Plan B Forum

Is he suing someone for not hiring him? Can he do that? Does a Lawyer have to take a client the lawyer doesn’t want? Does a contractor have to hire a carpenter he considers troublesome? Does an NFL owner have to hire a player he, the owner, thinks might be troublesome?
Does the player get to decide what his, the players, salary will be?


Colin Kaepernick was spotted working out in the Houston area as the NFL new year kicks off.
Even though he was shrouded with security, a video by Yahoo's Charles Robinson emerged of the free agent quarterback doing drills and throwing passes.
It's unclear why Kaepernick was in Houston for the workout, but the report stated no NFL teams were on site. Yahoo reached out to the Texans, and a source with the team said the Texans had no clue Kaepernick, who went unsigned all of last season, was in town.

Certainly no owner has to hire him (or not hire him for that matter) but if the owners got together and decided to collectively blackball him from the NFL, that could be a problem for them as it is generally illegal for competitors to combine in this matter and target an individual (and I believe violates the NFL players collective bargaining agreement as well).

Big RR wrote:Certainly no owner has to hire him (or not hire him for that matter) but if the owners got together and decided to collectively blackball him from the NFL, that could be a problem for them as it is generally illegal for competitors to combine in this matter and target an individual (and I believe violates the NFL players collective bargaining agreement as well).

How do you prove such a thing unless you have a law where owners are not allowed to talk to each other? But wouldn’t that be a violation of their freedom of speech? As I see it, they can talk to each other about him and even influence by each other as long as they act as individuals. Why can’t they boycott a player? The owners can be boycotted, is not turn about fair play?

If the NFL owners were insulted by a player don’t they have a right to ignore him? However, I suspect they just consider him a troublesome worker that will just cause them trouble in the future; so, it make sense to avoid him. Problematic workers like convicted felons can overcome their condition by making themselves more valuable or less expensive. If the player we are discussing would reduce his price enough someone owner would hire him.

liberty wrote: Why can’t they boycott a player? The owners can be boycotted, is not turn about fair play?

The owners can be boycotted but not by the players.

If the NFL owners were insulted by a player don’t they have a right to ignore him? However, I suspect they just consider him a troublesome worker that will just cause them trouble in the future; so, it make sense to avoid him. .

Perhaps, and if they came to that opinion independently, then it is likely legal. but if they discussed it in a back room and agreed no one would hire the player, then it is illegal and likely a violation of the CBA. an agreement all the owners voluntarily signed and should be held to IMHO.

If the player we are discussing would reduce his price enough someone owner would hire him

Maybe, but not if there were a decision by all potential employers not to employ the person at all, and that is the concern here. The collusion can be difficult to prove, but if it exists, it is problematic.

The way to test for collusion is for the player to lower his price at some point it will be worth it for an owner to hire him, unless it is personal. If they refuse to hire him at a bargain price would that be proof of collusion? What do the owners get from not hiring him; how does it benefit the owners.

I bet no liberal here would hire me no matter how much money I made for them.

Is it legal to refuse to hire someone because their political or personal views offend you.

liberty wrote:I bet no liberal one here anywhere would hire me no matter how much money I made for them because I lack the brain cells that God gave a Valencia orange.

FTFY

liberty wrote:Is it legal to refuse to hire someone because their political or personal views offend you.

Would Trump have been required to hire Barack Obama for a campaign manager if he applied for the position?

The question is all about the village idiot attempting to wallow in his perceived victim status.

Kaepernicks' quarterback ranking from 2016 would place him about 17th versus active starting quarterbacks. Better than half the field.



yrs,
rubato

liberty wrote:The way to test for collusion is for the player to lower his price at some point it will be worth it for an owner to hire him, unless it is personal. If they refuse to hire him at a bargain price would that be proof of collusion? What do the owners get from not hiring him; how does it benefit the owners.
... " .

Your argument is empty. No one has even entered salary negotiations proving that they don't want him at any price.


And what do they get for it? They get to express spite.


yrs,
rubato

well....

...if tom brady put on a Che shirt, some piggy cop socks and knelt for the anthem, he would have to sneak out of boston before they tarred and feathered him....

.....and san Francisco would snatch him up.


if you re gonna wear a Che shirt you had better be better than mediocre....

rubato wrote:

liberty wrote:The way to test for collusion is for the player to lower his price at some point it will be worth it for an owner to hire him, unless it is personal. If they refuse to hire him at a bargain price would that be proof of collusion? What do the owners get from not hiring him; how does it benefit the owners.
... " .

Your argument is empty. No one has even entered salary negotiations proving that they don't want him at any price.


And what do they get for it? They get to express spite.


yrs,
rubato

Maybe they, the owners, were personally offended by this player. Do they have to hire someone they consider offensive? If a convicted rapist applied for the job would they, the owners, have to hire the rapist even though they consider rape offensive.

Maybe they, the owners, are not interesting in negotiations because they know the range of salaries that would be involved would be beyond what they would be willing to pay for such a troublesome worker.

I personally didn’t think his protest was all that bad. It wasn’t like what the liberals did during the Cold War. There was no piss, shit, burning or stomping on the flag involved. It seemed almost respectful; it was more like a plea than a protest. But the NFL owners have a right to their own opinion.

Why don’t the players that agree with his protest walkout and form their own league. They could call it the Anti-American league; I suspect they would have plenty of supporters.

another league? From the USFL to the WFL, we've seen how well other leagues do; the NFL pretty much has pro football sewn up, much as MLB and the NBA and NHL have their sports.