United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trump On NFL Anthem Kneelers: ‘Get That Son Of A B**** Off The Field - 09/22/2017
Source:
Youtube
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kg8FoYE1lc
Published: Sep 22, 2017
Author: 2017 FlashTrendinG
Post Date: 2017-09-23 03:14:37 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 5124
Comments: 30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kg8FoYE1lc Trump On NFL Anthem Kneelers: ‘Get That Son Of A B**** Off The Field - 09/22/2017 2017 FlashTrendinG President Donald Trump declared at his Alabama rally on Friday night that he would love to see an NFL owner fire anyone who disrespects the U.S. flag and national anthem.
Published on Sep 22, 2017
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
#11. To: nolu chan, jeremiad, misterwhite, Stoner, IBJensen, All (#0)
Some salient points on Trump's little foray from HotAir today: Trump’s enough of a businessman to know that employers don’t “fire” people who have contracts and a union, at least not without cause laid out in the bargaining agreement. Owners could bench them, but they’d still be on the sidelines for the anthem to protest. It would cost far more money and time to try firing them than it would to ignore it and let the fad eventually fade away into obscurity. Technically there’s no First Amendment issue with Trump’s demand to shut down the on-field protests, as owners can and do set limits on the speech of their employees in the workplace. A clear example of this in the NFL is the uniform regulations that restrict almost all personal speech in terms of equipment and the manner of wearing and using it. The league also compels speech in other contexts by requiring participation in postgame press conferences, which replaced locker-room access for reporters. . . . Finally, though, Trump may have provided even more cachet to the anthem protests, plus blunted the shut-up-and-play arguments against them. Detroit Lions tight end Eric Ebron wondered why no one’s telling Trump to stay in his lane when they’re telling athletes to stay in theirs: — Eric Ebron (@Ebron85) September 23, 2017 After this, what will be more likely: NFL players decide to obey Trump, or NFL players make a special show of defying Trump? Given his relative popularity in the urban areas that support these teams, bet heavily on the latter. And even those who might have eschewed protesting during the anthem before this for reasons of patriotism will now have incentive to show solidarity with their teammates, knowing full well that Trump’s comments will put pressure on them to show that they’re not going to take orders from him. This fad may have petered out naturally after a few more months; Trump’s all but guaranteed that we’ll get it through the 2020 election. And that may mean that NFL players will need to keep it going through 2024, given the unpopularity of the protests everywhere else. . . . I note that NFL players are compelled to speak at post-game conferences by contract, something I didn't know. So there is a contractual limitation of full free speech rights in their employment contracts.
Any union steward could tell Morrissey he is full of shit. Even union employees working for the government can be removed on administrative leave, and forbidden to enter the workplace. They are simply informed and escorted out of the building. How much does it cost to do some routine paperwork? It ain't that involved. How much did it cost to keep just one Kaepernick? Hundreds of millions. No lawsuit would make it past a pre-trial motion to dismiss. NFL employees do not have the freedom of expression at work, in uniform, to say and do as they please. The big bullshit story is the double standard. Could a military member, in uniform and on duty, kneel, sit, or give a Black power salute during the playing of the national anthem as an exercise of free expression? If the Black power salute is covered by freedom of expression, how about the Nazi salute, or a KKK emblem? How about a tribute to those who died on 9/11, or the cops who died in Dallas in 2016? A small decal perhaps? What if player's mother dies of breast cancer and he puts "Find the Cure" on his eyeblack? By Philip Messing September 9, 2016 | 10:48pm [excerpt] “Here’s a player honoring those who died on 9/11 with a pair of cleats that he had made up himself — it’s not like he’s kneeling during the national anthem or anything,” Colligan said, a reference to the controversial decision by San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick not to stand during the national anthem. Colligan said when he first came across the news about the NFL’s plan to fine Williamson for his plan to wear the cleats he “had to read the story twice.” Even more galling, he added, is the realization that Kaepernick was not disciplined when he was spotted recently wearing a pair of socks during a team practice that depicted cops as pigs. “Kapernick can wear ‘pig socks’ and not even garner a response from the NFL, but this guy wants to honor those who tragically died on 9-11 and he’s threatened,” he noted. Williamson plans to auction the cleats for charity. Titans linebacker Avery Williamson came out of the tunnel wearing his custom patriotic cleats for the season opener against the Vikings on Sunday, the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Author: WFAA Staff Titans linebacker Avery Williamson came out of the tunnel wearing his custom patriotic cleats for the season opener against the Vikings on Sunday, the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Williamson had planned to wear the cleats to honor those who died, but changed his mind when an NFL representative called to inform him about a looming fine for violating uniform code. “I don’t want to draw negative attention, so I’m just going to focus on playing the game,” Williamson told The Tennessean on Friday. “Once I heard from them, I didn’t even try to argue anything. I just left it alone. I didn’t want to press the issue.” Several of his teammates offered to help pay the fine if he wore the cleats. And after his story went viral, four New York and New Jersey police associations did as well, including the union that represents the police department that patrols the World Trade Center complex. “On September 11, 2001, the PAPD lost 37 police officers at the World Trade Center, the largest, single loss ever suffered by a police department in the history of American law enforcement,” the union’s public information officer, Bobby Egbert, wrote in a statement to The Tennessean on Saturday. “We read, with understandable interest, your piece on Avery Williamson and the NFL's stance on Avery honoring the September 11th victims. We, along with the New Jersey State Police Benevolent Association, are offering to pay any reasonable fine levied by the NFL if Avery chooses to wear his 9/11 cleats.” Later Saturday, two additional law enforcement associations joined in the pledge, the New Jersey State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers Association and the State Troopers Fraternal Association of the New Jersey State Police. Titans general manager Jon Robinson patted Williamson on the chest during team warmups, when he was wearing plain white cleats, like his teammates. Williamson’s star-spangled blue cleats with red- and white-striped Nike swooshes were airbrushed by True Blue Customs in Lexington, Ky. They feature the words “Never Forget” and “9/11” on the back of the shoes, with the "11" representing the Twin Towers. The NFL mandates all teammates wear the same color scheme on their shoes. Williamson is auctioning the cleats to benefit Operation Warrior Wishes, plus offering a meet and greet, two VIP tickets to a Titans home game and an autographed jersey. “I’m going to try to get a couple of veterans to come to a game,” Williamson said. “I feel like just reaching out to people, helping them, somebody that’s served our country, I feel like that’s a great honor, so I wanted to do something nice for them. I feel like it’s a great cause.” The NFL is notoriously strict about its uniform code. In August, the league prohibited the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a helmet sticker honoring local police. Last season, the NFL fined two Pittsburgh Steelers players $5,787 each for first-offense uniform violations — running back DeAngelo Williams for wearing "Find the Cure" in his eye black to promote breast cancer awareness and cornerback William Gay for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness about domestic violence. The New York Giants' Odell Beckham and Victor Cruz planned to wear patriotic cleats in Sunday's game against the Cowboys, as did Atlanta Falcons receiver Mohamed Sanu against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The NFL has not responded to a request for comment about whether these players received special permission or are simply willing to pay the fine. [...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, killing five officers and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded. Johnson was an Army Reserve Afghan War veteran who was reportedly angry over police shootings of black men and stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers. The decal represents when Dallas leaders and members of the team walked out arm in arm on the opening day of training camp Aug 12, 2016 By Tim Griffin DALLAS — When Dallas opens its preseason Sunday night when it meets the Los Angeles Rams on national television, the Cowboys won't have helmet decals honoring the five police officers who were killed in last month's attack. Many members of the Cowboys' organization have been extremely vocal in support of the Dallas Police Department after the July 7 attack in downtown Dallas that resulted in the police deaths. Owner Jerry Jones has embraced the idea, which was conceived by veteran tight end Jason Witten. The "Arm in Arm" design represents the moment when Dallas police Chief David Brown joined Dallas mayor Mike Rawlings, family members of the fallen officers and members of the team on the opening day of training camp in Oxnard, Calif. Despite that strong support from one of the league's most powerful franchises, the NFL has struck down the request for the team to wear the decal during the regular season or its four preseason games. The Dallas organization petitioned to use the decal, but it was denied. "Everyone has to be uniform with the league and the other 31 teams," Cowboys executive vice president Stephen Jones told the Dallas Morning News. "We respect their decision." The team apparently will continue to wear the decals during its practices. The NFL has one of the strictest policies of any professional sport in its demands to have players uniforms remain uniform with differentiation only between teams through jerseys, helmets and pants. Several ex-players walk the sidelines during NFL games looking for players who wear different uniforms than others. Those players are subject to fines after they are called out. The league turned down Pittsburgh running back DeAngelo Williams' request to wear pink all season to honor his mother, who had died of breast cancer. The league appeared heartless when Williams was fined $5,757 by the NFL for having the words "find the cure" and wearing a breast cancer pink ribbon printed on his eye black. "There are so many wonderful, wonderful causes, the league has to be careful," Jones told reporters earlier in camp about the possibility of wearing the decal in games. "If you allow one, then what do you do about every team that has a great reason to have something on their helmets? "There are tons of things out there that need to be recognized. Once you open that Pandora's box, how do you ever stop?" You most definitely stop when a sack is followed by a Black power salute during a game. The NFL might even have stopped at Kaepernick's pig socks. President Trump made no "demand." He offered an observation, not quite reaching a suggestion. The NFL CBA, Article 42, Section 1(a)(xv), at page 181 provides, When a player's actions result in fans not coming, fans walking out, or fans tuning out, or impelling the President of the United States to encourage fans to walk out, and receiving a raucous round of applause and chants of USA, USA, it is detrimental to the team. When the Commissioner's actions and inactions are so ridiculous, and detrimental to the league, it is time for the owners to act, and for the President to observe how the fans may induce said action if the owners do not act. For those unfamiliar with Navy submariners singing "hymns" in a bar, they all join in a deafening chant which grows louder with each line, and rather grabs one's attention the first time it is heard. And for Roger Goodell, I offer the following "hymn," Him,
You know a lot about the law, maybe not so much about labor law. When you have a contract, either an employer or union man, you have to enforce every single provision of it for it to have force. Otherwise you can be judged in court as having abandoned a particular clause. If they did not enforce a ban on player-chosen uniforms/equipment, they would lose control of the entire situation legally. If they allowed the 9/11 cleats guy to do what he wanted, they would have to be ready to defend in court their refusal to allow another player to wear Black Panther gear or Black Livers Matter merchandise or to put a photo of Castro on their helmets. You allow one exercise of free speech, you have to allow them all or you have to explain to a courtroom full of angry player's lawyers why you are allowing one form of speech but discriminating against other speech by players. I think you can see why this is a situation every NFL owner will avoid on the advice of their attorneys. You have a contract? You'd damned well better enforce it or you lose control. What is bizarre to me is that the NFL is toying openly with the idea of making November a free speech free-for-all with the players getting latitude to wear SJW symbols on their official contracted team uniforms. Well, we've mentioned it before and it is still insane. I never knew you were a Patriots fan. : )
Opinions do vary. Not true as implied that every single provision must be enforced every single time. I believe you refer to basic contract law rather than labor law specifically. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., re Abandonment of Contract, The NFL and NFLPA made an agreed upon exception for Breast Cancer Awareness month. Have you seen the pink shoes? There was no intent to abandon the provisions on uniforms. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000068474/article/nfl-supports-breast-cancer-awareness-month National Football League The National Football League and NFL Players Association will support October's National Breast Cancer Awareness Month with their fourth-annual national breast cancer screening initiative and fundraising campaign. In collaboration with the American Cancer Society, the initiative, called "A Crucial Catch: Annual Screening Saves Lives," reminds women 40 and older about the importance of having an annual mammogram. To date, the partnership has raised more than $3 million for the American Cancer Society, with the majority of the donation coming from the sale of pink items at retail and on NFL Auction. Beginning this year, money raised through A Crucial Catch will support the American Cancer Society's Community Health Advocates National Grants for Empowerment (CHANGE) program. This program provides outreach and breast cancer screenings to women who need them. The NFL markets being supported in the first year of the program are Atlanta, Baltimore, New England, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Washington, DC. Beginning tonight and continuing throughout the month, NFL breast cancer awareness games will feature: [...] They can authorize exceptions, and have done so to uniform and equipment rules. There was no abandonment of any clause there. Another agreed upon exception would not have abandoned the clause. The problem with authorizing pink shoes was opening the door to more requests. There has beeen no court case because no player would have a case. There is no such agreed conduct exception. As for a blatant failure to enforce player conduct in uniform, on the field, the NFL is playing with fire. Supporting/tolerating BLM and Antifa type demonstrations in uniform will cost a large share of the support base. Doing nothing about it can make this, and similar action, unpunishable at a future date without an interceding policy statement prohibiting the action. Management cannot permit players to engage in numerous Black power salutes during the national anthem or after sacks, for an extended time, and subsequently decide, without warning, to punish said salute, or perhaps White power salutes. The place for the NFL is to remain neutral, get rid of all the crap, and deliver football games. The failure in question is player conduct detrimental to the team or the league. Is the conduct detrimental? Do half-empty stadiums answer that question, or is more needed? Did they ever lose their audience before because of elections or hurricanes? Or even a presidential assassination? Can a post-sack, in-game Black power salute be tolerated? What should the league do about a White power salute, if one occurred? How would it be to abandon their authority on player forms of expression while in uniform, representing the team and the league? Is not broadcasting the national anthem a solution? Do they think fans will not notice? Recall the marketing to servicemen and veterans with the parading of the colors and the jet flyovers? If they embrace or tolerate BLM and Antifa and disrespect for the national anthem, and have shunned exceptions to honor cops and firefighters, they may find it difficult to get military to parade the colors, do flyovers, or to get them, cops or firefighters to attend or watch the games. None of this should have been allowed to start. It should not be allowed to continue. The NFL has the power to put a stop to it. President Trump gave them a wake up call.
That is a one-off agreement and has no effect on the primary employment contract. The owners could no doubt pull the plug on it any time they wish. In labor law, you'd call it a local contract variance. When I worked under a union contract, we rigorously enforced every word of that contract. We got burned by allowing our employer in some locations to use contracted non-union labor for some smaller jobs. It was just the opening they needed. We never got those jobs back in those towns. Where I was, we didn't allow any exceptions at all. "When in doubt, timeslip!" was our motto. And those timeslips paid me quite well when the company tried the same thing on us. They learn fast that it isn't cheap when they have to pay the contracted labor and then have to pay us even more at our union overtime rate including our minimum contracted showup rate of two hours (if we even set foot on the property). If you work a union shop, it's what you have to do.
#25. To: Tooconservative (#20)
(Edited)
Yes, Pretty in Pink had no effect on the CBA or law of the shop. However, management not pursuing current conduct as a conduct detrimental to the club violation may have an effect on the law of the shop. If they do nothing long enough, it becomes customary practice and cannot be punished before publication of a new and different policy, informing the employees of the policy and the possible consequences. If 50 players get by notoriously without so much as a counseling, the attempted disciplining of the 51st will be met by a claim of disparate treatment. The Adrian Petersen case went through dizzying twists and turns on the application and interpretation of the law of the shop. I saw a grievance settlement of around $10M where management kept on keeping on and the whole thing was a class action grievance as it worked its way through the steps. The government manager could well get a bonus for his efficiency. The rate to the casual or seasonal workers and crossing craft workers saved money if you did not count the $10M or so paid for the grievance. That's a different line item in the budget. There were people routinely making over $10K a year just filing grievances for crossing craft. The union officers and stewards would get a slice of all the big ones. But if the violations are not pursued, management will treat it as a concession.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest . . . Does anyone tell trump to stick to politics, like they tell us to stick to sports? Smh.
#16. To: Tooconservative, jeremiad, misterwhite, Stoner, IBJensen, GrandIsland (#11)
[Ed Morrissey/Hot Air] Trump’s enough of a businessman to know that employers don’t “fire” people who have contracts and a union, at least not without cause laid out in the bargaining agreement. Owners could bench them, but they’d still be on the sidelines for the anthem to protest.
[Ed Morrissey/Hot Air] It would cost far more money and time to try firing them than it would to ignore it and let the fad eventually fade away into obscurity.
Fury over NFL’s crackdown on player’s 9/11 tribute cleats
NFL PLAYER WEARS PATRIOTIC SHOES DESPITE FINE THREAT
Published: 09/11/16 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers
NFL denies Dallas Cowboys request to honor fallen officers
San Antonio Express-News [Ed Morrissey/Hot Air] Technically there’s no First Amendment issue with Trump’s demand to shut down the on-field protests, as owners can and do set limits on the speech of their employees in the workplace. A clear example of this in the NFL is the uniform regulations that restrict almost all personal speech in terms of equipment and the manner of wearing and using it. The league also compels speech in other contexts by requiring participation in postgame press conferences, which replaced locker-room access for reporters.
(xv) Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s on-field playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23, 2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s conduct.
HIM
FUCK HIM
#17. To: nolu chan (#16)
(Edited)
“Here’s a player honoring those who died on 9/11 with a pair of cleats that he had made up himself — it’s not like he’s kneeling during the national anthem or anything,” Colligan said, a reference to the controversial decision by San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick not to stand during the national anthem.
For those unfamiliar with Navy submariners singing "hymns" in a bar, they all join in a deafening chant which grows louder with each line, and rather grabs one's attention the first time it is heard. And for Roger Goodell, I offer the following "hymn,"
Him,
HIM
FUCK HIM
#19. To: Tooconservative (#17)
You know a lot about the law, maybe not so much about labor law.
When you have a contract, either an employer or union man, you have to enforce every single provision of it for it to have force. Otherwise you can be judged in court as having abandoned a particular clause.
To constitute "abandonment" by conduct, action relied on must be positive, unequivocal, and inconsistent with the existence of the contract. Abandonment is a matter of intent, Lohn v. Fletcher Oil Co., 38 Cal.App.2d 26, 100 P.2d 505, 507, and implies not only nonperformance, but an intent not to perform which may be inferred from acts which necessarily point to actual abandonment.
NFL supports Breast Cancer Awareness Month
Published: Oct. 1, 2012 at 09:12 p.m.
Updated: Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:37 p.m.
#20. To: nolu chan (#19)
The NFL and NFLPA made an agreed upon exception for Breast Cancer Awareness month. Have you seen the pink shoes? There was no intent to abandon the provisions on uniforms.
Replies to Comment # 20. That is a one-off agreement and has no effect on the primary employment contract. The owners could no doubt pull the plug on it any time they wish. In labor law, you'd call it a local contract variance.
Where I was, we didn't allow any exceptions at all. "When in doubt, timeslip!" was our motto. And those timeslips paid me quite well when the company tried the same thing on us. They learn fast that it isn't cheap when they have to pay the contracted labor and then have to pay us even more at our union overtime rate including our minimum contracted showup rate of two hours (if we even set foot on the property).
End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]