There won't be any scabs/replacement players if the Owners lock the players out

[Murph]

In the 1987 strike, the owners had to play the games to get the TV money. Not so now. The stadiums were empty (except RFK which sold out their lower level only). There is no incentive for the owners to go through the trouble of replacements.

[dimbee]

No, a strike is only a possibility when a Collective Bargaining Agreement is in effect and the Players feel it is unfair and thus go on strike. As the Owners opted out of the CBA, there is no way for the players to strike. The Owners can lock the players out, but there is nothing that the Players can go on strike against. This was the gambit card the Owners played. Strike a deal on our terms or no football for anyone.

A strike is not possible with no CBA in place.

Now, the players could agree to the Owners CBA and then go on strike but that would so badly wound their perception that it would only hurt them more, IMO

Thunderraiden "brought it" in that he used someone elses words to repeat what I already had said and in much fewer and clearer words... ummm bow chika bow wow?

[Panthro]

Wait so should I continue using my Total Gym or not?

[Happy Panther]

not

[riddel]

Scabs are brought in when the Players strike, not when the Owners lock the players out. When the players are locked out, there is no football. No replacement players, unfortunately. :(

This is not accurate.

The use of replacement workers during a lockout is governed by the same rule as using replacements during a strike. Permanent replacements may be hired during a lockout to affect the economic outcome of a contract under negotiations but not if the lockout is a result of an unfair labor practice by the employer.

In other words, as long as the employer undertakes a lawful lockout and replaced union workers with nonunion workers under a "temporary" agreement, the replacement players will be allowed.

[riddel]

No longer a sticky?

werd.

[thunderraiden]

oh yea, because its ptf its not true. nice straw-man fallacy

[dimbee]

You dont understand. There cant be football played without CBA. This is not a strike. It's a lockout so no one can play, including scabs.

This was from Chris Harris, former Panther, current Bear. I'm sure, of course, that he is just simply ill-informed. Absolutely no way that a member of the Player's Union would be informed on the specifics as to whether there could be scab players or not in the case of a lockout... cuz, you know, he didn't get an MBA and stuff. He's just a part of the union in the midst of the discussions. :rolleyes:

[dimbee]

I do look forward to riddel's next self-serving/aggrandizing post. I'm sure it will likely be both belittling of me or Chris Harris and also referencing something he read in his school textbook which likely has little to no application to this unique labor dispute.

[Big Ed]

All these frigging headlines about how the owners want to split our money with the players

And how owners want more games to get more of our money

The FAN's should be the ones with all the headlines of how they are going to lock out the N F L

Too bad fan's can't stick together on this !!

In an effort to get the fan's back ,The N F L and players would do almost anything .

[riddel]

I do look forward to riddel's next self-serving/aggrandizing post. I'm sure it will likely be both belittling of me or Chris Harris and also referencing something he read in his school textbook which likely has little to no application to this unique labor dispute.

Nah...the text speaks specifically to the strikes and lockouts that have taken place since the Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act), so it's prolly one of the most applicable applications out there.

Just for your information, I'm not the one who created a completely off based thread and had three pages of speculation based off of incorrect information.

[dimbee]

It's not 3 pages in my browser. All on 1 page

[dimbee]

OMGzzzzzzz!! Jon Beason said in the Huddle Podcast, "There won't be replacement players. This is an owner lockout."

Someone needs to give him a refresher on labor law apparently. :lol: