Labour negotiations continue between NFL and players union
A lockout is becoming inevitable with each passing day, while the National Football League (NFL) and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) continue their standoff. The two sides haven’t indulged in large scale negotiations since November, and at present there
are no meetings scheduled to discuss the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The current CBA is set to expire in March.
While the two sides aren’t meeting, there is plenty of mudslinging going on. Both sides accuse the other of being responsible for the slow pace of the negotiations. The players union has accused the owners of trying to force a lockout, while the league says
that the union just isn’t committed to negotiating in good faith.
The NFL’s labour counsel, Bob Batterman admitted in an interview that negotiations had stalled. He said, “The negotiations are not proceeding very vigorously. No one's booking dates right now. You need a serious negotiating partner to have a negotiation,
and what we've been getting back in terms of responses are not conducive to making a deal.”
The very presence of Batterman has the players union concerned. He was part of the negotiations for the National Hockey League (NHL) in the 2004-05 season when the NHL faced a work stoppage. The NFLPA says that the fact that the league hired Batterman -
of lockout fame - is an insight into their true intentions. The league says that’s nonsense.
The owners have their own set of accusations for the players association. Batterman has said that the union is intentionally slowing down negotiations. He said that the idea is to decertify the union and file antitrust lawsuits against the NFL. Batterman
said, “This is a union waiting for a lockout to occur.”
The union’s response amounted to nothing more than screaming ‘lies’ at Batterman. General Counsel for the union, Richard Berthelsen, said that the term ‘lockout’ had not been a part of the NFL’s vocabulary until Mr. Batterman became part of the negotiations.
He added, “…. after he (Batterman) came aboard, the continuing theme has been 'lockout' from the owners' side of the table.”
Spokesman for the league, George Atallah said that the league was desperate to point the finger back at the union. The Players association has long maintained that the owners want to impose a lockout, and that the hiring of Batterman served that explicit
purpose. Jeff Saturday, a member of the union’s executive committee, said that that the players are not looking for a lockout. He added that the ball was in the owners’ court, and that whatever measure the union resorts to in the event of a lockout would be
“because the owners put us (the Union) in a situation to have to react.”
However, Batterman vehemently denied the assertion that the owners wanted a lockout, and insisted that they are looking for a deal. The NFL’s labour counsel said, “Is that deal going to require some concessions from the players? Yes ... because the balance
has gotten out of whack. And the owners are going to make concessions, too.” He added that both sides had to make compromises and that he hoped a lockout wouldn’t be necessary.
The last time the two sides were at the table, one of the issues discussed was the rookie wage scale. Union President Kevin Mawae said that the union had presented proposals and were waiting for a response.
The Union’s General Counsel Richard Berthelsen said, “We really haven't had any meaningful, substantive responses that are forthcoming. We're hoping that will be the case after the owners' meeting next week.”
One of the sticking points of the negotiations is the proposal for an 18-game regular season. Batterman said that the league made concessions in that proposal, like fewer off-season workouts and less contact during practices, but didn’t hear back from the
union. He said, “They said, 'No,' so we're stopped dead on that.”
Batterman added that if both sides were willing, a deal could be struck soon. He said, “There is enough time remaining. We've got about 50 days,” Batterman said. “There is no question that a deal could be done -- which is a different question than whether
a deal will be done.”
Tags: