Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonEmouse
I get sentiment and the context, and probably as a Brit and seeing the way it works differently with our game of football (indeed how it works globally), I have a different slant. I don't know the detail with TW (who does?), so I'm coming from the perspective of labour relations not the NFL. I simply see a guy who has a grievance that he does not feel was addressed by the team. I don't know if either side handled in a thoroughly proper manner and I don't think either did. I just think there has to be a basis to this (smoke=fire) and a better way of handling it than appears to have happened.
I just feel the line 'You signed a contract, honor it' or variations thereof is a little too hard nosed especially in todays world. If he withdraws his labour, he doesn't get paid, just like anyone going on strike. He has to decide if it's worth the financial loss or not, not us. And I sense he's realising it isn't.
|
I am coming from outside the NFL world too though. When a union is set up, they are supposed to speak for the members. How can a company deal in good faith with a union, if the members don't abide by the agreed upon terms.
The fact that TW has not filed a lawsuit, an NFLPA grievance, an request to sanction the Redskins, says to me that he doesn't have a factual basis to withhold his services. Antonio Brown may have been an idiot about his helmet, but he did file grievances with the NFL. TW is not in a contract dispute with the Skins, he simply doesn't want to honor his contract. That's not good policy for any Labor Relations situation, in any country that abides in market principles.