The NFL's team owners have unanimously agreed to a proposed 10 year contract with the recertified NFLPA which should result in an end to the lockout and teams practicing by the week-end. New Orleans player representative Heath Evans cautions, the players' agreement is not certain. While it appears the economic issues are settled - the owners will not take a slice off the top anymore - Evans claims there are things included in the owners approved deal that the players have never discussed. Also yesterday the August 7 Hall of Fame game was cancelled.

"But here's the issue that the Union must pay more attention to. From what I have heard from several Berkeley Bowl employees, the union needed a more visible role on the ground. For example, one progressive and politically experienced employee complained that when Berkeley Bowl raised the health insurance premiums that employees must pay, the union only filed a grievance.

For more visibility and effect, holding a protest rally would have been a good idea. More generally, these stores should have stewards who are actively in contact with the members, continually engaging them, asking what their concerns are and working with them to resolve the problems they have on their minds.

In short, it would be useful for unions to move from a model in which issues are too often handled within a legal framework, and frequently by experts, such as lawyers -- to a social movement model, in which union members are more vigorously encouraged to participate in shaping their day to day work lives."

There is a terrific post on the oral argument in the Brady case at Prawfsblawg, including a link to an audio of the argument. I'm not sure that it matters whether the union is decertified or not for purposes of the Norris-LaGuardia Act coverage of a labor dispute. A labor dispute can exist without a union. The players should have an unfettered right to disavow their union. Even if it is a tactic used to gain advantage,the National Labor Relations Act affords employees the right to decertify, and the union thereafter has no legal status as employee representative. Once done, the basis for the anti-trust exemption in labor relations no longer exists. I am surely an outsider to the dispute, but lots does not make sense to me. It seems like the owners are incurring huge potential risk with a lockout. All the bad possibilities of a strike, lost season, economic devastation, etc., but the real risk of blame for the outcome being placed on the shoulders of the owners, not players. Add to that anti-trust exposure, well, YIKES!

Workers at Omnova's plant in Columbus, MS have been on strike for over a year. Now the replacement workers have filed a decertification petition with the NLRB. The union has indicated it will aggressively contest the decertification. Previous posts here.

As we expected Federal Judge Susan Nelson has enjoined the owners lockout, citing irreparable harm not only to the players careers, but to non-parties like concessionaires and fans. WOW! And if the owners are waiting for the NLRB to declare the decertification of the union an illegal tactic, then they live in a fantasy world far less real than fantasy football. Moreover, Judge Nelson pretty well rejected the argument, which was a stretch from the beginning. Saints have posted the NFL's statement on the ruling here.

Over the NFL's objection Federal Judge Susan Nelson has sent the NFL and the players to mediation in front of a federal magistrate. The NFL urged mediation is inappropriate until the NLRB rules on the legality of the decertification of the union. I cannot believe the current NLRB will restrict the right of players to decertify their union. Nor can I believe the court will refuse to address the players anti-trust claims. The judge also issued a strong warning to both parties that litigating rather than mediating was very risky.

Surprised? I am. Expired collective bargaining agreement, decertification and probable lockout. No disrespect to the tragedy in Japan, but this is a metaphorical tsunami that can well damage all concerned. I think going forward it will be very difficult for the owners in both a court of law and the court of public opinion. The NFL/NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement expired because the players would not agree to extend it unless the owners provided the financial information the players had requested. The big sticking point in the negotiations is the owners insistence their costs have risen necessitating taking a second billion off the top of the revenue pie. (The owners want to take $2 billion of the roughly $9 billion in annual revenue generated by the league, before splitting the rest under a formula that provides roughly 60% to player compensation.) Yet the owners are only offering to provide limited access to financial information. This sounds like the typical discovery dispute - one side provides documents requested by the other side and after the production, the requesting party says it needs more. The real issue is hard to assess. Irrespective of the merits of what was produced and whether it was sufficient, I think owners will have a difficult time convincing anyone they provided all the financials the union needed.

The clock is ticking on the expiration of the extended collective bargaining agreement between the National Football League (NFL) and the National Football League Players Association(NFLPA). Current deadline is tonight at 11:59 p.m. USA Today has an interesting, if bare bones assessment of what could happen. My bet is on another extension. The players have signaled their willingness to talk - there has been no talk of a strike. The owners have rattled the lockout saber thereby assuming the roll of the party willing to walk, but really? This labor/management dispute plays to labor's strengths. Highly skilled athletes bargaining for more. Billionaire owners wanting to increase their guaranteed slice of the estimated 9 billion dollar golden goose that is the NFL. It does not hurt the players position that the owners want a $100% increase in their guaranteed slice off the top. This dispute plays out against the backdrop of the fans. Who will they blame if Sundays from August to February (and a few Mondays, Saturdays and Thursdays too) are devoid of action, or if the only action is by replacement players? I think thats an easy call if the owners lockout the players. Nevertheless a lockout has the same potential economic consequences for the players as a strike, and they are all adverse. No pay, no benefits, and potentially a lost season for players who have precious few years to play anyway. The owners should be gleeful the players threaten to decertify the union (actually a disclaimer of interest that would lead to decertification). It allows the owners to back off the lockout position and continue negotiations, at least at this point. Decertification likely will likely place all of this in a courtroom, a consequence which should be feared more by the defendant, because the teams, as defendants in an antitrust action have a potential dreadful downside. I think the owners should be very concerned about American Needle v. NFL, which rejected the owners argument that the league by necessity had to act jointly in marketing decisions. Yeah, that may be a simplistic analysis, but the case firmly rejected the NFL's broad interpretation of the anti-trust exemption.

Redskins, Colts and Philadelphia unanimously vote to authorize decertification of the NFLPA.

The Cowboys and Eagles are reported to have joined the Saints in unanimously voting to decertify the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA).