Broncos T Ja'Wuan James tears Achilles; Released from team

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

Because they directed players not to report to team OTA's - but didn't negotiate coverage if players got injured off-facility, or at least have players be aware of the risk they were assuming.   

While the NFLPA dropped the ball to an extent, why do they need to be redundant and put out the exact same MOU and email that the NFL had just sent out? It's up to players to read information from their employers, just like any other line of work.

Where the NFLPA dropped the ball was how many players left money on the table for workout bonuses, not injury compensation.
 

JMHO

[Broncofan]

7 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

While the NFLPA dropped the ball to an extent, why do they need to be redundant and put out the exact same MOU and email that the NFL had just sent out? It's up to players to read information from their employers, just like any other line of work.

Where the NFLPA dropped the ball was how many players left money on the table for workout bonuses, not injury compensation.
 

JMHO

The union specifically directed players to not attend OTA's.   This wasn't like the owners putting out a weekly bulletin and the players not reading the fine print.  If you are going to make a counter to normal work environment directions, and put workers into personal liability as a result - then yes, the union assumes a lot of their own responsibility.

If this was just a standard "hey he got hurt in the offseason", I'd be totally with you.  But the NFLPA went out of their way to say "hey, don't attend OTA's next week, stay at home, it's for your safety" - then forgot to leave in "but if you do get hurt off-premises without team-approval to do so, remember your contract doesn't cover that".

It's not a 100 percent blame situation - but acting like this is all the owners' / league's fault, that doesn't apply here.   The NFLPA is just so ineffectual that stuff like this is still not covered in the CBA, it's ridiculous - but in this one, they also directly started the sequence of events here.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Broncofan

[Cutler06]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Why blame the NFLPA?

The NFLPA was advising players to stay away from team practice facilities and OTA workouts trying to gain leverage in future CBA negotiation. JJ took the advice and look what it cost him ? 

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

The union specifically directed players to not attend OTA's.   This wasn't like the owners putting out a weekly bulletin and the players not reading the fine print.  If you are going to make a counter to normal work environment directions, and put workers into personal liability as a result - then yes, the union assumes a lot of their own responsibility.

If this was just a standard "hey he got hurt in the offseason", I'd be totally with you.  But the NFLPA went out of their way to say "hey, don't attend OTA's next week, stay at home, it's for your safety" - then forgot to leave in "but if you do get hurt off-premises without team-approval to do so, remember your contract doesn't cover that".

It's not a 100 percent blame situation - but acting like this is all the owners' / league's fault, that doesn't apply here.   The NFLPA is just so ineffectual that stuff like this is still not covered in the CBA, it's ridiculous - but in this one, they also directly started the sequence of events here.

Eh, they stated that it is voluntary and the Pandemic wasn't over and injuries were down significantly last year so data suggests less time working out results in fewer injuries. I'm not sure how someone getting injured working out is following their suggestion. You can tear an ACL walking down the stairs or rip your Achilles turning around after forgetting your keys. If your employer wants to fire you because you can no longer do your job until you recover I don't know how a 3rd party is really responsible. 

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Eh, they stated that it is voluntary and the Pandemic wasn't over and injuries were down significantly last year so data suggests less time working out results in fewer injuries. I'm not sure how someone getting injured working out is following their suggestion. You can tear an ACL walking down the stairs or rip your Achilles turning around after forgetting your keys. If your employer wants to fire you because you can no longer do your job until you recover I don't know how a 3rd party is really responsible. 

If James had torn his ACL walking down the stairs / etc. no one would argue the point.

But the NFLPA specifically said don't go to OTA's.    Many players wanted to still work out.   Working out in team facilities is protected.   Working out on your own is not.   James got hurt working out on his own - but the NFLPA actively discouraged it.  They didn't just say "it's voluntary", the leadership was public about boycotting altogether.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/04/15/jc-tretter-says-ota-boycott-is-not-about-protecting-veteran-roster-spots/

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/2165937

This wasn't a "it's voluntary" - it was a call by the union to boycott OTA's.   Which put players who want to work out in that position of personal liability.

If this was just an unfortunate situation of the stairs/etc. - no one would argue.  But the NFLPA called for a boycott on OTA's - not just that "it's voluntary".   For players who wanted to work out, the NFLPA's position put them in a position where they now took on all the liability - instead of working out at team facilities (or team-approved off-site locations), where they would be protected.

There's no doubt the CBA should have covered this - but again, that's on the NFLPA too.    Trust me when I say it kills me to take this position - I think the CBA as it stands stinks.  But the same guys who made this stance....also failed to get it done last year, and agreed to a TEN-year deal.   They also had the option of making this a sticking point when they agreed to resume the 2020 season in June - it required their agreement.  And yet the NFLPA didn't decide to make this a massive draw-the-line issue then, when they had massive leverage and were at the negotiating table.   But now, when they have absolutely no leverage, in the following offseason, the NFLPA went this route.   

For the record, I routinely take the position to support player's rights to hold out, go to the highest bidder - because of how ridiculously unfriendly the CBA is to players and how team-friendly it is here.  This is yet another prime example.  But the NFLPA definitely put players who want to work out in the offseason, on their own.    To absolve them of that, I don't see at all.   I don't have to like the CBA, or support ownership's position in general, to say that the NFLPA dropped the ball in a massive way here.   Those statements all can co-exist in this case.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Broncofan

[Thomas5737]

3 hours ago, Broncofan said:

If James had torn his ACL walking down the stairs / etc. no one would argue the point.

But the NFLPA specifically said don't go to OTA's.    Many players wanted to still work out.   Working out in team facilities is protected.   Working out on your own is not.   James got hurt working out on his own - but the NFLPA actively discouraged it.  They didn't just say "it's voluntary", the leadership was public about boycotting altogether.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/04/15/jc-tretter-says-ota-boycott-is-not-about-protecting-veteran-roster-spots/

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/2165937

This wasn't a "it's voluntary" - it was a call by the union to boycott OTA's.   Which put players who want to work out in that position of personal liability.

If this was just an unfortunate situation of the stairs/etc. - no one would argue.  But the NFLPA called for a boycott on OTA's - not just that "it's voluntary".   For players who wanted to work out, the NFLPA's position put them in a position where they now took on all the liability - instead of working out at team facilities (or team-approved off-site locations), where they would be protected.

There's no doubt the CBA should have covered this - but again, that's on the NFLPA too.    Trust me when I say it kills me to take this position - I think the CBA as it stands stinks.  But the same guys who made this stance....also failed to get it done last year, and agreed to a TEN-year deal.   They also had the option of making this a sticking point when they agreed to resume the 2020 season in June - it required their agreement.  And yet the NFLPA didn't decide to make this a massive draw-the-line issue then, when they had massive leverage and were at the negotiating table.   But now, when they have absolutely no leverage, in the following offseason, the NFLPA went this route.   

For the record, I routinely take the position to support player's rights to hold out, go to the highest bidder - because of how ridiculously unfriendly the CBA is to players and how team-friendly it is here.  This is yet another prime example.  But the NFLPA definitely put players who want to work out in the offseason, on their own.    To absolve them of that, I don't see at all.   I don't have to like the CBA, or support ownership's position in general, to say that the NFLPA dropped the ball in a massive way here.   Those statements all can co-exist in this case.

The NFLPA was trying to protect the players and their families.

 

As far as the players having leverage that hasn't happened in my lifetime. They have no leverage. The owners will concede things they don't care about and share more money but in the end they will only give what they want and there is nothing the players can do about it.