No you fucking don't Suspending them for peaceful protest on top of the fact they didn't technically break any league rules is a really bad look for the league and would create even more problems and would actually be the exact opposite of the situation resolving itself instantly. You're letting your emotions and disdain for black people get in the way of rational thought.
Yes. Both are employees and the public face of the organization that employs them. Or are YOU suggesting football players should have protest rights that McDonald's employees shouldn't?
In addition to basic labour standards, employees should have whatever rights they're able to negotiate for themselves, either individually or collectively.
One group has a contracted labor agreement, the other does not. They necessarily have different rights vis à vis their respective employers. To pretend they're equivalent is disingenuous.
They're both employees, they're both the public face of their organization. Their rights are limited to what their employment agreements state.
Right, and NFL players have more robust rights in relation to their employer under their employment agreement. That's not a normative statement; it's stating what is.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm pointing out a very practical problem with your very stupid analogy. Do you believe Bob Smith, a cashier at the McDonald's in Bald Knob, Arkansas, has the same power and influence as Tom Brady of the New England Patriots? What do you think would happen to Bob Smith if he told his employer to fuck off? What do you think would happen to Tom Brady if he told his employer to fuck off?
Is Bob Smith black? He doesn't sound black. And Bald Knob, Arkansas doesn't sound like there'd be many black folks there anyhoo. Least not that weren't strung up.
What's your point? Yes, Tom Brady has more bargaining power and leverage than this hypothetical Bob Smith, but they're both still fundamentally employees of an organization. They are compensated to perform a particular set of work. They have to abide by workplace rules. And there are limits to what their employers will accept from them. You're pointing out how they're different (and I never claimed that their situations were identical), but that doesn't change how they're the same. And nothing about how they're different defeats my very well-supported claim that they're not entitled to protest on company time except as allowed by their employer and any agreement between them.
Still fails to address that the NFL players have a collective bargaining agreement with the league and this was forced on them without respect to that agreement.
Unless it violates some specific part of the agreement, that's irrelevent. I would be astonished if the league does not have a clause that allows them to strictly regulate what the players do on company time and/or at company venues.
My understanding is that any rule change requires at least some sort of consultation with the players union, which was not done.
I think they were able to get around that because fines will be levied against the teams, not the players.
This argument about strict adherence to an employer's workplace rules is a joke. Tons of employers have zero tolerance for guns in the workplace, but when laws are passed that subvert those workplace rules the people up in arms about the NFL players are silent.
Thanks for bringing this up. It is an extremely important distinction that many don't seem to grasp so the entire conversation is off.
As part of the CBA, yes. I believe the NBA has this. I wouldn't be surprised if next CBA the players bargained standing for significant finding of race and social justice initiatives.