A couple of basic problems with that scenario Alz:

1) if the league opened its doors, the players would reorganize the union before Goodell could finish saying "welcome to the NFL."

2) without the union and the labor law preemption issues that come with it, you can't get around those pesky anti-trust laws.

The biggest issues facing the players remain the simplest.  1) A player's window of opportunity to play in the NFL is short.  An owner can take a lost year a lot easier than a player.  2) Some players failed to position themselves financially for a work stoppage.  There have already been several stories on loan institutions charging borderline usurious interest rates to loan players money to get by during the lockout.  The players were told by the union to keep a few of their game checks from last season in anticipation of this.  It's unlikely many of them listened.

Anti-Trust laws, basically outline your inability to limit a person's employment opportunities correct? Pushing the football league up to a single company does just that. If a company decides to relocate my group, or my position to Cleveland, I can either go, try to transfer within the company, or get laid off with a nice compensation package. I don't see why the same can't be allied with the NFL. You apply (sort of similar to declaring for the NFL draft), the board of owners gets together through all of the applicants, and decides who gets offers from where. Nothing forces someone to take the offer, but you have to wait until the next job fair (DRAFT/FA postings) to reapply. Or you can seek employment elsewhere.

I don't see this as a violation of anti-trust, not if you're dealing with a single company. If you work at a global architectural firm, you will need to go to Tokyo for a few years. You know that taking the job, and that's not anti-trust....

Well, they have no other football league to play in!! So what? That's not the NFL's fault, nobody stopped the XFL from existing, or CFL, or USFL, or NFL Europe... Go ahead and play with them!

alz wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

The biggest issues facing the players remain the simplest.  1) A player's window of opportunity to play in the NFL is short.  An owner can take a lost year a lot easier than a player.

While I understand this, I do not understand how this is the liability of the owner. A player suffering from poverty after any amount of time simply is bad at saving for retirement. 90% of a players check for the first 3-5 seasons needs to go to retirement and life after football. Live modestly, save your money. You get a huge contract? Again put 75% of it away, buy a nice house, a boat and a couple nice cars. Sure go ahead, but make sure you're putting 2-3 times the money you're spending away. Enterprise isn't liable for me not using a 401K, I don't understand how an owner should be. This is also my counterpoint to #2.

forsberg_us wrote:

2) Some players failed to position themselves financially for a work stoppage.  There have already been several stories on loan institutions charging borderline usurious interest rates to loan players money to get by during the lockout.  The players were told by the union to keep a few of their game checks from last season in anticipation of this.  It's unlikely many of them listened.

Again, how is this an owner's fault that a player has no comprehension of his financial situation? Nobody is going to take the fall for me if I prove moronic with my finances.... Nobody will bail out the owner if he can't pay for the team....

I never said this was an issue for the owners.  See bolded text above

alz wrote:

Anti-Trust laws, basically outline your inability to limit a person's employment opportunities correct?

Sort of.  The anti-trust laws are designed to promote free enterprise and prevent monopolization within an industry.  They are also designed to prevent price and salary fixing.  If the 32 teams suddenly formed under 1 umbrella (i.e., the NFL), that would be an unlawful monopoly.  There are anti-trust exemptions that come into play under the labor laws.  For example, it isn't unlawful for a group of employers to negotiate as a single entity when all of their employees are represented by the same union.  If you remember about 5 years ago when the supermarkets were on strike, Schnucks, Dierberg's and Shop N Save were negotiating as a multi-employer unit.  That's legal under the labor laws, but would be unlawful if the employees weren't members of a union.

With the players not being part of a union, the current NFL structure is extremely questionable.  You mention that your employer can move your job to Cleveland.  True, but they can't make you go.  Your only option may be to quit your job and go work for someone else, but you have that option.  Enterprise cannot prevent you from working for Hertz or any other similar company.

That's not the case in the NFL.  Players who are drafted are required to play for that team for a minimum of five years.  If you don't want to go to Cleveland, too bad.  The other 31 teams are prohibited from trying to hire you (subject to the restricted free agent rules).  You either report to Cleveland or you don't work in your chosen career.  That's a restraint of trade and is usually unlawful.

I'll give you another example, one that I deal with a lot in my current job.  I don't know what you do for Enterprise, but you may have been required to sign a non-compete agreement.  If not, I'm sure some of your co-workers have been required to do so.  Non-competes are tricky.  They are lawful, but only to the extent they are necessary to protect what the law calls a "protectible interest."  In most states, protectible interests are limited to customer contacts/goodwill and trade secrets.  Some states recognize a third interest where an employer provides specialized training. 

Using your employment as an example, if Enterprise required you to sign an agreement promising not to work for a competitor for one year, in most states that agreement probably isn't enforceable because it's a restraint of trade that limits your ability to earn a living.  However, if Enterprise asked you to sign an agreement that states you agree not to solicit or do business with their customers for a period of time, that sort of language is enforceable because you're free to work, albeit in a limited manner.  Similarly, if you are in a position where you have access to pricing, profit margins, business plans, marketing data, etc..., you might be asked to sign an agreement promising not to use or disclose Enterprise's confidential information.  That agreement would also be enforceable because a company derives an economic benefit from its confidential information.  You could still work, you just couldn't use Enterprise's confidential information for your or your new employer's advantage.

forsberg_us wrote:

alz wrote:

Final issue though, oh you want to form a union? I'm sorry we don't deal with collective bargaining or unions. We will talk with you as an individual employee of "The NFL" but nothing else. You want us to only deal with your union? Well it's been nice working with you, we'll mail your things to your home address, and here's a coach class ticket from Travelocity to get back home. Good day.

If only it was so easy.  That, sir, will get you a visit from the National Labor Relations Board.  Firing someone for union activities is a direct violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the NLRA.

Well that can simply kiss my (_|_)!

My job is non-union, how do you make a job non-union? I don't have to fire someone for union activities (let them have their club), but there's nothing that says I need to deal with that union to run my company. I can surely set my company policies in a handbook, have an employee sign off on them, run my company. Should they run foul of it and require discipline, there's a suspension or a fine. If the union calls for a strike, I remind them that anyone who leaves work without excuse is sitting on grounds for a termination, and they either want to lose their jobs/seniority/reviews/salary, or they don't correct?

alz wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

alz wrote:

Final issue though, oh you want to form a union? I'm sorry we don't deal with collective bargaining or unions. We will talk with you as an individual employee of "The NFL" but nothing else. You want us to only deal with your union? Well it's been nice working with you, we'll mail your things to your home address, and here's a coach class ticket from Travelocity to get back home. Good day.

If only it was so easy.  That, sir, will get you a visit from the National Labor Relations Board.  Firing someone for union activities is a direct violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the NLRA.

Well that can simply kiss my (_|_)!

My job is non-union, how do you make a job non-union? I don't have to fire someone for union activities (let them have their club), but there's nothing that says I need to deal with that union to run my company. I can surely set my company policies in a handbook, have an employee sign off on them, run my company. Should they run foul of it and require discipline, there's a suspension or a fine. If the union calls for a strike, I remind them that anyone who leaves work without excuse is sitting on grounds for a termination, and they either want to lose their jobs/seniority/reviews/salary, or they don't correct?

Alz, this was an entire 16 week course in law school.  But let me see if I can give you a nutshell version.

As the employer, you cannot make a job "non-union."  All companies begin as non-union entities, so let's use that as the default setting. 

Almost every employee has the right to organize a union and the employer is largely powerless to stop them.  Basically, the only thing the employer can do is make the conditions nice enough that the employees don't want to rock the boat.  Really what it comes down to is finding an employee who is willing to engage in the organizing efforts, a workforce willing to listen to the efforts, and a union willing to allow the employees to join.  The law actually permits the union to send employees out to apply for work with the sole purpose being trying to get the other employees to form a union.  The union employee is called a "salt," and under the law, a "salt" cannot be fired even though the only reason he/she took the job was for the union's benefit.

If the workforce is willing to listen, the organizer will then distribute union authorization cards.  The card signifies an employee's interest in joining the union.  Usually, a union will not begin full-blown organizing efforts until at least 30% of the employees sign authorization cards.

Once a full blown organizing effort starts, everything gets really dicey.  The employer's conduct is closely scrutinized.  For example, say one of the issues driving the employees to consider joining the union is wages.  The employer cannot increase salaries in hopes that the employees will stop the organizing effort.  That's illegal because the law views it as an effort to discourage unionization efforts.  If, during break time, the employer allows an employee to ask other employees to buy pizzas for their kids' school fundraiser, the employer must allow a union organizer to use break time to solicit employees to join the union, otherwise the employee is discriminating against union activities.  About the only thing the employer can lawfully do is make statements to the effect that it would prefer that the company remain non-union.  The employer still has the right to free speech, so long as he doesn't make unlawful promises or threats (such as you vote to bring in a union and I'm firing all of you).

If the union gets more than 50% of the employees to sign authorization cards (usually they shoot for about 60% assuming they'll lose some people), the union will then file for an election with the National Labor Relations Board.  The NLRB will schedule the election usually within about 30 days.  At the election, the employees within the "bargaining unit" get to vote whether or not they want the union.  The NLRB brings out voting booths just like a regular election, and the ballots are cast in secret.  Once the voting period is over, the votes are counted and the decision announced.  The union has to have a majority (ties go to the employer).

If the employees vote in favor of joining the union, they're in.  As the employer you are now required to negotiate with the union about all of the terms and conditions of the employees' employment.  Wages, benefits, work hours, disciplinary procedures, etc... all go on the table.  Your handbook--forget about it.  Your rules--forget them.  Everything is negotiable.  Under the law, you have a duty to bargain in good faith.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with what they ask for, and in the end you may never reach an agreement, but you have to try to reach an agreement.

If an agreement cannot be reached, the employees have the right to strike and the employer has the right to lockout its employees.  If the employees go on strike, the employer can hire replacements.  If it's considered an economic strike (meaning the strike was caused by an inability to agree to terms on issues such as wages, benefits, etc...), the employees can be permanently replaced.  However, if the strike is considered an unfair labor practice strike, replacements can only be hired on a temporary basis.  Frequently, before a strike vote, the union will file an unfair labor practice charge claiming that the employer isn't bargaining in good faith or something similar.  The purpose is to convert the strike to an unfair labor practice strike and prevent permanent replacements from being hired.

If the parties reach an agreement (with or without a strike), that agreement becomes the law of the business until it expires at which time the parties try to reach a new agreement and the possibility of a strike re-emerges.

Here's my favorite part--Union's will tell you that they're a democratic entity, but one of the first items the union will ask for in collective bargaining is a union security clause.  That's a clause in the agreement that requires every employee to join the union or be fired.  Whether you voted for the union or not, whether you want to be a part of the union or not, if you want to keep your job, you have to pay dues.  Usually the second clause they ask for is the Dues Deposit clause which allows the employer to withhold union dues from the employees' paychecks to guarantee that payments are received by the union.  Once the union gets their issues out of the way, then they begin negotiations over issues important to the employees.

Once the union is voted in, they remain in place until the business closes or the employees decide to decertify.  Even if the business owner sells the business, the new owner inherits the union unless he decides hire fewer than 50% of the old employees.  Decertification is a pretty difficult process that basically involves an employee (i.e., a union member) asking the NLRB for a re-vote.  It's difficult because you can imagine how ballsy one would have to be to try to kick out a union of which he/she is a member.  Imagine how he/she is treated if the vote fails.

That's the nutshell version.  If you want the detailed version, I can loan you a copy of "Developing Labor Law."  With the current supplement, it's only a 3-volume, 3,500 page book.

Fors. I gotta tell you (this isn't just labor laws, it's judicial as well as legislative), sometimes I think our law books have taken a serious wrong turn. I can see why that system was created, and it had nothing to do with professional entertainers.. That smacks more of protective legislation designed to protect the common workers by giving them a strong voice. It has downfalls and drawbacks, but all in all it's probably in the best interests of Mechanics, teachers, plumbers, etc to have something like that.

For professional athletes who's minimum salary is more than the president, I don't really enjoy the notion of allowing them to tap in and abuse the system of the common man... They don't get our 401K plan (they use Non-Qualified plans, income too high for a 401K), why are we sharing labor laws?