NFLPA files grievance against NFL's anthem policy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Most people aren't watching football to be reminded of the bullsnip happening in the country or in the world. They're watching it as an escape.
It's a sport field, not a platform for social commentary.

)

so wouldnt it make more sense to not have the players stand at all?
better yet why even play the anthem at a sports game?

its a game. an escape. a place for sports.
seems like the anthem and standing and the display has no place

As I understand it, the patriotism at sports events was a military recruitment propaganda program -- paid for by the military to NFL owners.

Prior to this, players remained in the locker room til game time.

Then as you understand it is wrong. Players were regularly out on the field for the national Anthem they just were not required to do it. Almost every game every single player was on the sidelines in respect. There is zero evidence of it being a propaganda tool, paid or otherwise.

You have been taken in by Facebook fake news.

I understand forced and not forced.

AKA -- required -- not required.

No, you understand nothing. Players being on the sidelines had to do with timing of certain games, nothing more nothing less. No paid propaganda, stop looking at fake news.

If they do not like their job they can find another. I can't engage in political activism while on the clock without being fired, why are they special again? Why should they be allowed to do what no one else can do? Oh that's right because it aligns with your political affiliation.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Most people aren't watching football to be reminded of the bullsnip happening in the country or in the world. They're watching it as an escape.
It's a sport field, not a platform for social commentary.

)

so wouldnt it make more sense to not have the players stand at all?
better yet why even play the anthem at a sports game?

its a game. an escape. a place for sports.
seems like the anthem and standing and the display has no place

As I understand it, the patriotism at sports events was a military recruitment propaganda program -- paid for by the military to NFL owners.

Prior to this, players remained in the locker room til game time.

Then as you understand it is wrong. Players were regularly out on the field for the national Anthem they just were not required to do it. Almost every game every single player was on the sidelines in respect. There is zero evidence of it being a propaganda tool, paid or otherwise.

You have been taken in by Facebook fake news.

I understand forced and not forced.

AKA -- required -- not required.

No, you understand nothing. Players being on the sidelines had to do with timing of certain games, nothing more nothing less. No paid propaganda, stop looking at fake news.

If they do not like their job they can find another. I can't engage in political activism while on the clock without being fired, why are they special again? Why should they be allowed to do what no one else can do? Oh that's right because it aligns with your political affiliation.

Stop ignoring FORCED Patriotism.

Patriotism is not specific to a political affiliation.

originally posted by: neo96

Our union filed its non-injury grievance today on behalf of all players challenging the NFL's recently imposed anthem policy. The union's claim is that this new policy, imposed by the NFL's governing body without consultation with the NFLPA, is inconsistent with the collective bargaining agreement and infringes on player rights.

Don't you just LOVE IT ?

A bunch of multi millionaires collective bargaining!

Now if only the thousandaires would rise up and demand the same for everyone. Seeing a Union fight in this day in age is refreshing.

a reply to: notsure1

Oh, so enforced morality is ok, as long as the right is directing it?

Tyrannical nonsense.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Most people aren't watching football to be reminded of the bullsnip happening in the country or in the world. They're watching it as an escape.
It's a sport field, not a platform for social commentary.

)

so wouldnt it make more sense to not have the players stand at all?
better yet why even play the anthem at a sports game?

its a game. an escape. a place for sports.
seems like the anthem and standing and the display has no place

As I understand it, the patriotism at sports events was a military recruitment propaganda program -- paid for by the military to NFL owners.

Prior to this, players remained in the locker room til game time.

Then as you understand it is wrong. Players were regularly out on the field for the national Anthem they just were not required to do it. Almost every game every single player was on the sidelines in respect. There is zero evidence of it being a propaganda tool, paid or otherwise.

You have been taken in by Facebook fake news.

I understand forced and not forced.

AKA -- required -- not required.

No, you understand nothing. Players being on the sidelines had to do with timing of certain games, nothing more nothing less. No paid propaganda, stop looking at fake news.

If they do not like their job they can find another. I can't engage in political activism while on the clock without being fired, why are they special again? Why should they be allowed to do what no one else can do? Oh that's right because it aligns with your political affiliation.

Stop ignoring FORCED Patriotism.

Patriotism is not specific to a political affiliation.

No gun to anyone's head. Stop ignoring the fact you are lying, nothing is forced.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The right is not directing it and there is no enforced morality. It's called doing their job. What job do you have that you can engage in political activism while on the clock?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TrueBrit

The right is not directing it and there is no enforced morality.

The change comes after players throughout the league chose not to stand during the anthem prior to the start of games during the 2017 season. The protests, which started in 2016 when Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the anthem to draw awareness to issues of social inequality against minorities, became a central issue for the NFL after President Donald Trump criticized the movement during a speech last September, stating players should be fired for not standing.

It's called doing their job. What job do you have that you can engage in political activism while on the clock?

This is old and worn out. Their job is 24/7. From being in shape to maintaining a code of conduct. Are they not doing their jobs? I haven't seen any games cancelled due to a brief protest. Their employers also didn't have a problem with their actions.

a reply to: intrepid

Apparently they did, hence the new policy. How can you claim their employers did not mind when they created a policy to prevent it?

The only thing worn out is the false claim that players are being forced and it's all paid propaganda starting in 2009.

What do you think happens to me when I go to my job and start political activism while on the clock?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

Apparently they did, hence the new policy. How can you claim their employers did not mind when they created a policy to prevent it?

Right. NEW policy. They didn't have a problem with it until:

became a central issue for the NFL after President Donald Trump criticized the movement during a speech last September...

They still don't want to interfere with the players(see the weak action they took) but are being forced to do so.

a reply to: intrepid

They did not have a problem with it until it started happening. There was no reason to have a policy previously. If they had no problem with it why was Colin without a job? Thought so.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They were allowing it for a full year until Trump inflamed it. The owners were either in line with the protests or at the very least tolerated it. Your saying otherwise shows you know little about the NFL.

a reply to: intrepid

Or they were waiting for it to simply burn out on it's own. They fired Colin and refused to hire him back BEFORE that year. They did not like it, but they did not want to get into a pissing contest with the players. They were forced to and told the players to stop.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

Or they were waiting for it to simply burn out on it's own. They fired Colin and refused to hire him back BEFORE that year. They did not like it, but they did not want to get into a pissing contest with the players. They were forced to and told the players to stop.

Right. Nice to see you finally got it.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

Or they were waiting for it to simply burn out on it's own. They fired Colin and refused to hire him back BEFORE that year. They did not like it, but they did not want to get into a pissing contest with the players. They were forced to and told the players to stop.

Right. Nice to see you finally got it.

Yes, the owners were forced to tell the players to stop because the players would not and the owners DID CARE. What part of my post proves the owners did not care?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you don't understand the word "forced", which you yourself posted, I guess there's no need to go further.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you don't understand the word "forced", which you yourself posted, I guess there's no need to go further.

So you can't actually explain it and instead try to use a logical fallacy. The owners wanted the behaviors to end, but did not want to stir trouble with players. They were not ok with it, they just did not want to go nuclear. I don't know how you confuse those two things.

If they were ok with it why was Colin unemployed?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you don't understand the word "forced", which you yourself posted, I guess there's no need to go further.

So you can't actually explain it and instead try to use a logical fallacy. The owners wanted the behaviors to end, but did not want to stir trouble with players. They were not ok with it, they just did not want to go nuclear. I don't know how you confuse those two things.

You DO know that just saying something doesn't make it true, right?

If they were ok with it why was Colin unemployed?

He was bench before his protest. Defensive coordinators had figured out how to defend him. Could he be used as a backup? Probably but no one want the distraction that his circus would bring.

a reply to: intrepid

So then they DID care, and cared enough to keep him off the team.

It's not me saying it, the owners said they cared when they kept Colin from playing and then made actual policies to stop the protesting.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

So then they DID care, and cared enough to keep him off the team.

It's not me saying it, the owners said they cared when they kept Colin from playing and then made actual policies to stop the protesting.

Complete BS. That's collusion and legally actionable. Like I said, you have no idea how the league works.

a reply to: intrepid

False, it's not. It's not collusion when every owner has the same opinion.

You just can't back up your fallacious statements.

FACT: The owners created a policy to prevent it.
Fact: They do indeed care.

It's crazy how you assert the owners don't care and refuse to address the fact they created an actual policy.