Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

SBXVII · 03-25-2011, 12:21 PM

Sorry to bug you about it or seem like I'm an idiot, most unions when striking are arguing for the hourly wage earner. Trying to either get him better wages or get him a % raise each year. Sometimes it's about health coverage. Sometimes it's about safety. Rarely is it ever about the salary wage earner who negotiates his salary/contract prior to being hired. What I mean by Salary wage earner is the employee who agrees to a yearly amount. Instead of an hourly wage earner being told he will make $25 an hour the salary negotiates say a $80,000 a year contract. His contract does not go up nor down because it was negotiated prior to his hiring. Usually the hourly wage eaner does not get to negotiate their wage which is why unions are formed and step in to negotiate for them.

and again I know I'm thinking too much but how does a floor cap and a ceiling cap effect negotiations to a salary wage earner? Unless the negotiations are about yearly cost of living increases which I didn't think the NFL had.

I'm only asking because I'm actually siding with the owners right now sort of, and there is a few here that probably would think I'm a moron for doing so. Yet everthing I read about what all this means is so watered down and not explained very well.

For me I see players concerned over a % of the money that they probably won't see anyway because they sit and negotiate their salaries with the owners. If they dont' like the offer they can go to another team who might pay them better. I guess I'm having problems seeing how 50% of the revenue is going to effect not only current players under contract by their teams but FA's since each individual player negotiates their own contract. If it's about the players saying every team has to spend atleast 75 mill a year on players salaries and the owner saying ok but we don't want this to get out of hand so we are going to say no team can spend over 130 mill a year fine. It can be worded like that in the contract and even throw in the fact that it can increase by 4% each year. But thats not what this is about or atleast it doesn't seem like it.

On the swing side the owners are claiming a loss in revenue. How much? If the whole NFL league makes 9 bill and there is a loss then in all actuality there is no 9 bill. It's probably 8 bill or 8.5 or something. Was it at 10 bill in a previous year and last year it fell to 9 bill? If thats the case then the players and owners would know. So is the 9 bill what is in question because it seems like the issue is more about not wanting to give up 1 bill to the owners for revenue sharing leaving 8 bill to split two ways. which goes back to my original question how does the 4 bill effect the players either current or FA's looking for new contracts? We know it won't effect Rookies because there will be a Rookie wage scale.

03-25-2011, 12:21 PM	#508
SBXVII Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 7,766	Re: Ongoing CBA discussions Sorry to bug you about it or seem like I'm an idiot, most unions when striking are arguing for the hourly wage earner. Trying to either get him better wages or get him a % raise each year. Sometimes it's about health coverage. Sometimes it's about safety. Rarely is it ever about the salary wage earner who negotiates his salary/contract prior to being hired. What I mean by Salary wage earner is the employee who agrees to a yearly amount. Instead of an hourly wage earner being told he will make $25 an hour the salary negotiates say a $80,000 a year contract. His contract does not go up nor down because it was negotiated prior to his hiring. Usually the hourly wage eaner does not get to negotiate their wage which is why unions are formed and step in to negotiate for them. and again I know I'm thinking too much but how does a floor cap and a ceiling cap effect negotiations to a salary wage earner? Unless the negotiations are about yearly cost of living increases which I didn't think the NFL had. I'm only asking because I'm actually siding with the owners right now sort of, and there is a few here that probably would think I'm a moron for doing so. Yet everthing I read about what all this means is so watered down and not explained very well. For me I see players concerned over a % of the money that they probably won't see anyway because they sit and negotiate their salaries with the owners. If they dont' like the offer they can go to another team who might pay them better. I guess I'm having problems seeing how 50% of the revenue is going to effect not only current players under contract by their teams but FA's since each individual player negotiates their own contract. If it's about the players saying every team has to spend atleast 75 mill a year on players salaries and the owner saying ok but we don't want this to get out of hand so we are going to say no team can spend over 130 mill a year fine. It can be worded like that in the contract and even throw in the fact that it can increase by 4% each year. But thats not what this is about or atleast it doesn't seem like it. On the swing side the owners are claiming a loss in revenue. How much? If the whole NFL league makes 9 bill and there is a loss then in all actuality there is no 9 bill. It's probably 8 bill or 8.5 or something. Was it at 10 bill in a previous year and last year it fell to 9 bill? If thats the case then the players and owners would know. So is the 9 bill what is in question because it seems like the issue is more about not wanting to give up 1 bill to the owners for revenue sharing leaving 8 bill to split two ways. which goes back to my original question how does the 4 bill effect the players either current or FA's looking for new contracts? We know it won't effect Rookies because there will be a Rookie wage scale.