papazoid Posted April 8, 2011 Author Posted April 8, 2011 On Wednesday, Judge Susan Nelson made clear to the league and the players her desire that they resume negotiations toward a new contract. On Thursday, each side sent her a letter indicating a desire to comply with her wishes. The problem? Neither side wants to proceed on the terms that the other side has requested. The league (which doesn’t want a CBA to be supervised by Judge Nelson) wants to continue mediation with George Cohen, and the players (who believe that Cohen was too aligned with the owners) want to submit to mediation under the auspices of Judge Nelson, presumably by Judge Nelson appointing a mediator — and possibly by Judge Nelson mediating it herself. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/07/the-key-to-currying-favor-with-judge-nelson/
papazoid Posted April 8, 2011 Author Posted April 8, 2011 Boies makes compelling case for using Cohen as mediator: “There are substantial reasons to have these issues addressed in the context of a mediation conducted by the [Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service],” Boies writes. “As Your Honor probably knows, the NFL and NFLPA spent 17 days in FMCS-supervised mediation, during which time the Director of the FMCS (himself a Presidential appointee) and his principal deputy gained a thorough and detailed understanding of the many issues that must be resolved. Put simply, the FMCS has a 17-day head start over any other potential mediator. And given that time is of the essence, that is of great importance.” http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/08/boies-makes-compelling-case-for-using-cohen-as-mediator/
shibuya Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 Being a successful lawyer does not mean she will get to decide the fate of the NFL. In fact, there is strong evidence that she doesn't have authority to rule on an injunction. The arrogant comments of the union representatives are going to hurt them in this case. It's obvious they are going to pull the same bad faith move they did the last time: decertify, file lawsuits, then recertify. This is not something you can get away with more than once. They are on shakey ground. you mean like how the owners opted out of the CBA that they agreed to by a vote of 30-2 that gave the players a significant portion of revenues (remember this is th eonwers that agreesd to this reality 30-2).... ONLY to work out a shady deal with TV networks that would have allowed the owners to walk away with billions during the lockout... players voted to de-certify... that is legal no matter how much that upsets you... and they can vote ot re-certify and that is also legal...
Mr. WEO Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 you mean like how the owners opted out of the CBA that they agreed to by a vote of 30-2 that gave the players a significant portion of revenues (remember this is th eonwers that agreesd to this reality 30-2).... ONLY to work out a shady deal with TV networks that would have allowed the owners to walk away with billions during the lockout... players voted to de-certify... that is legal no matter how much that upsets you... and they can vote ot re-certify and that is also legal... The owners are challenging this with the NLRB.
CosmicBills Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 The owners are challenging this with the NLRB. Dynamite drop in, Marty!
Orton's Arm Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 I think that the American worker should be paid as little as possible. There are over 3 billion people living in absolute poverty in this world. If we could start importing these guys to compete against the Mexicans I say do it. The modern Mexican border jumpers are a little to Americanized for my taste. The going rate on day laborers is getting to be a little much. I disagree. If one person lives in a nice home, and another lives in a cardboard box, the correct solution does not involve burning the house and having both people live in cardboard boxes. Similarly, if the U.S. is a nicer place than the Third World, the correct solution does not involve allowing the U.S. to be colonized by and absorbed into the Third World. That "solution" does next to nothing to help the Third World, while doing a great deal of harm to this nation. The Third World has a number of problems: overpopulation, corrupt governments, etc. Throwing away everything uniquely good about the U.S. does not represent a serious attempt to provide a long-term solution to any of those problems. Instead, it's just a knee-jerk reaction by people who feel guilty about having more material wealth than those who live in the Third World. I don't object to some portion of the U.S.'s wealth going to serve a good cause. But "good cause" shouldn't just mean donating money to something which seems like it might be charitable. It should entail a serious effort to solve the underlying problems the Third World has, thereby creating a sustainable increase in its standard of living. In order to make that kind of concerted effort, the U.S. must retain the strength it currently has; which means it must not itself be absorbed into the Third World or dragged down by the same problems which have proved so destructive to Third World nations.
papazoid Posted April 10, 2011 Author Posted April 10, 2011 Judge Nelson will order the league, players to return to mediation On Sunday, ESPN’s Adam Schefter has reported that Judge Nelson told the two sides that she will impose mediation on them “early this week.” http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/10/judge-nelson-will-order-the-league-players-to-return-to-mediation/
DanInUticaTampa Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) Of course, it takes someone from Buffalo to push things forward. This is getting ridiculous. I hope this doesn't go all the way through august, or even into the season. It shouldn't be THAT hard to work out a deal. The biggest enemy is that the two sides really don't trust eachother, at all. Edited April 11, 2011 by DanInUticaTampa
Saint Doug Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Of course, it takes someone from Buffalo to push things forward. This is getting ridiculous. I hope this doesn't go all the way through august, or even into the season. It shouldn't be THAT hard to work out a deal. The biggest enemy is that the two sides really don't trust eachother, at all. I also heard that she has been in negotiations to get the Peace Bridge feasibility studies studied too. J/k.
papazoid Posted April 11, 2011 Author Posted April 11, 2011 players score another victory..... U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said formal mediation will begin Thursday before Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan at his office in a Minneapolis courthouse...... ( not Cohen in D.C.). http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6330778
Mr. WEO Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 players score another victory..... U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said formal mediation will begin Thursday before Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan at his office in a Minneapolis courthouse...... ( not Cohen in D.C.). http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6330778 Actually, the players wanted binding mediation more than a change of venue. They didn't get it. A victory for the players would have been an injunction issued by this judge against the lockout. She is clearly hesitant to do this. She is hoping that some miracle will happen in mediation. She's willing to wait weeks while the players are locked out.
papazoid Posted April 12, 2011 Author Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) Actually, the players wanted binding mediation more than a change of venue. They didn't get it. A victory for the players would have been an injunction issued by this judge against the lockout. She is clearly hesitant to do this. She is hoping that some miracle will happen in mediation. She's willing to wait weeks while the players are locked out. #1- the players never asked for BINDING mediation. (your first statement is FALSE) #2- the players wanted mediation in a minnesota court and NOT with George Cohen (even tho he had a 17 day head start). the players got BOTH their wishes. (thats a victory for the players). #3- the judge said she still is considering whether to grant the players' request to lift the lockout that's been in place for a month. Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/04/11/mediation.ap/index.html#ixzz1JGsbtDV6 Edited April 12, 2011 by papazoid
Mr. WEO Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 #1- the players never asked for BINDING mediation. (your first statement is FALSE) #2- the players wanted mediation in a minnesota court and NOT with George Cohen (even tho he had a 17 day head start). the players got BOTH their wishes. (thats a victory for the players). #3- the judge said she still is considering whether to grant the players' request to lift the lockout that's been in place for a month. Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/04/11/mediation.ap/index.html#ixzz1JGsbtDV6 Not false. From NFL.com The NFLPA wants a court-supervised settlement discussion in Minnesota in which Nelson would appoint someone to lead talks that potentially could be more binding than any in Washington. The NFL is determined to escape federal oversight on the next collective bargaining agreement. The NFLPA wants to keep the case in Minnesota, in Nelson's reach, in front of an appointee with more binding powers than Cohen. From PFT: Typically, all disputes in a labor agreement are resolved via binding third-party arbitration.The players want the final agreement to be subject to supervision by the federal court. The owners, after 18 years of having Judge Doty resolve certain disputes under the expired CBA, don’t. I'll translate for you: the players, pretending to not be a union anymore, want any arbitration to be binding (something they could get only as a union in collective bargaining). They want the benefits of unionization while they still go forward with their lawsuit. Their greatest concern is that by negotiating with the owners, their decertification will not be exposed or again challenged as the scam that it is. The owners have said that they will not hold this (the fact that they are attempting to collectively bargain without a union) against them in negotiations. Nice try son.
papazoid Posted April 12, 2011 Author Posted April 12, 2011 Not false. From NFL.com From PFT: I'll translate for you: the players, pretending to not be a union anymore, want any arbitration to be binding (something they could get only as a union in collective bargaining). They want the benefits of unionization while they still go forward with their lawsuit. Their greatest concern is that by negotiating with the owners, their decertification will not be exposed or again challenged as the scam that it is. The owners have said that they will not hold this (the fact that they are attempting to collectively bargain without a union) against them in negotiations. Nice try son. show me one quote from a NAMED member of the NFLPA showing they want BINDING mediation....you can't. "more binding" from a pundit does not equal BINDING MEDIATION......stop making stuff up.
Mr. WEO Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 show me one quote from a NAMED member of the NFLPA showing they want BINDING mediation....you can't. "more binding" from a pundit does not equal BINDING MEDIATION......stop making stuff up. You're right--the media made that up. Look, it's clear to everyone else, including the "NFLPA", what "more binding" means--and that's exactly why they wanted a venue which is court supervised. It means an agreement enforced by the court. I can't help you if you are pretending to or actually believe this isn't so.
papazoid Posted April 12, 2011 Author Posted April 12, 2011 You're right--the media made that up. Look, it's clear to everyone else, including the "NFLPA", what "more binding" means--and that's exactly why they wanted a venue which is court supervised. It means an agreement enforced by the court. I can't help you if you are pretending to or actually believe this isn't so. lol.....so you have no source.......stop using the word BINDING.....the players are NOT going to give up their collective bargaining rights by submitting to BINDING mediation. they are looking for the most advantagious venue to discuss the issues. that is thru the anti-trust Tom Brady et al litigation in a minnesota court thru NON-binding mediation....just like last time, those negotiations led to a settlement. there is no agreement ENFORCED by the courts....Nelson's involvement won't be binding, but she would have more ability to control talks than Cohen could, while overseeing an appointed mediator. First, with Nelson overseeing the talks, only she and Boylan could declare an impasse. Second, as the sides agreed on individual issues, she or the appointed mediator could move each one off the table, making for a more efficient process, without allowing one side or the other to go back on something that was already agreed upon. In any case, if mediation fails and Nelson rules, no matter which way that ruling goes, an appeal would be a near certainty, taking this case to the eighth circuit.
Ramius Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 lol.....so you have no source.......stop using the word BINDING.....the players are NOT going to give up their collective bargaining rights by submitting to BINDING mediation. they are looking for the most advantagious venue to discuss the issues. that is thru the anti-trust Tom Brady et al litigation in a minnesota court thru NON-binding mediation....just like last time, those negotiations led to a settlement. there is no agreement ENFORCED by the courts....Nelson's involvement won't be binding, but she would have more ability to control talks than Cohen could, while overseeing an appointed mediator. First, with Nelson overseeing the talks, only she and Boylan could declare an impasse. Second, as the sides agreed on individual issues, she or the appointed mediator could move each one off the table, making for a more efficient process, without allowing one side or the other to go back on something that was already agreed upon. In any case, if mediation fails and Nelson rules, no matter which way that ruling goes, an appeal would be a near certainty, taking this case to the eighth circuit. Every media outlet has been reporting that the players want to negotiate in a courtroom setting where any agreement could/would be binding. The owners want a mediator that is non-binding. I'm not sure why you keep refuting this.
papazoid Posted April 12, 2011 Author Posted April 12, 2011 Every media outlet has been reporting that the players want to negotiate in a courtroom setting where any agreement could/would be binding. The owners want a mediator that is non-binding. I'm not sure why you keep refuting this. link ?
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 link ? I don't have a dog in this fight, but Judge Nelson specifically stated that she was ordering the parties to particpate in mediation as a form of "Alternative Dispute Resolution." Courts have "local" court rules governing lots of things, including the procedures that will be followed to try to resolve court cases without time consuming and expensive full-blown trials of whatever the litigants are fighting about. Here's a link to the publicly available local court rules for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the players' antitrust case is pending: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/index.shtml# The specific local Minnesota federal district court rule about alternative dispute resolution is Local Rule 16.5, the text of which is found here: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/LR-16-5.html I don't have any inside information about what Judge Nelson did - - I only know what I've read in the media. But the reports I've read seem to fit the description in Local Rule 16.5(b)(1), which reads (bolding added by me): "(1) In the discretion of the Court, the parties, trial counsel, and other persons deemed necessary to attend may be ordered to participate in other non-binding dispute resolution methods before a Judge or Magistrate Judge, including but not limited to, summary jury trials, non-binding arbitration and mediation." While the court-ordered mediation here is technically non-binding, each side knows that if they take unreasonable positions, they may anger the magistrate judge acting as the mediator, and in the likely event that any such anger is communicated to Judge Nelson, the offending side will face a more uphill fight in winning future court battles that ARE binding. The mediation itself is non-binding, because if the lawyer representing a party has the stones to stand up to the opinions of the magistrate judge about how the case should be settled, the magistrate judge presiding over the mediation lacks the power to force that lawyer to accept his settlement views.
papazoid Posted April 12, 2011 Author Posted April 12, 2011 I don't have a dog in this fight, but Judge Nelson specifically stated that she was ordering the parties to particpate in mediation as a form of "Alternative Dispute Resolution." Courts have "local" court rules governing lots of things, including the procedures that will be followed to try to resolve court cases without time consuming and expensive full-blown trials of whatever the litigants are fighting about. Here's a link to the publicly available local court rules for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the players' antitrust case is pending: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/index.shtml# The specific local Minnesota federal district court rule about alternative dispute resolution is Local Rule 16.5, the text of which is found here: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/LR-16-5.html I don't have any inside information about what Judge Nelson did - - I only know what I've read in the media. But the reports I've read seem to fit the description in Local Rule 16.5(b)(1), which reads (bolding added by me): "(1) In the discretion of the Court, the parties, trial counsel, and other persons deemed necessary to attend may be ordered to participate in other non-binding dispute resolution methods before a Judge or Magistrate Judge, including but not limited to, summary jury trials, non-binding arbitration and mediation." While the court-ordered mediation here is technically non-binding, each side knows that if they take unreasonable positions, they may anger the magistrate judge acting as the mediator, and in the likely event that any such anger is communicated to Judge Nelson, the offending side will face a more uphill fight in winning future court battles that ARE binding. The mediation itself is non-binding, because if the lawyer representing a party has the stones to stand up to the opinions of the magistrate judge about how the case should be settled, the magistrate judge presiding over the mediation lacks the power to force that lawyer to accept his settlement views. #1- the key word is NON- BINDING....."mediation" is NON-BINDING. #2- the players have NEVER asked for "binding" mediation. #3- there is no such thing as "more" binding.....your either pregnant or your not. it's either binding or non-binding....there is no middle ground. #4- i agree, all the more, parties must now act in good faith, or future rulings may not go their way. #5- let's say the court in two weeks, declares the leagues "lockout" illegal......both sides still have to negotiate a settlement. #6- lets say the NLRB rules the unions decertification is a sham......both side still have to negotiate a settlement.
Recommended Posts