I read
this article which sent me on a mini-bender, so much so that I sent a letter to Howard Bryant, the columnist. Here's what I said:
Mr. Bryant: A friend forwarded your column to me today, wondering what I thought. I am an attorney representing unions, but not the NFL Players Association. Here’s what I said:
He’s wrong:
“The responsibility of a union is to defend its membership -- every time, all the time, if for no other reasons than to send a dissenting vote to management that its membership always will be protected by a strong union and to alert the commissioner that his powers always will be checked by an advocate for the players. The union's message should be that a commissioner cannot simply do whatever he wants.”
The union represents all of its members, not just individuals. Without a union, a worker, including a football player, is an at-will employee. With a union, a worker is not guaranteed absolute job security. The restriction on the employer is that disciplinary action will be taken “for just cause” and not out of favoritism, personal animosity or discriminatorily. But “just cause” has some meaning, and in the context of the NFL, the employer may have decided that Vick’s actions are so abhorrent that they warrant termination for just cause. Criminal behavior certainly hits that mark. The decision then rests with the union whether to grieve that disciplinary action or not. The union’s duty is a duty of fair representation, which means that their decision cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. This is a low standard that gives a union a great deal of discretion about which issues they wish to pursue on behalf of their members as a whole. Clearly the union can agree not fight a losing battle, in the interest of protecting a good and open relationship with an employer (which is in fact a goal of mature labor relations) and in the interest of protecting their other members. NFL players have a lot of impunity, rarely being called to task for their criminal conduct, but that could change, in the media, in culture on a hot dime. By staking a position that there is some behavior which is too terrible to protect, the union softens the blow for other players who are under scrutiny for “lesser” offenses (putting aside how many of these “lesser” offenses involve domestic violence), and lets the union defend them without a public outcry.
