There is a limit on what your employer can make you do.
Standing for a song seems like a stretch to me. I would laugh at my employers and sue when I was terminated, and would likely win
Can your employer make you do 100 jumping jack's every morning while watching sweatin to the oldies? Whats the difference? Some of you guys seem real comfortable just bowing to any employers whims
Still not a 1st Amendment issue. There are plenty of workplaces that have a “no protest” policy. You could sue, but would probably lose if it was a term of the contract that you agreed to and signed. If a certain job required you to do “100 jumping jacks every morning sweatin to the oldies”, and you signed a contract saying you would....and then refused to, then they would definitely have the right to end your contract. It is not about bowing to whims, it is about doing what you said you would do and were comfortable enough agreeing to do when you signed that contract. There are legal limits as to what employers can require out of their employees having to do with discrimination, but this does not fall into any of those categories.
There are two other factors here: 1. Collective Bargaining Agreement - I doubt a person could just be flat out released for a violation without going through a very defined and public process of arbitration and hearings. 2. Quality of play - You could not release Kap for this and then if Rodgers did the same thing, not release Rodgers. So the NFL has a primary interest in keeping its most valuable (read: best) assets on the field. However, you cannot dole out punishment unequally under the ECOA and like their Agreement. So if you aren't ready to release every player that does it, you can't release ANY.
I’m not sure if the collective bargaining would apply in Kap’s situation. I do agree with the 2nd point, though. If you hold one person to a certain standard, then it is a bit discriminatory not to hold the other employees to the same standard. Has this been going on with the same team (honestly, I don’t watch football)?
There is a limit on what your employer can make you do.
Standing for a song seems like a stretch to me. I would laugh at my employers and sue when I was terminated, and would likely win
Can your employer make you do 100 jumping jack's every morning while watching sweatin to the oldies? Whats the difference? Some of you guys seem real comfortable just bowing to any employers whims
Still not a 1st Amendment issue. There are plenty of workplaces that have a “no protest” policy. You could sue, but would probably lose if it was a term of the contract that you agreed to and signed. If a certain job required you to do “100 jumping jacks every morning sweatin to the oldies”, and you signed a contract saying you would....and then refused to, then they would definitely have the right to end your contract. It is not about bowing to whims, it is about doing what you said you would do and were comfortable enough agreeing to do when you signed that contract. There are legal limits as to what employers can require out of their employees having to do with discrimination, but this does not fall into any of those categories.
There are two other factors here: 1. Collective Bargaining Agreement - I doubt a person could just be flat out released for a violation without going through a very defined and public process of arbitration and hearings. 2. Quality of play - You could not release Kap for this and then if Rodgers did the same thing, not release Rodgers. So the NFL has a primary interest in keeping its most valuable (read: best) assets on the field. However, you cannot dole out punishment unequally under the ECOA and like their Agreement. So if you aren't ready to release every player that does it, you can't release ANY.
I’m not sure if the collective bargaining would apply in Kap’s situation. I do agree with the 2nd point, though. If you hold one person to a certain standard, then it is a bit discriminatory not to hold the other employees to the same standard. Has this been going on with the same team (honestly, I don’t watch football)?
I don't know, but I don't think the NFL teams operate as single business entities They are a collective group of owners that have a contract with a collective group of players. My first point is that I'm 99% sure that a violation of any contractual rule of the NFL, as defined in the CBA, could not lead to an immediate release (outside of criminal activity). So Trump's rantings about "fire him" are a legal impossibility I believe.
There is a limit on what your employer can make you do.
Standing for a song seems like a stretch to me. I would laugh at my employers and sue when I was terminated, and would likely win
Can your employer make you do 100 jumping jack's every morning while watching sweatin to the oldies? Whats the difference? Some of you guys seem real comfortable just bowing to any employers whims
Still not a 1st Amendment issue. There are plenty of workplaces that have a “no protest” policy. You could sue, but would probably lose if it was a term of the contract that you agreed to and signed. If a certain job required you to do “100 jumping jacks every morning sweatin to the oldies”, and you signed a contract saying you would....and then refused to, then they would definitely have the right to end your contract. It is not about bowing to whims, it is about doing what you said you would do and were comfortable enough agreeing to do when you signed that contract. There are legal limits as to what employers can require out of their employees having to do with discrimination, but this does not fall into any of those categories.
There are two other factors here: 1. Collective Bargaining Agreement - I doubt a person could just be flat out released for a violation without going through a very defined and public process of arbitration and hearings. 2. Quality of play - You could not release Kap for this and then if Rodgers did the same thing, not release Rodgers. So the NFL has a primary interest in keeping its most valuable (read: best) assets on the field. However, you cannot dole out punishment unequally under the ECOA and like their Agreement. So if you aren't ready to release every player that does it, you can't release ANY.
I’m not sure if the collective bargaining would apply in Kap’s situation. I do agree with the 2nd point, though. If you hold one person to a certain standard, then it is a bit discriminatory not to hold the other employees to the same standard. Has this been going on with the same team (honestly, I don’t watch football)?
I don't know, but I don't think the NFL teams operate as single business entities They are a collective group of owners that have a contract with a collective group of players. My first point is that I'm 99% sure that a violation of any contractual rule of the NFL, as defined in the CBA, could not lead to an immediate release (outside of criminal activity). So Trump's rantings about "fire him" are a legal impossibility I believe.
I thought the NFL teams were individual entities that were under the umbrella of official league rules with contracts being drawn up by the individual entities...but I am not certain.
There is a limit on what your employer can make you do.
Standing for a song seems like a stretch to me. I would laugh at my employers and sue when I was terminated, and would likely win
Can your employer make you do 100 jumping jack's every morning while watching sweatin to the oldies? Whats the difference? Some of you guys seem real comfortable just bowing to any employers whims
Still not a 1st Amendment issue. There are plenty of workplaces that have a “no protest” policy. You could sue, but would probably lose if it was a term of the contract that you agreed to and signed. If a certain job required you to do “100 jumping jacks every morning sweatin to the oldies”, and you signed a contract saying you would....and then refused to, then they would definitely have the right to end your contract. It is not about bowing to whims, it is about doing what you said you would do and were comfortable enough agreeing to do when you signed that contract. There are legal limits as to what employers can require out of their employees having to do with discrimination, but this does not fall into any of those categories.
There are two other factors here: 1. Collective Bargaining Agreement - I doubt a person could just be flat out released for a violation without going through a very defined and public process of arbitration and hearings. 2. Quality of play - You could not release Kap for this and then if Rodgers did the same thing, not release Rodgers. So the NFL has a primary interest in keeping its most valuable (read: best) assets on the field. However, you cannot dole out punishment unequally under the ECOA and like their Agreement. So if you aren't ready to release every player that does it, you can't release ANY.
I’m not sure if the collective bargaining would apply in Kap’s situation. I do agree with the 2nd point, though. If you hold one person to a certain standard, then it is a bit discriminatory not to hold the other employees to the same standard. Has this been going on with the same team (honestly, I don’t watch football)?
I don't know, but I don't think the NFL teams operate as single business entities They are a collective group of owners that have a contract with a collective group of players. My first point is that I'm 99% sure that a violation of any contractual rule of the NFL, as defined in the CBA, could not lead to an immediate release (outside of criminal activity). So Trump's rantings about "fire him" are a legal impossibility I believe.
I thought the NFL teams were individual entities that were under the umbrella of official league rules with contracts being drawn up by the individual entities...but I am not certain.
Yes, you are correct. But I think all discipline is governed by the CBA.
There is a limit on what your employer can make you do.
Standing for a song seems like a stretch to me. I would laugh at my employers and sue when I was terminated, and would likely win
Can your employer make you do 100 jumping jack's every morning while watching sweatin to the oldies? Whats the difference? Some of you guys seem real comfortable just bowing to any employers whims
Still not a 1st Amendment issue. There are plenty of workplaces that have a “no protest” policy. You could sue, but would probably lose if it was a term of the contract that you agreed to and signed. If a certain job required you to do “100 jumping jacks every morning sweatin to the oldies”, and you signed a contract saying you would....and then refused to, then they would definitely have the right to end your contract. It is not about bowing to whims, it is about doing what you said you would do and were comfortable enough agreeing to do when you signed that contract. There are legal limits as to what employers can require out of their employees having to do with discrimination, but this does not fall into any of those categories.
There are two other factors here: 1. Collective Bargaining Agreement - I doubt a person could just be flat out released for a violation without going through a very defined and public process of arbitration and hearings. 2. Quality of play - You could not release Kap for this and then if Rodgers did the same thing, not release Rodgers. So the NFL has a primary interest in keeping its most valuable (read: best) assets on the field. However, you cannot dole out punishment unequally under the ECOA and like their Agreement. So if you aren't ready to release every player that does it, you can't release ANY.
I’m not sure if the collective bargaining would apply in Kap’s situation. I do agree with the 2nd point, though. If you hold one person to a certain standard, then it is a bit discriminatory not to hold the other employees to the same standard. Has this been going on with the same team (honestly, I don’t watch football)?
I don't know, but I don't think the NFL teams operate as single business entities They are a collective group of owners that have a contract with a collective group of players. My first point is that I'm 99% sure that a violation of any contractual rule of the NFL, as defined in the CBA, could not lead to an immediate release (outside of criminal activity). So Trump's rantings about "fire him" are a legal impossibility I believe.
I thought the NFL teams were individual entities that were under the umbrella of official league rules with contracts being drawn up by the individual entities...but I am not certain.
Yes, you are correct. But I think all discipline is governed by the CBA.
For league related rule violations, but not the contractual obligations of the individual entities. I’m sure each team has specific “codes of conduct”.
There is a limit on what your employer can make you do.
Standing for a song seems like a stretch to me. I would laugh at my employers and sue when I was terminated, and would likely win
Can your employer make you do 100 jumping jack's every morning while watching sweatin to the oldies? Whats the difference? Some of you guys seem real comfortable just bowing to any employers whims
Still not a 1st Amendment issue. There are plenty of workplaces that have a “no protest” policy. You could sue, but would probably lose if it was a term of the contract that you agreed to and signed. If a certain job required you to do “100 jumping jacks every morning sweatin to the oldies”, and you signed a contract saying you would....and then refused to, then they would definitely have the right to end your contract. It is not about bowing to whims, it is about doing what you said you would do and were comfortable enough agreeing to do when you signed that contract. There are legal limits as to what employers can require out of their employees having to do with discrimination, but this does not fall into any of those categories.
There are two other factors here: 1. Collective Bargaining Agreement - I doubt a person could just be flat out released for a violation without going through a very defined and public process of arbitration and hearings. 2. Quality of play - You could not release Kap for this and then if Rodgers did the same thing, not release Rodgers. So the NFL has a primary interest in keeping its most valuable (read: best) assets on the field. However, you cannot dole out punishment unequally under the ECOA and like their Agreement. So if you aren't ready to release every player that does it, you can't release ANY.
I’m not sure if the collective bargaining would apply in Kap’s situation. I do agree with the 2nd point, though. If you hold one person to a certain standard, then it is a bit discriminatory not to hold the other employees to the same standard. Has this been going on with the same team (honestly, I don’t watch football)?
I don't know, but I don't think the NFL teams operate as single business entities They are a collective group of owners that have a contract with a collective group of players. My first point is that I'm 99% sure that a violation of any contractual rule of the NFL, as defined in the CBA, could not lead to an immediate release (outside of criminal activity). So Trump's rantings about "fire him" are a legal impossibility I believe.
NFL teams can and do release players whenever they want ... all they owe the player is the guaranteed money...
There is a limit on what your employer can make you do.
Standing for a song seems like a stretch to me. I would laugh at my employers and sue when I was terminated, and would likely win
Can your employer make you do 100 jumping jack's every morning while watching sweatin to the oldies? Whats the difference? Some of you guys seem real comfortable just bowing to any employers whims
Except of course you gave up your individual rights to join a union and your union agreed to the CBA. So yeah, you'll follow the CBA.
Comments
I do agree with the 2nd point, though. If you hold one person to a certain standard, then it is a bit discriminatory not to hold the other employees to the same standard. Has this been going on with the same team (honestly, I don’t watch football)?