Arbitrator to be fired for T.O. decision

[PromoTheRobot]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...hris&id=2235051

 

The NFLPA will excericise it's option and fire Richard Bloch, the arbitrator in the Terrell Owens hearing because he ruled 100% in favor of the Philadelphia Eagles. I'm guessing that the NFLPA expected Mr. Bloch to make a ruling somehwere down the middle between the Eagles and Owens. But after reviewing Terrell Owens behavior, Bloch felt there was no way he could blame the Eagles for their actions.

 

And for that, he will be fired.

 

The NFLPA and Gene Upshaw spend a lot of time talking about his members being role models, but what he is really saying is that there is no behavior bad enough, short of grabbing a gun and killing your coach (and maybe not even that!), to warrent kicking a player off your team.

 

What Richard Bloch did is tell the truth. Terrell Owens is a bad person. So bad that his team had to kick him out. But instead of telling Owens to take his punishment like a man, learn from his mistake, and straighten out, the NFLPA will punish the arbitrator for being honest and making the only correct decision, and not throwing Owens a bone because that's what arbitrators are supposed to do.

 

This is a day of great shame for Gene Upshaw and the NFLPA.

 

PTR

[Alaska Darin]

Unions are all about fairness, as long as it's their definition of fair.

 

Protecting labor, one lost job at a time.

[Buftex]

Apparently, the NFLPA feels that the arbitrator ruled outside the parameters of the CBA, taking into considerations factors that are not specified under the agreement...I don't think it is simply a union acting against someone who did not rule in their favor. Believe me, I can't stand Owens either, and am thrilled that his suspension has been upheld. However, if Bloch goes against the CBA, or judges using criteria that is not part of the agreement, he should be canned. It is what Republicans would call "judge activism", he is not really supposed to re-write the rules....

[Corp000085]

but did he act outside of the agreement? 4 games for conduct detrimental to the team, right? TO had conduct detrimental to the team, so he got his 4 games... The arbitrator has no right to rule on whether the eagles will activate him or not

[Buftex]

but did he act outside of the agreement?  4 games for conduct detrimental to the team, right?  TO had conduct detrimental to the team, so he got his 4 games...  The arbitrator has no right to rule on whether the eagles will activate him or not

511569[/snapback]

 

 

I can't say I have read any of the ruling, other than the "sound-bytes", or the CBA for that matter, but apparently, the NFLPA is feeling that the ruling goes beyond what the agreement specifies...

[Corp000085]

I can't say I have read any of the ruling, other than the "sound-bytes", or the CBA for that matter, but apparently, the NFLPA is feeling that the ruling goes beyond what the agreement specifies...

511574[/snapback]

 

 

i'm not a lawyer, but if the agreement calls for 4 games, then 4 games is what he should have received... Also, i don't believe the CBA states that teams have to actually play the players, just pay them. Again, i'm not a lawyer, but it looks like this arbitrator stood up to the nflpa and now he's snakebitten by them. At least he'll get to write a book.

[Tucson Ed]

To buftex: If the arbitrator acted against the CBA, the Unions recourse is to file a lawsuit, not fire him as an arbitrator. This is a grandstand move by Upshaw to make it seem like it is representing their Union member....if they really had a case, they would file the lawsuit. Unions have this horrible PR need to represent A-holes and not put them in their place. This is why Unions are becoming extinct in the world...don't do the right thing vs representing every jerk who comes down the pike. They are afraid of being sued by their own a-holes for failure to represent...sad state of affairs.

[Orton's Arm]

To buftex:  If the arbitrator acted against the CBA, the Unions recourse is to file a lawsuit, not fire him as an arbitrator.  This is a grandstand move by Upshaw to make it seem like it is representing their Union member....if they really had a case, they would file the lawsuit.  Unions have this horrible PR need to represent A-holes and not put them in their place.  This is why Unions are becoming extinct in the world...don't do the right thing vs representing every jerk who comes down the pike.  They are afraid of being sued by their own a-holes for failure to represent...sad state of affairs.

511603[/snapback]

While unions are indeed going the way of the dinosaur in the competitive private sector, they've found it all too easy to proliferate in the public sector. A union is an excellent mechanism for exerting political pressure on a legislative body. Usually the political pressure is for more public sector jobs (and therefore fewer private jobs). This socialization of the economy means the union's bosses get to be bosses of a bigger, more powerful union with more money to spend.

[Dan Gross]

So, when the union fires someone for questionable reasons, can that person take the case to arbitration?

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

I aggree 100% with the arbitrator that the Eagles were 100% right in giving Terrell the 4 game suspension allowed under the rules and then in simply sitting him but paying him for the remainder of the season. This stand was necessary to maintain some sense of pulling together as a team rather than allowing an individual to act on his behalf whether it keeps them a team or not.

 

However, I also agree that it can be a very rational and good move on the NFLPA's part to exercise their right under the CBA to fire an arbitrator they choose to fire (as my guess the NFL also has a right to do under the CBA).

 

Though this slam-dunk ruling appears to be right, the move by the NFLPA is probably a good move in order to maintain the unity of the players. The players as a group appear to be split on the TO situation. By canning this arbitrator they have no impact on the Eagles ruling, but those who disagree with it are thrown this bone. The players who do agree with the ruling (and thus McNabb) win out because TO is gone and probably could care less what happens to the arbitrator beyond wishing him well and god speed (I think this arbitrator will roundly be received as a hero to business and to most of American society.

 

He will almost certainly gain a soft landing from this and should be better off financially and can even find some other role with the game (ESPN?) if he chooses.

 

I agree with the finding and I agree with the canning and the outcomes look great to me.

[Buftex]

 

 

However, I also agree that it can be a very rational and good move on the NFLPA's part to exercise their right under the CBA to fire an arbitrator they choose to fire (as my guess the NFL also has a right to do under the CBA).

 

511711[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, isn't an arbitrator a person that is agreed upon by two parties, to settle a dispute? Does an arbitrator work for anyone really? How can he be fired? It would seem that the NFLPA is really saying, "uh, the next time we have a legal issue to settle, Mr Bloch, we will never agree on you as being our arbitrator!" Again, I am not pretending to understand all of the legal issues here, I just find it odd that so many analysts, outside the case, considered this pretty much a slam dunk in Terrell Owens favor, but as always, in the end, the NFL comes out smelling like a rose at the end of the day...has the NFL ever lost a publicized case? I know that they did lose that anti-trust suit against the USFL, but even in losing that one case, they came out on top...is the NFL always in the right, or is this just an example of the enourmous power that this corporate giant wields?

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Actually, isn't an arbitrator a person that is agreed upon by two parties, to settle a dispute?  Does an arbitrator work for anyone really?  How can he be fired?  It would seem that the NFLPA is really saying, "uh, the next time we have a legal issue to settle, Mr Bloch, we will never agree on you as being our arbitrator!"  Again, I am not pretending to understand all of the legal issues here, I just find it odd that so many analysts, outside the case, considered this pretty much a slam dunk in Terrell Owens favor, but as always, in the end, the NFL comes out smelling like a rose at the end of the day...has the NFL ever lost a publicized case?  I know that they did lose that anti-trust suit against the USFL, but even in losing that one case, they came out on top...is the NFL always in the right, or is this just an example of the enourmous power that this corporate giant wields?

511783[/snapback]

 

 

My sense is that the NFL and the NFLPA agreed to arbitration as a mechanism for keeping the overall peace which allows the CBA to exist as a viable document when they cannot agree.

 

Both sides (I assume that the NFL also has the right to do in an arbitrator after a decision just as the players do) should have the right to not have an arbitrator for future disputes whom they (rightly or wrongly) or a significant part of their group has no confidence in.

 

Bloch has demonstrated that if he thinks either side is totally wrong he will find accordingly. As NFLPA members have no confidence in him to split the baby and find a result mutually disatisfactory to both sides if he feels one side is wrong, they "fired" or elected not have him arbitrate these disputes.

 

There are those who will look at the goal of Bloch's work as to make what he sees is the correct decision and they correctly will judge that the NFLPA has "fired" someone for making a correct decision.

 

There are those who will look at the goal of Bloch's work is to find a mutually disatisfactory outcome to any dispute that allows both sides to save face even if the way he split the baby is wrong on the face of it. They will correctly judge Bloch as having failed in this task.

 

I am one who sees the point that TO is wrong and the Eagles were right as important but not everything that is important here.

 

I like this outcome where the important fact that the Eagles won this decision was upheld, but also that the NFLPA "fires" this arbitrator from future decisions so that TO and his supporters among the players can still support the CBA.

 

I like this decision and I like the NFL and NFLPA keeping up their developing partnership with the CBA so I like this outcome.

 

The irony of this is that the biggest NFL loss was when they beat the players and Ed Garvey like a drum around the replacement player dispute of the mid-80s. They beat the NFLPA they decided under the leadership of Gene Upshaw to dissolve as a negotiating agent for the players.

 

The NFL found themselves faced with the result from this victory of potentially being forced to operate in a free market where they would negotiate and bid for individual players. The NFL desperately needed the NFLPA in order to restrain trade and not operate in a free market.

 

As a result rather than operating under the Garvey proposal of 52% of gross revenue, the current CBA calls for the players to receive about 70% of the "defined" gross revenue. Significant revenue tracks such as luxury boxes are not part of this "defined" pool. However. given the partnership the collective now makes so much money from the networks (the big cash cow and part of the "defined" gross) that the players are making more money than ever.

 

By winning the labor dispute of the strike, the NFL actually lost in the big picture as they had to give up a far larger percentage of the gross to the workers (aka the product). However, by losing this and having to foster more of a partnership wiith the players the NFL owners are now making far more money than ever.

 

They have had to give up the absolute control over players which they had in the Halas days when players had to work as ditch diggers during the off-season. The owners have given up a lot of control over issues like morality clauses, beard lengths and other trivia. However, in the end money talks and the rest walks,

 

The CBA and the developing partnership is the underpinning of this relationship,

[IBTG81]

buftex, I take it you're one of those flag wavers at a construction site who makes $40 an hour?

 

This is a joke. I hope he sues the union!

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

buftex, I take it you're one of those flag wavers at a construction site who makes $40 an hour? 

 

This is a joke. I hope he sues the union!

512217[/snapback]

 

I know its popular in this society to attack the individual who questions a move rather than having one's first reaction be to attack his ideas (ex. the Bush Admin first attacked Murtha as being like Michael Moore and then some idiot Congresswoman called him a coward when he is a proven Marine, but fortunately now seem to realize that even mainstream Dems like Joe Biden disagree with his ideas so they are focusing on them).

 

The key to buftex's ideas is not whether he is in fact something you cannot know, but in the ideas in themselves. If you think he is an idior please say so and say why. The meaningless attacks do no one any good.

[IBTG81]

I know its popular in this society to attack the individual who questions a move rather than having one's first reaction be to attack his ideas (ex. the Bush Admin first attacked Murtha as being like Michael Moore and then some idiot Congresswoman called him a coward when he is a proven Marine, but fortunately now seem to realize that even mainstream Dems like Joe Biden disagree with his ideas so they are focusing on them).

 

The key to buftex's ideas is not whether he is in fact something you cannot know, but in the ideas in themselves. If you think he is an idior please say so and say why.  The meaningless attacks do no one any good.

512227[/snapback]

 

FFS...What was the point of that first paragraph?! You could have made your point in the last two sentences alone.

 

Anyway, yes, buftex is an idiot. The arbitrator ruled exactly what is allowed in the rules. buftex ignores this. Why? Either he truly is an idiot, or, he is one of those flag wavers earning $40 an hour.

 

Unions are a joke. Take a look at GM and Ford. What's one of the main reasons they're doing horribly? You guessed it.

 

Fact of the matter is, unions go against the economic system. A flag waver is just that; ANYBODY can do it. It doesn't require some special skill, or any special intelligence. But because this flag waver is in a union, he makes $40 an hour.

 

God, I hate unions...

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

FFS...What was the point of that first paragraph?!    You could have made your point in the last two sentences alone.

 

Anyway, yes, buftex is an idiot. The arbitrator ruled exactly what is allowed in the rules. buftex ignores this. Why? Either he truly is an idiot, or, he is one of those flag wavers earning $40 an hour.

 

Unions are a joke. Take a look at GM and Ford. What's one of the main reasons they're doing horribly? You guessed it.

 

Fact of the matter is, unions go against the economic system. A flag waver is just that; ANYBODY can do it. It doesn't require some special skill, or any special intelligence. But because this flag waver is in a union, he makes $40 an hour.

 

God, I hate unions...

512229[/snapback]

 

I'm not a member of a union and my one experience with them saw them really fail to represent the workers they were trying to organize so my personal experience with unions is non-existent and bad in my episode.

 

However, though they are bad, the alternative they work to balance of corporate manaqement seems worse to me in many cases,

 

GM and Ford are excellent examples. As horrendous as the UAW seems to be in many cases, the corporate management of these two companies seems demonstrably worse to me.

 

Ford and GM management had a dominant position in the market through the sixties which certainly could have allowed them to even try to pursue a seemingly intelligent money making strategy of making the best cars.

 

It was not the unions which stopped them from doing this as the Japanese with the "burdens" of the lifetime employment that all workers get there and their socialized medical system built better cars. The Europeans operated with a social welfare state which taxed corporations at a much higher rate than America but still produced cars like Volvo that emphasized safety or the Volkswagen bug which catered to the lower end of the market.

 

GM and Ford managers simply built bad cars and though they began to get their act together as imports swept past them. They unfortunately did not keep up the push to simply develop better cars and instead focused their time and powerful marketing to pushing SUVs and muscle cars.

 

Now that reality had changed once again and gas prices have shot up, GM finds itself near bankrunptcy and Ford is struggling to enter a hybrid marketplace which they had left to Toyota and Honda and the Japanese now dominate.

 

Unions are certainly bad, but the corporate leaders are worse.

 

The American way is one which instead is dedicated toward the individual. This allowed folks to make their own bed and sleep in it without the guarantee of lifetime jobs of Japan or the social welfare of Europe. However, within this freedom corporate leaders can be stupid and unions can come together to battle with tese corporate idiots even if they are stupid also.

 

It isn't fair but hey life is not fair.

[Spiderweb]

.............

It isn't fair but hey life is not fair.

512245[/snapback]

 

FFS, I find that I agree with your point by and large. Each side can make an argument against the other as to why GM and Ford have reached the point they have. Yet, the proof was in the pudding, so to speak, and the cars they cranked out in the 70's and early 80's were just what they were, garbage. Imports forced them to rethink what they were doing, yet as is common with well entrenched and overgrown corporations, the winds of change blew too softly, and they were passed up.

 

Here in Dayton, we have multiple Delphi plants, of which one and possibly two are in serious jeopardy of closure. The former GM Truck & Bus assembly plant just received word that the third shift will be shut down. This facility assembles many GM SUV's, large and small, along with small trucks. This plant's chief rival, a plant in Oklahoma is slated to be closed completely. Both GM and Ford were guilty as charged for riding the SUV craze with little else to offer that they could profit from.

 

One loud sound bite has come from GM Corporate that has barely raised a ripple on the scene so far was that the health care system in the USA is broken due to the never ending rapidly escalating cost of health care. This is the first thing they targeted as needing major reduction in cost along with wages.

 

What I find totally perplexing is that I read sometime back that of the top 20 (based upon economic measurement) countries in the world, 19 of them have national health care plans. Only the USA is without. That doesn't mean every one of them is 100% socialized, but in varying degrees, they are. Our system is breaking and we need to fix it. It can remain private, but not without real change, real ideas, and real solutions that are fair to both the insured, to the provider, and to the employers who provide this benefit. It may be bad news for the Law profession, those that practice litigation in this area, but the bleeding has to stop. This issue is only going to get larger and more troublesome as time passes. I submit that we've already stayed the course too long, just as GM and Ford did with product that isn't meeting the requirements of the marketplace. Yet, this is a subject for another day, another forum, and another post/thread.

[Buftex]

FFS...What was the point of that first paragraph?!    You could have made your point in the last two sentences alone.

 

Anyway, yes, buftex is an idiot. The arbitrator ruled exactly what is allowed in the rules. buftex ignores this. Why? Either he truly is an idiot, or, he is one of those flag wavers earning $40 an hour.

 

Unions are a joke. Take a look at GM and Ford. What's one of the main reasons they're doing horribly? You guessed it.

 

Fact of the matter is, unions go against the economic system. A flag waver is just that; ANYBODY can do it. It doesn't require some special skill, or any special intelligence. But because this flag waver is in a union, he makes $40 an hour.

 

God, I hate unions...

512229[/snapback]

 

 

Okay, since we are drawing conclusions about people for no reason, IBGT81, I will assume that you are a white, middle to upper class male who has never had to really rely on a union for anything...your parents paid for your college education. You never really had to worry about money while you were growing up. You see yourself as some free thinker, a rugged individualist, amongst a bunch of idiots. Your parents did well for themselves, and passed it all on to you. You have no eartly clue why others can't be like you. You know one of those who can't see anything beyond their own existence... The kind that uses Ron Jeremy as their visual identity and thinks themselves bold and funny? Am I close?

 

That said, I wasn't really taking any stance on this whole issue. I was simply saying that the Union was wise to recuse an arbitrater. The NFLPA is of the impression that the by-laws of the CBA was not interpreted correctly, or that Bloch added things to it that were not there...I don't know if that is true, and I would be willing to bet that you don't either...please tell me you read the CBA and Blochs ruling....

 

Unions certainly have their problems with corruption but I would be willing to bet that GM and Ford have far bigger problems than unions...and conversely I would be willing to bet that as antiquated as they may be in todays climate of corporate America rules, unions have contribiuted far more positives to the growth of this country than Ford or GM would have, if they weren't kept in check...

[Buftex]

Fact of the matter is, unions go against the economic system. A flag waver is just that; ANYBODY can do it. It doesn't require some special skill, or any special intelligence. But because this flag waver is in a union, he makes $40 an hour.

 

God, I hate unions...

512229[/snapback]

 

 

Gosh, when I was responding the last time, the magnificent stupidity of this statement hadn't set in...I take it all back...you are very simple...what world are you living in?

[Buftex]

 

What I find totally perplexing is that I read sometime back that of the top 20 (based upon economic measurement) countries in the world, 19 of them have national health care plans. Only the USA is without. That doesn't mean every one of them is 100% socialized, but in varying degrees, they are. Our system is breaking and we need to fix it. It can remain private, but not without real change, real ideas, and real solutions that are fair to both the insured, to the provider, and to the employers who provide this benefit. It may be bad news for the Law profession, those that practice litigation in this area, but the bleeding has to stop. This issue is only going to get larger and more troublesome as time passes. I submit that we've already stayed the course too long, just as GM and Ford did with product that isn't meeting the requirements of the marketplace. Yet, this is a subject for another day, another forum, and another post/thread.

512270[/snapback]

 

Careful OhBF, you are treading on thin ice here...people who suggest things like this seem to disappear around here...