Ten things to know, right now, about the labor situation
Posted by Mike Florio on February 11, 2011, 3:24 PM EST
Last month, we slapped together a snapshot of
10 things to know, as of the day on last month when we slapped it together, about the labor situation.
Much has happened since January 12, so it?s time to look as 10 things to know right now, now that we?ve slapped together 10 things to know.
And, yes, there?s some repetition. But most of it is new. And all of it is stuff that you need to know right now.
Starting . . . . now.
1. A lockout is virtually certain at this point.
Last time around, we explained that a lockout would happen long before September. It?s now clear, given the comments of NFL lawyer Bob Batterman and subsequent remarks from Commissioner Roger Goodell, that a lockout will begin on March 4.
Goodell says that 490 players due to become free agents on March 4 won?t become free agents absent a new deal. Though Goodell has been reluctant to admit that free agents won?t become free agents only if the league implements a lockout, the message is clear.
Without an agreement, a lockout is coming on March 4.
There?s another reason to expect a lockout. ESPN?s Chris Mortensen pointed out during a Friday appearance on
Mike & Mike in the Morning that the league wants, as we?ve surmised, to escape the jurisdiction of Judge David Doty. It will happen if the current agreement expires. And if the current agreement expires, the league will implement a lockout, pending the negotiation of a new deal that wouldn?t fall under Doty?s umbrella if it?s finalized after the current agreement expires.
Of course, the union could agree before the current deal expires to an extension that would fall beyond Doty?s jurisdiction, but at this point we can?t imagine either side agreeing to anything without getting something in return.
2. The union still has the ability to try to block a lockout.
During the 2010 regular season, the NFLPA embarked on a series of meetings with players from every team. Systematically, the union obtained advance approval to decertify in the face of a lockout.
Derided by the NFL as a decision to ?go out of business,? decertification would prevent the league from locking out the players by converting the NFLPA from a legally-recognized union into a collection of individual, non-union workers. Some think that the NFL would challenge the maneuver as a sham, but such an approach would entail P.R. risks, since the NFL would be using litigation in order to force a lockout on the players. Given that the NFL has repeatedly criticized the union for using litigation in place of negotiation, it would be a challenging exercise in double-talk for the league to resort to litigation against the union.
It remains to be seen whether the union will decertify. If the union fails to decertify, it will prove that the effort was a ruse aimed only at making the NFL think that decertification could occur.
If decertfication happens, the league then would be compelled to craft across-the-board rules regarding free agency, the draft, and player salaries. The union would likely respond by filing an antitrust lawsuit, arguing that the league consists of 32 separate businesses that cannot work together to place common limits on its workers. (This is why the
American Needle case was viewed as being critical to the labor situation, even though the facts center on marketing deals. If the league had secured a ruling from the Supreme Court that it is one business, an antitrust claim based on labor rules may have been doomed from the start.)
We?ve heard that the union possibly won?t decertify because the union is concerned that the rules implemented by the league for a non-union work force would have a much better shot at withstanding an antritrust lawsuit than the rules employed after the failed strike of 1987. If the union decertifies, files an antitrust lawsuit, and then loses the case, the players will be in a much worse position than they are right now.
cont...
