Considering a reverse boycott of the NFL

EdsonNascimento

mrussel1 said:

My only issue with @EdsonNascimento post is that I don't know how a fiscal conservative can be pleased with Trump's economic policies.  Fiscal conservatism does not mean tax cuts, without restriction.  It's cowardice to cut taxes without touching defense or entitlements.  But that's a whole other argument that I would love to have with any conservative.  

Different thread, but who said I didn't want the government to cut spending?  

Halifax2TheMax

Talk about hypocrisy? It’s thick today.

mrussel1

EdsonNascimento said:

mrussel1 said:

My only issue with @EdsonNascimento post is that I don't know how a fiscal conservative can be pleased with Trump's economic policies.  Fiscal conservatism does not mean tax cuts, without restriction.  It's cowardice to cut taxes without touching defense or entitlements.  But that's a whole other argument that I would love to have with any conservative.  

Different thread, but who said I didn't want the government to cut spending?  

Right, you said you support his fiscal policies.  I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-entitlement.  But I do believe in balanced budgets and vehemently against his trade policies (if you call those policies), particularly NAFTA, TPP and the tariffs.  So I'm disgusted by his economic policies, honestly.  They are without principle and completely political.  

And for thread integrity, the whole anthem thing is ridiculous.  

my2hands

I didnt say I agreed with the post, I just said I loved it lol

Halifax2TheMax

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mickeyrat said:

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

All I know is the owners voted to stifle peaceful protest by the players and black balled Kaepernick 

I dont think that should be taken lightly, no matter how entertained you are

Does your job allow you to alienate half their customers?   This isn’t a protest issue.  It’s a job work site issue.  They work for the teams. The owners are allowed to declare rules that they feel protect their business.  

Agreeing or disagreeing with a mediocre QB whose career was already winding down and who then turned down $14 million that he already had guaranteed to him and then whining that his career plan didn’t work is completely besides the point.

and SCOTUS has ruled speech CANNOT be compelled.

It’s not a free speech issue. It’s a work place issue.  Liberals need to stop confusing the 2. 

My office has a dress code I must follow.  It has a non-defamation and injury to business policy.   Yes, I can do what I want, but they have every right to prosecute such actions according to those policies as they see fit.  And I don’t even have a contract that says so.  NFL players do.

You can have any opinion you want about the situation including double secret probation, triple lindy boycott.  That’s also your prerogative.   But, in effect all you’re doing is proving why the owners did what they did and are well within their rights to do so to protect their business interests right, wrong or indifferent.

so to force participation as a work requirement isnt compelling another to particular speech?

NFL game operations manual from 2017:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

It doesn't say "must." Should impllies that its not mandatory, that you "should," but you don't have to. If they wanted to be clear, they "should" have stated, "must."

PJPOWER

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

Standing for a song has nothing to do with their job or job related duties... uniforms have not been alerted... its peaceful protest and it's as American as apple pie whether you agree with the protest or not... 

You really want employers to have the power to make you stand for a song? 

Wealthy white owners put some profit over the peaceful voice of their players, a majority black league by the way... I stand with the players... NFL isn't getting a dime from me, already cut cable. If I see it in a TV it wont be on my dime or my ratings. 

Colin Kaepernick is the most important athlete since Ali, mostly because of the POTUS and short sighted NFL ownership. Bravo for elevating the message and power if peaceful protest. Nike sales are booming. Dont be on the wrong side of history 

  Trump and Nike are playing you.

#1 - dont give a shit about Nike, havent even seen the ad yet

#2 - I'm the one being played by trump? Lol You're the guy that voted for him and has been coming in here the past two years screaming and yelling in his support. Who's getting played? Fucking hilarious, bro

I've been screaming and yelling in his support? Please do show.

And regardless, that has nothing to do with the fact that this is a work place issue. If the football players don't want to follow the rules set by their employers, that is their prerogative - that is where freedom of expression exists. None of the owners are arresting their players for kneeling. They are simply enforcing clearly stated work place rules.  The fact that theirs is a public place doesn't change that fact. They may be right, wrong, indifferent in kneeling and where socks that depict police officers as pigs.  Completely besides the point.

BUT - they must also accept the repercussions related to their work place rules as we all must.  

I believe there are boundaries and reasonable expectations that an employer should or must follow when setting expectations and rules... your employer cant just come up with ridiculous rules for you to follow or face termination... what would happen if your employer made you stand for an Elton John song every morning while salutung a picture of the CEO... think that would fly? Would you fall in line? And if they did force you, yiu would be cool with that and just take it? 

I'm sorry but the workplace side of this argument is a lazy and convenient one. 

Its funny to me the "America First" crowd seem to hate peaceful protest so much... while at the same time seem so willing to hand over all control and power to their overlords, their employer! 

Fuck the owners, let your players use their platform peacefully.

And yes, i think its disgusting Kap wore socks depicting police as pigs, I'm actually very pro law enforcement. I just dont see issues as simply black & white, things tend to be a bit more complicated than that 

But feel free to go salute your CEO and stand for Yellow Brick Road

If I was seeking that job, I wouldn't take it as it is indicative of a poorly run organization. If it is my only choice, then maybe I would. Hey, I dig some Levon or Tiny Dancer (the songs, not the optional other meaning of that sentence as funny as that might be) from time to time.  And as long as my direct deposit goes through, and nobody's getting hurt, I might consider it.

But, let's put the silliness aside for a moment.  There are policies my organization has/had that I disagree with. Many I go with b/c it's really not that big a deal. A couple I think are not productive nor conducive to a good work environment. So, I sit down with my boss(es) and maybe HR and have a discussion. and you know what? Sometimes they adjust and sometimes they don't.  

The players claim the NFL is a monopoly. It is not. Why didn't Colin mediocre QB head to the CFL? Pretty much every elite Female Basketball player in the US does exactly that (well, not Canada, but Russia and other non-US based leagues).

And to your characterizations of me, I can save you the time - I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal.  I believe government impacts the former while society fixes the latter.  Therefore, I vote based on a fiscally conservative line realizing many times I have to put with the religious right influence in such a choice. Sort of like the compromises you speak of in your NFL stances. 

In terms of Trump, I've never supported HIM per se.  I have supported his underlying fiscal policies and stances against Political Correctness. However, in terms of stuff like did he sleep with Stormy Daniels and what does a private conversation with a bad tv reporter mean? I don't get distracted by it much like you don't get distracted by Hillary attacking Bill's victims and then saying - well - any wife would do that (which may be true, but she wasn't running for wife - she was running for President).

So, characterize people how you want and use pejorative language to do so, but as you say, stuff is not so black and white. 

Yes, I did vote for Trump. No, I don't support all his shenanigans.  An most certainly, I'm not walking anything back.  And quite frankly, liberals would do themselves quite a bit of good if they put their self righteousness aside and realize they're not always right, nor are they perfectly clean when it comes to all the things they are accusing "them" (whoever them is) about and most people who elected our current President are probably much more like me than the idiots they see on tv.

And for the record, I never watch the National Anthem on an NFL game, and couldn't care less about stand, sit, back flip.  I do think it's a douchey thing to do and counter to what they're trying to accomplish, but it didn't change a single thing in my life. Trump did Colin mediocre QB a favor.

Couldn’t have said it better myself  Only difference on my end is that I don’t watch football anyway, so I really haven’t payed much attention to the kneeling drama.  I support their right to kneel on a 1st Amendment standpoint as well as the owner’s right to fire them for not abiding by the expectations in the contract that they signed.

cincybearcat

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mickeyrat said:

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

All I know is the owners voted to stifle peaceful protest by the players and black balled Kaepernick 

I dont think that should be taken lightly, no matter how entertained you are

Does your job allow you to alienate half their customers?   This isn’t a protest issue.  It’s a job work site issue.  They work for the teams. The owners are allowed to declare rules that they feel protect their business.  

Agreeing or disagreeing with a mediocre QB whose career was already winding down and who then turned down $14 million that he already had guaranteed to him and then whining that his career plan didn’t work is completely besides the point.

and SCOTUS has ruled speech CANNOT be compelled.

It’s not a free speech issue. It’s a work place issue.  Liberals need to stop confusing the 2. 

My office has a dress code I must follow.  It has a non-defamation and injury to business policy.   Yes, I can do what I want, but they have every right to prosecute such actions according to those policies as they see fit.  And I don’t even have a contract that says so.  NFL players do.

You can have any opinion you want about the situation including double secret probation, triple lindy boycott.  That’s also your prerogative.   But, in effect all you’re doing is proving why the owners did what they did and are well within their rights to do so to protect their business interests right, wrong or indifferent.

so to force participation as a work requirement isnt compelling another to particular speech?

NFL game operations manual from 2017:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

It doesn't say "must." Should impllies that its not mandatory, that you "should," but you don't have to. If they wanted to be clear, they "should" have stated, "must."

Im just pointing out what the workplace policy is.  They certainly appear to be leaving it up to each individual owner.  This was in response to someone saying it wasn’t a workplace issue but a 1st amendment one. It is a workplace issue and the nfl originally let the owners decide and the owners didn’t care.

my2hands

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 

PJPOWER

my2hands said:

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.

mrussel1

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

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.  

PJPOWER

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

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)?

mrussel1

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

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. 

PJPOWER

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

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.

mrussel1

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

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.  

PJPOWER

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

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”.

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

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...

cincybearcat

my2hands said:

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.