem?  

 

     The NFL operations manual says players must be on the sideline for the anthem. It say players should stand. It says teams may be fined or lose draft picks for violations.

 

    The NFL rule book deals with rules that apply to the game on the field of play. It does not mention the national anthem.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

48 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     The NFL operations manual says players must be on the sideline for the anthem. It say players should stand. It says teams may be fined or lose draft picks for violations.

 

    The NFL rule book deals with rules that apply to the game on the field of play. It does not mention the national anthem.

Thanks.  I knew there was something in there.

[jayjayj 571]

18 hours ago, CaliCat said:

WTG.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/opinion/law-nfl-protests.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

 

As National Football League owners and players’ union representatives meet in New York today and tomorrow to discuss the players’ recent demonstrations — the kneeling, linking arms or raising fists during the national anthem — they should know how the law views these protests. This will not only tell them what the league lawfully can do; it also will reveal something about American values.

There has been some confusion about the law and the anthem protests. Because the First Amendment generally treats government and corporate power differently, allowing a business to impose on its workers what the government could not demand from its citizens, many people assume the N.F.L. has the legal authority to “bench” the protesters, as the Dallas Cowboy owner Jerry Jones threatened, or to say, in the words of President Trump, “Get that son of a off the field right now, out, he’s fired.”

But in this case, that analysis is mistaken. In fact, a confluence of bedrock laws are on the players’ side. Stifling the protests would be illegal.

Start with the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, which protects free speech and free association, the president of the United States could not enforce a law that, say, required football players to stand during the anthem. During World War II, the Supreme Court struck down such a demand for a flag salute during the Pledge of Allegiance. (Striving to distinguish the United States from its authoritarian adversaries, the court said its ruling gave “strength to individual freedom of mind in preference to officially disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a disappointing and disastrous end.”)

 

Anyone who knows anything about the NFL would never type "N.F.L.".  

 

NFL players have no right to employment.  Team owners have every right to employ or not employ any player for any reason they want.  They don't have to justify it to anyone. 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 hours ago, jayjayj said:

 

Anyone who knows anything about the NFL would never type "N.F.L.".  

 

NFL players have no right to employment.  Team owners have every right to employ or not employ any player for any reason they want.  They don't have to justify it to anyone. 

 

I am no lawyer, but that may not be 100% true in every state. Georgia is an employment at will state, other states not so much, and add to that the NFL, has a collective bargaining agreement further complicates the issue. Now, not hiring is another issue. 

 Usually it has been my experience in my many really great years of industrial management as long as you document cause and show progressive discipline you are fine. 

 

Of course that is for actions outside of race, gender , religion,  country of origin, sexual orention,  and age. Etc

 

 

 

Certainly not defending the kneeling crybaby,  just saying.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am no lawyer, but that may not be 100% true in every state. Georgia is an employment at will state, other states not so much, and add to that the NFL, has a collective bargaining agreement further complicates the issue. Now, not hiring is another issue. 

 Usually it has been my experience in my many really great years of industrial management as long as you document cause and show progressive discipline you are fine. 

 

Of course that is for actions outside of race, gender , religion,  country of origin, sexual orention,  and age. Etc

 

 

 

Certainly not defending the kneeling crybaby,  just saying.

 

  Also the team would still have to pay the guaranteed portion of the contract and have that money count against the salary cap. Teams won't do that. If a team does cut someone, it will be a low paid bench player that they want to make an example of.

 

  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, jayjayj said:

 

Anyone who knows anything about the NFL would never type "N.F.L.".  

 

NFL players have no right to employment.  Team owners have every right to employ or not employ any player for any reason they want.  They don't have to justify it to anyone. 

 

 

 

 

     For free agent players, owners don't have to have a reason not to employ a player, but they can't collude not to do so.

 

    For players already on a team, they can be cut without a specific reason, but they can't be cut for any reason. The collective bargaining agreement and labor laws still apply.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Also the team would still have to pay the guaranteed portion of the contract and have that money count against the salary cap. Teams won't do that. If a team does cut someone, it will be a low paid bench player that they want to make an example of.

 

  

And, you need to find and field a new player.

[jayjayj 571]

4 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

 

     For free agent players, owners don't have to have a reason not to employ a player, but they can't collude not to do so.

 

    For players already on a team, they can be cut without a specific reason, but they can't be cut for any reason. The collective bargaining agreement and labor laws still apply.

The collusion aspect seems to be Kap grasping at straws.  The most likely cause of him not being on a team is that most of the owners or coaches simply agree that his mediocre skills don't cancel out the downside (fan backlash) of having him on your team - agreement isn't necessarily collusion.  I thought Green Bay might give him a workout, now that Rodgers is injured, but it doesn't look like they are interested.

[jayjayj 571]

38 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

And, you need to find and field a new player.

Most teams have at least one backup player on the active squad for each position, the normal exception being kickers.  They also have additional players on the practice squad, who can be activated with short notice.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

29 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

But this time its free speech LOL

[Steeleballz 7,550]

58 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

But this time its free speech LOL

 

    Perhaps because the rule book addresses all of these issues as uniform code violations that occur in-game. The rule book does not cover things that happen before the game. As I said previously the operations manual covers what happens before the game, and the operations manual only says players need to be present on the sideline. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Perhaps because the rule book addresses all of these issues as uniform code violations that occur in-game. The rule book does not cover things that happen before the game. As I said previously the operations manual covers what happens before the game, and the operations manual only says players need to be present on the sideline. 

Yeah, um... no.  It was ok when Kaperloser wore pig socks representing cops.  Cuz that’s free speech, eh?