Justice finally served

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if you are convicted of a crime you don't think your employer has a right to terminate you?

+++

A few times I've wanted to post a bit of a rant publicly about software my wifes company makes. And she's basically told me that she's fine with it as long as I can make as much as she does, because she'd probably get fired.

It's not an issue everywhere, but not at all uncommon.

Steve B

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if you are convicted of a crime you don't think your employer has a right to terminate you?

I really think it depends on the crime. If it has a potential to affect your future employment with the company, then yes.

But I'm not sure how the accusations against the referenced players affected their employment??? Make them more violent?

[steve B]

I read an interesting article that was mostly about Drew Brees saying the punishment system is a mess, which it is.

What I found interesting was that the article claimed that the decision was that the NFL hadn't proven anything, but that since the CBA specifies that the commissioner has the authority to apply the fines and suspensions as punishments the suspension couldn't be overturned.

I'm figuring it was legally a bit more complex than that, but that was a simple way to frame it for the non-Lawyers.

While it seems strange to a layman, "you're essentially not guilty but still have to take the punishment" It does make a tiny bit of sense because of the CBA which seems like a contract of sorts?

I wouldn't mind hearing a better explanation from someone who knows the law end.

Steve B

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by steve B

I read an interesting article that was mostly about Drew Brees saying the punishment system is a mess, which it is.

What I found interesting was that the article claimed that the decision was that the NFL hadn't proven anything, but that since the CBA specifies that the commissioner has the authority to apply the fines and suspensions as punishments the suspension couldn't be overturned.

I'm figuring it was legally a bit more complex than that, but that was a simple way to frame it for the non-Lawyers.

While it seems strange to a layman, "you're essentially not guilty but still have to take the punishment" It does make a tiny bit of sense because of the CBA which seems like a contract of sorts?

I wouldn't mind hearing a better explanation from someone who knows the law end.

Steve B

Well it is a bit like that episode of "South Park", where Apple can basically insert any type of language into their terms every time they do an update on your computer or IPhone, and you either wouldn't bother to read the new terms, or if you did you'd agree to them anyways, because what are you gonna do, throw away your $500 IPhone?

Players agree to the CBA because they don't want to go on strike and they think they have a reasonable partner on the other end who won't exploit their power. Turns out they were wrong...however that shouldn't give Goodell carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants because of some legalese loophole in his favor.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

+++

A few times I've wanted to post a bit of a rant publicly about software my wifes company makes. And she's basically told me that she's fine with it as long as I can make as much as she does, because she'd probably get fired.

It's not an issue everywhere, but not at all uncommon.

Steve B

Read the intro to the opinion, it's pretty straightforward and explains the very limited role of the courts in the matter.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content...0000655650.pdf

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Read the intro to the opinion, it's pretty straightforward and explains the very limited role of the courts in the matter.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content...0000655650.pdf

Thanks Peter I actually read the whole thing. It makes a lot more sense now.

This and the suspension should hopefully end it. Seems pretty clear as I read it that all players basically agreed ahead of time to let Goodell issue whatever he feels is appropriate and unless he goes insanely far overboard they're stuck with it.

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

Thanks Peter I actually read the whole thing. It makes a lot more sense now.

This and the suspension should hopefully end it. Seems pretty clear as I read it that all players basically agreed ahead of time to let Goodell issue whatever he feels is appropriate and unless he goes insanely far overboard they're stuck with it.

Steve B

Yeah, people mistakenly have viewed the court phase of this as an adjudication of his innocence or guilt, but it's nothing of the kind.