Howard Bryant: Upshaw and Union leave Vick to the dogs

For the third time, it's a union's duty, ethically and legally, to protect its negotiated rights (not individual players) no matter whether that right is being encroached by management with respect to a model employee or a "miscreant" or "dead wood" or whatever term people come up with for people for whom they are not sympathetic.

It's not a union's duty to defend a player in a criminal case, however, criminal cases very often have employment ramifications and the player's employment rights MUST be defended by the union because those rights and the precedents involved pertain to everybody in the group. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Second, you need to use the word "defined" before revenues when you're tossing percentages around. That's the catch.

Third, the NFL has been the fastest growing professional sport in the the US since the early '60s because of television. MLB was stagnant from a growth standpoint until the mid-'60s. Television (and the advent of a genuine union that forced owners to compete and better market the sport) has led to very strong growth in baseball.

(Gambling and playing in the winter, by the way, have been NFL constants since the '20s.)

 

I thought the larger point of this was one of reputational concern. I read this as Bryant saying that the union needed to go to the mat for Vick, even though just about every soul alive this he's indisputably wrong, just to make it clear that the union will be prepared to handle any dispute. The baseball union isn't as strong as it was in the Miller era, but its rep still precedes it, and baseball owners surely think twice before taking a hardline stance against a player. Baseball players are better off for that, as a result. Baseball owners don't have to consider whether they're crossing a line or not. They know a fight's coming no matter what. I'm sure that dissuades MLB from doing some things it would like to do that players would get hurt by.

The union's job isn't to be fair or show its dedication to moral principles. Its job is to look out for its members at every turn, and not fighting more vigorously on the Vick issue deviates from that. Vick put Upshaw in a foul situation, but part of running any cooperative effort like a union is riding for the foul members, if only to show the other side you're always watching.

Then again, at this point, why would the NFL take a challenge from the NFLPA seriously? Maybe leaving this alone spared the union from being laughed at.

 

I'm wondering: the league's reputation is valuable, to itself and the players. Does reputation have any value to a union?

On another note, if John Clayton is to be believed, it was the NFLPA that alerted Vick to the seriousness of the charges against him and offered him representation. [This may be a DB of info on another thread...] So, in principle at least, they upheld the obligations that cranberry cites.

 

That's why they TAKE a percentage from their checks.....TO DEFEND THEM.

YOU AINT GOTTA LIKE IT. AS A MATTER OF FACT - YOU DON'T HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT.

JUST BECAUSE A FEW AMERICAN'S CAN'T WRAP THEIR BRAINS AROUND THE FACT THAT VICK GOT RIGHTS AND HIS UNION "BETTA" STEP UP TO THE PLATE.

That being said. Upshaw is a COMPLETE SELLOUT!!!!

 

Getting players who finance dogfighting rings out of the NFL will benefit the rest of the union membership, moreso than any ill-conceived posturing on Vick's behalf by the union.

And when the NFL eventually does suspend Vick, it will be under the personal conduct policy - a negotiated part of the collective bargaining agreement.

Finally, how much TV money do you think the NFL would be receiving now if it seemed on the brink of a labor stoppage every 4 years for a couple of decades? I would argue that the collective pool of money available to NFL players now is substantially larger than it would have been if the union forced a couple of strikes along the way.

 

You admit that the NFLPA's obligation is to the workplace conditions, not the individual members, yet you still rail on Upshaw for not defending Vick. That's not consistent with your own admission. Upshaw's obligation is to the union as a whole, not any individual.

Who says the NFLPA has not defended Vick's workplace conditions? Vick has not yet filed a grievance. The minute he comes out and says that he's filed a grievance and has not received representation, that's when the NFLPA has failed. Until then, no. He was suspended indefinitely by Goodell and the Falcons but no grievance yet.

As for the Flood case, that's exactly what I said, the NFLPA could prod and provide Vick with recommendations and counsel, according to reports, that's exactly what they did.

 

Where did I "rail" about Vick's workplace rights not being defended? All I've done on this thread is try to explain to folks how unions work and why they do what they do. I wouldn't venture to comment on the specifics of Vick's case because I'm not familiar with the NFLPA's contract and therefore I don't even know what rights may or may not have been breached. I do believe that the NFLPA is a severely weakened union as a result of decades of neglect, primarily by its own membership. That can't be fixed overnight and to lay all of the blame with Upshaw or anyone there would be unfair.

Excellent question but I think it needs a little clarification.

Reputation of the union? A union needs to care a lot about its reputation among players -- it's members.

Reputation of the union with the public? Little, if at all. Pandering to the public/media can often be in direct conflict with the best possible representation of its members. However, players opinions can be subtly shaped by public opinion and a union always needs to be cognizant of that fact. Good communication is the key.

Reputation of the league? Of course. Economic growth drives salaries and jobs. But there can be conflicts here, too, and a good union administration needs to weigh and fully understand the often delicate balance. Then comes the tricky part -- it must be able to communicate whatever issues arise to its members and gain a strong consensus on how to proceed.

 

Re union reputation with the public, pandering and good PR is a fine line. Sports unions have special problems, since many of the members tend to be more affluent than the general public. So there's not much to be gained by trying to curry sympathy; better to go in the direction of keeping people informed. Which jibes with what you write.

In this neck of the woods, for example, John Clayton is listened to by most NFL fans, and his opinion would carry lots of weight. So, it would behoove the union to keep him informed, I think.

That's a good point about bounceback of public opinion to the players.

 

Agree 100 percent. Major professional sports unions are in a unique situation due to their higher public profile. Unions need to understand which media outlets and reporters treat issues with a degree of fairness and understanding. Others, for the most part, aren't even worth the effort of trying to explain because a league is going to have far greater PR resources/staff than a union. Gotta stay focused.

 

I thought Communism was just a red herring.[/WadsworthTheButler-ClueThreadjack]

 

What the NFL understands that the rest of you apparently do not, and that many other sports do not, is that the product it sells is not football, but competition.
If there is no competition, the product is diminished.
The NFL did not get where it is by accident.