Boyer' open letter to Kaepernick

[mb227]

I heard on the radio that Käpernick is now suing the NFL. He claims that he's been blacklisted. He says teams indicated (some how, some way) that they we interested in him and then, nothing. He claims NFL management is keeping teams from offering him a contract.

Personally, I don't think Goodell has the will or the desire to do that, but we'll see. I'll bet Goodell wishes he'd have sat on Kapernick when this started last season, before it got out of control. Too late now.

More correctly, he has filed a grievance with the league. It may eventually turn to litigation, but right now, it is the same as employee grievances filed in any other workplace.

It does essentially end his career with the league. Ironically, he might actually have had a shot with someone like the Packers where the QB has gone down for a season. The earlier issue with the Titans was not a likely landing spot since Mariota was apt to be out for perhaps two games and nobody is going to hire Kaepernick to carry a clipboard.

What he fails to realize is that nobody wants a polarizing cancer in the locker room. Teams learned that when they took a chance on wife-beating pieces of crap (Greg Hardy) and saw the PR fallout. And now that the league is taking a PR beating (no pun intended), they don't want someone that is going to piss off the fan willing to dump a few hundred per seat eight weeks out of the season (more if food and parking is included in the average weekly expenditure).

He is learning what others through the years have learned in a variety of workplaces...you can say whatever you want, but you do not get to do it on the clock and, oh by the way, you don't get to do it without fear of consequence attaching.

 

[bystander]

I am repeating myself but my simple view is that this is not a freedom of speech issue. It's about an employee that costs your business money. This is what I believe has been happening with the league-wide protests and would happen to whichever team signed Kaepernick. Just because every businessman has reached the same conclusion is not necessarily a sign of collusion; some things are just self-evident and in my view, this is about dollars and brand preservation because many of these owners love money more than their country (again, my opinion; sorry for the cynicism).

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

If one has their lights on and one is out, it is NOT unreasonable for a traffic stop to occur. Those LOOKING to be oppressed will find something to claim victimization over. Those NOT looking for such things under every single interaction will take the warning for what it is and go get the light fixed.

IMO, "the talk" does more harm than good for many young black men. I think it makes them predisposed to regard cops as antagonist rather than men and women trying to protect the community. "the talk" relies not on data but anecdotes like Eric Brown, and IMO instills very early in these young men that they are in a fight or flight position with cops and that's why even in the most benign circumstances you get the surrounding citizens heckling police when they are trying to do their job.

 

[bystander]

If one has their lights on and one is out, it is NOT unreasonable for a traffic stop to occur. Those LOOKING to be oppressed will find something to claim victimization over. Those NOT looking for such things under every single interaction will take the warning for what it is and go get the light fixed.

My 20 year old son was pulled over in San Marcos for having his license plate light out. It was a great lesson without cost as he wasn't drinking but got the eye-opener about those pesky lights in back. He got a warning.

 

[Mr. Deez]

IMO, "the talk" does more harm than good for many young black men.

It sorta depends on what's said in the talk. If black boys are being told to carefully and respectfully obey the officers, that's a good thing, and frankly it's the same talk white people have with their kids. However, I suspect that at least some are telling their black sons that the police are out to get them and that there's a high probability that the officer will assault or kill them even if they're cooperative. If that's the case, then "the talk" is borderline child abuse.

 

[I35]

These stories are insightful if only to offer credibility to the "unequal justice" discussion

I'm guessing there is a Caucasian Male that can match each one of those blacks pulled over and even many more for driving while white. I got stopped for not coming to a complete stop in a neighborhood once, coming off of I-35 in New Braunfels for going 10 MPH over the speed limit coming off the ramp that dropped all the way to 45 mph, and a taillight out in a three year period. At that rate I'd be stopped 9 times within a decade. It has to be that I'm driving while white.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

It sorta depends on what's said in the talk. If black boys are being told to carefully and respectfully obey the officers, that's a good thing, and frankly it's the same talk white people have with their kids. However, I suspect that at least some are telling their black sons that the police are out to get them and that there's a high probability that the officer will assault or kill them even if they're cooperative. If that's the case, then "the talk" is borderline child abuse.

true. And I've never been party to "the talk" but anecdotally it does seem that it is initiated in large part from a supposition of "you're going to be treated different because of your color". That by itself sets a tone of "why me", "f you" for many. I can certainly understand that response but I believe the need for "the talk" is overblown and is based on conditions that aren't prevalent today.

I'm not saying there isn't prejudice and in some cases even racism, that a young black male may face, I'm just saying that most young black males need the "respect your elders, respect your mom, respect the police" talk just like young white males. To lace it with an underpinning of "they're gonna getcha" is a poor choice.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm guessing there is a Caucasian Male that can match each one of those blacks pulled over and even many more for driving while white. I got stopped for not coming to a complete stop in a neighborhood once, coming off of I-35 in New Braunfels for going 10 MPH over the speed limit coming off the ramp that dropped all the way to 45 mph, and a taillight out in a three year period. At that rate I'd be stopped 9 times within a decade. It has to be that I'm driving while white.

Uh...you clearly didn't read that story. It might be you that Kaepernick is trying to get to listen to their plight.

 

[UTChE96]

What he fails to realize is that nobody wants a polarizing cancer in the locker room.

Exactly right. He is a huge distraction and frankly not a good enough QB to justify that distraction. Not to mention the damage to the team's brand that he will cause. He is learning a hard but long overdue lesson on what the 1st Amendment actually guarantees.

 

[mb227]

He is learning a hard but long overdue lesson on what the 1st Amendment actually guarantees.

More critically, that it has ZERO bearing in the non-governmental realm when it comes to the right of an employer not to employ a distracting doofus.

 

[horninchicago]

Raised by a white couple with 2 white kids. Yeah I'm sure Kaepernick really experienced the black "plight".

 

[Seattle Husker]

Raised by a white couple with 2 white kids. Yeah I'm sure Kaepernick really experienced the black "plight".

I don't presuppose to know what he experienced nor any other kneeler.

 

[I35]

I don't presuppose to know what he experienced nor any other kneeler.

Why can't we all just play the victim and then go have a beer?

 

[iatrogenic]

I don't presuppose to know what he experienced nor any other kneeler.

But we do know the statistics, that Kaepernick is a fool, and that the entire BLM movement is built upon fraud. The black community has enormous problems, but not because of police officers, whose relatively miniscule misdeeds pale relative to the black on black murders, and the negative effects of soaring single parent black households and liberal policies that will forever be a noose around their neck.

 

[Joe Fan]

More correctly, he has filed a grievance with the league. It may eventually turn to litigation, but right now, it is the same as employee grievances filed in any other workplace. ....

I am not certain he can sue for collusion while a valid CBA is in place
i think the Union might have to de-certify first.
But we will see

 

[Joe Fan]

Meanwhile, "‘Monday Night Football’ Ratings Fall To Season Low..."


http://deadline.com/2017/10/titans-...-ratings-fall-season-low-nfl-espn-1202189784/

 

[Joe Fan]

I respect all of their rights to kneel. .....

They are employees, on the job, in uniform, under contract, at an employer provided place of business. Accordingly, they do not really have "a right to kneel." Not at this time and place. They do, of course, enjoy the same right to kneel as any other US citizen while not at work.

 

[horninchicago]

They are employees, on the job, in uniform, under contract, at an employer provided place of business. Accordingly, they do not really have "a right to kneel." Not at this time and place. They do, of course, enjoy the same right to kneel as any other US citizen while not at work.

They do have the right. As you know, of course, the employer you describe also has the right to fire their asses for it.

 

[mb227]

I am not certain he can sue for collusion while a valid CBA is in place
i think the Union might have to de-certify first.
But we will see

Just like all other idiots in the courts, anyone can FILE. Having a chance in hell of prevailing is another matter entirely...and even if the case survived the claims related to the need to decertify and what not, he does not have a chance in hell of proving his assertion that the owners have colluded. I'm not sure even the left coast whackadoos sitting on the bench would buy into a claim that owners using common sense is the same as collusion...

 

[mb227]

They do have the right. As you know, of course, the employer you describe also has the right to fire their asses for it.

They have an ABILITY to kneel...but not a PROTECTED ability. And, as noted, that lack of protected ability is why the employer has the right to terminate the employee-employer relationship.

 

[horninchicago]

They have an ABILITY to kneel...but not a PROTECTED ability. And, as noted, that lack of protected ability is why the employer has the right to terminate the employee-employer relationship.

I see what you mean. Yes, that's correct.

Edit: The word "right" gets thrown around and overused like the word "hero". I allowed myself to fall into it above. I absolutely agree, there is no Constitutional Free Speech right that these jokers have to do this. Their bosses need to disallow it now. Fire one of their sorry asses and I doubt you will see anymore kneeling.

 

[bystander]

Just like all other idiots in the courts, anyone can FILE. Having a chance in hell of prevailing is another matter entirely...and even if the case survived the claims related to the need to decertify and what not, he does not have a chance in hell of proving his assertion that the owners have colluded. I'm not sure even the left coast whackadoos sitting on the bench would buy into a claim that owners using common sense is the same as collusion...

It's like the NFLPA challenging Goodell's Emperor status. They agreed to it in the CBA. But they don't want to live with it.

 

[bystander]

It's very simple (I keep pounding this point): Does an employee have the right to engage in an action (unrelated to legitimate whistle-blowing activities) that harms the enterprise?

I felt all along that the Left was downplaying effect the protests were having on the ratings and attendance because they knew deep-down inside that the economic impact on the enterprise (unrelated to the target of the protest) put the protesters at employment risk.

 

[Joe Fan]

Just like all other idiots in the courts, anyone can FILE. Having a chance in hell of prevailing is another matter entirely...and even if the case survived the claims related to the need to decertify and what not, he does not have a chance in hell of proving his assertion that the owners have colluded. I'm not sure even the left coast whackadoos sitting on the bench would buy into a claim that owners using common sense is the same as collusion...

True, anyone can file (and they do)
I would move to dismiss it prior to answering
Preventing any discovery until after the motion is heard

 

[Joe Fan]

They do have the right. As you know, of course, the employer you describe also has the right to fire their asses for it.

True, they could do it, but did they have a legal right to do it?
You (or anyone) can rob a bank or punch someone in the face whose opinion you disagree with, but did you have the legal right to do so?
Apparently, if you are a movie producer and give money to Dems, you can make 16-year-old Reece Witherpsoon give you a bj as a condition of employment, but did you have the right to do that?

 

[bystander]

True, anyone can file (and they do)
I would move to dismiss it prior to answering
Preventing any discovery until after the motion is heard

Let me tell you about anyone being able to file anything. I was granted a divorce last Fall. I was separated for eight years. I left and I filed. My ex has filed an appeal with the Texas Court of Appeals to have me declared her husband for life on religious grounds. Her 36 page brief can be summed up thusly: "The no-fault divorce laws of Texas are infringing on her religious rights."

THIS IS NO ****. I'm not exaggerating. This is my life right now.

This was her case at the district level; she filed a motion prior to the hearing to have the case dropped and the judge over-ruled it in about ten minutes and awarded me $1,000 in legal fees. She is a religious fanatic and cannot be swayed. I've talked to her pastor and her family. They are all distressed by this and have begged her to let me go (so have our two children). There was no controversy over the asset division (56% to her), child support (the max) or custody (she has primary) as what I offered was accepted by the judge without debate. She even lectured my ex on how fair the settlement was.

So if you've not spilled your coffee, the point is that anyone can file anything. I am living proof of this. I am now waiting for the Court of Appeals to rule.

 

[horninchicago]

True, they could do it, but did they have a legal right to do it?
You (or anyone) can rob a bank or punch someone in the face whose opinion you disagree with, but did you have the legal right to do so?
Apparently, if you are a movie producer and give money to Dems, you can make 16-year-old Reece Witherpsoon give you a bj as a condition of employment, but did you have the right to do that?

No. Corrected myself above. Like I said, they can do it but they should be fired, as I would at my job.

 

[Joe Fan]

....So if you've not spilled your coffee, the point is that anyone can file anything. I am living proof of this. I am now waiting for the Court of Appeals to rule.

Geesh. That is a horrible story. I wish you the best. You may have to petition for some type of declaratory relief. Once you have that order, future filings by her will be easier to deal with.

As to the "anyone can file anything" part. It used to be a part on my daily life. Federal Court makes it easy. By design. The idea being the federal system is open to all, no matter your status. Which is a noble idea. But all those filings still have to be dealt with, by somebody. Sometimes I saw ramblings so incoherent, you could not respond since it was impossible to grasp what relief they were seeking. This is one reason I liked to move to dismiss before answering (you had to be quick bc there was a short deadline to do this). Make them go back and rewrite it to make it at least minimally legible. Most of the time they gave up and did not refile. Those that did, assuming we could see what they wanted the 2nd time, then I usually moved to dismiss it again (without ever answering still -- because a discovery schedule is not set until an answer is filed). This worked about 98% of the time.

 

[bystander]

Geesh. That is a horrible story. I wish you the best. You may have to petition for some type of declaratory relief. Once you have that order, future filings by her will be easier to deal with.

As to the "anyone can file anything" part. It used to be a part on my daily life. Federal Court makes it easy. By design. The idea being the federal system is open to all, no matter your status. Which is a noble idea. But all those filings still have to be dealt with, by somebody.

Thanks, luckily I have some money and a fairly strong mind (I guess). I bolded what you said... yes, somebody has to read it, incoherent or not... guess who? My attorney? $$$

 

[Joe Fan]

No. Corrected myself above. Like I said, they can do it but they should be fired, as I would at my job.

Agree, but the NFL is complicated by a CBA and standardized contracts. So, while a Burger King order-taker who cussed out customer through the PA system could easily be fired (absent Touretts I guess) - it might not be apples to apples with an NFL player.

Nonetheless, I do believe the league could fine them for it. Why do I say this? because they have done it before. Many times.

But, in this case, the commisoner's office decided they did not want to be on the wrong side of this social issue. So they tried to deal with it with a bunch of equivocating nonesense. But he and they misjudged it, didnt they? They lost sight of what their specific job is. Goodell is lucky his contract was renewed before this kneeling on the flag stuff intensified (he will make ~$40M this year. What a joke).

So, anyway, how did this happen?
My understanding is that Goodell recently hired someone from the failed Clinton Campaign and this person had his ear on this issue. Beeg mistake.