and teams will lose games

I don't think the players should boycott, just keep protesting

Any employer can put limits on what their employees say/do on company time.

Does anyone here even understand the first amendment?

If the Dotard in Chief was not inserting himself into the situation, the protests would not be nearly as newsworthy. When the government is pushing back on players protesting government actions, it becomes a 1A issue.

Ultimately, it is up to the players to decide if any rule changes amount to unsatisfactory working conditions worthy of a strike.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,...."

Trump tweeting away and complaining about the protests is not the same thing.

The Players are welcome to strike about any rule changes, but not because their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. From a McDonalds cashier to an NFL player, employers have the right to restrict what their employees say/do on company time.

No rights are being violated. Period.

The president is pressuring the owners and league to curtail players using their 1A right on company time. This is still the government seeking to restrict 1A rights no matter how you want to slice or phrase it. Now, if the NFL already had rules in place like the NBA does with regard to standing during the anthem, then it might be different. As it exists now, the government is seeking restrictions on people exercising their 1A rights. If 45 had not poked his nose into it, then the matter would be one of labor standards, at least from a legal standard and still a possible reason to strike.

Could the owners/league win a lawsuit filed by a player fired for kneeling? Probably. However, they would suffer huge losses in the court of public opinion. The choice is theirs.

It's still their organization...........their ball game, as it were. Regardless of why they're making the rule, they still get to call the shots for their workplace.

I have no doubt what the result would be if I decided to make political and/or social justice protests at work. On my own time is another matter. I'll bet most people are in the same boat.

And anyway, this isn't a matter of Congress making a law abridging the right of free speech. There's nothing in the first amendment that says that we have the right to express ourselves any way we want anywhere we want.

We had an employee who was giving another employee crap about his sexual orientation.

What should I have done?

1) Kick it up to the Receiving manager.

2) Go up the ladder to the Facility manager.

3) Tell him to get off my fricking dock- and don't come back.

It was a crude and raucous work environment- Our favorite was a new guy unloading a 10 ft wide trailer with bad spings off a 42 inch dock plate. They would invariably hit either the edge of the pallet or the center- and the first thing you always heard was "Need a little hair around it to find the hole?"

I went with #3- and both of my bosses did not have any problem with it, because that's what they expected. If you had a problem with gays, you were expected to do it on your own time- we're here to work.

If the stricture was already written into the contractual obligation, you'd have a point. But it's not.

"Does anyone here even understand the first amendment?"
Ironic, given your premise.

By Marc Edelman, a professor of law...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2017/09/28/nfl-trump-kneeling-national-anthem/#3fe610d29765

Constitutional rights to free speech apply to public employees, where the employee's need for free speech, on balance, is greater than the employer's rationale for curbing the speech. Separate and apart from constitutional free speech is the notion of contractual free speech, which is an employee's right to free speech that arises from an employment agreement with a fixed term or a unionized employee's collective bargaining agreement.

You are claiming that changing the contractual obligation is a violation of the 1st amendment. It's not. There are other factors spelled out in the article that could be leveraged to try to apply the 1st, but it's iffy at best.

It's a protest against inequality and police brutality.

It's taking place DURING the anthem at a sportsball game because that's the only time they can get the racists' attention.

and the way they earn a damn good living.

Like the result from the player's strike in the 80s killed the league and ended their paychecks.

(I get wanting to look clever... but it rarely works)

Their symbolic acts aside, these guys are not working class. Yeah, some of them are making statements about justice and oppression, but they have more in common with their bosses than they do with the marginalized in society, even though many of them come from those same marginalized backgrounds. The lowest paid make tens of thousands per game, and it goes up from there. You don't pass up that kind of money just to make a point.

Those employers have some input into what happens in those places.

couldn’t handle the disruption well, especially with their recent PR problems. Plus, this is NONE of Trump’s business!

KKK white right wingers

The golden goose is already wounded, a strike would kill it.

I am a football fan, have always been a football fan, will always be a football fan. I go to the bar on Sunday to watch the game with friends, every week, same bar for 5 years. The local team, the Houston Texans, is exciting this year because of the rookie. The number of people at the bar has dropped to the point that they are considering opening at normal hours on Sunday, 2pm.

This Sunday the Texans played at 7:30pm. I stopped in around 2pm as the Astros (baseball) are in the playoffs. All TV's were on baseball, no football anywhere. After the Astros the Cowboys (football) were on, usually draws 10+ Cowboys fans. The next baseball game was put on at the patrons request. No football on any TV. Second baseball game ended, crowd pretty much left. Kickoff for the Texans at 7:30 saw me and two other people ...

A usual Sunday night game, without the local team playing, would have 25+ watching.

Guy next to me asked if he could play the jukebox, he was allowed. This is taboo on Sunday, the jukebox is never on. They changed the channel off the game by middle of the first quarter after two couples came in an said turn it off or we're out. I went home and did not turn it on ... I fell asleep.

Strike? NFL dead. It is dying right now. Bars turning the TV off football on football days is going to kill the ad revenue, any other blow to the game to piss off fans will be fatal.

One bar in Houston no longer has the same crowd. The most popular sport in US history is dead. Wow, that was easy!

And don't give me the "ratings" the resident talks about. There are fewer people watching conventional television and hence all ratings are down. If we talk "share" we have a completely different conversation.

If you do not want to use ratings ... and you do not want to use personal experience ... what do you want to use?

Your feelings?

It is not just one bar, it is all of the bars around here. It is not like we only go to one bar, and talk to 30 people. I live at the corner of 1960 and Veterans Memorial. One of the busiest areas in Houston. Within five miles of my home there are 30 bars. Hell, there are five in the parking lot at Willowbrook Mall. Bartenders move around, a lot ... and we talk to them daily, I have 20+ on my facebook.

Pretty much everyone around here has had the same issue since last year, when it was the elections fault. It is worse this year.

NFL viewership is down. If you choose to deny this your are just being obtuse because it does not fit whatever you think. I still watch, and I always will ... but the protests are hurting the league, a strike would do untold damage.

And i did. Share is not down. Sorry, but it's not. For people watching TV in the conventional way, within statistical bounds, the same numbers are watching NFL games. The viewership is down based upon conventional measures of viewership which include rating and share.

And just to be clear: I barely watch football. I loathe college football and generally only watch Red Zone, and usually while doing something else, so i'm not some defender of the NFL.

But, you are buying into the idiot prince's narrative that ratings are down. That's because ratings measurements have not caught up to streaming. The ratings boxes use to be able tell what channel you have on. That doesn't work with streaming. All it can tell is if data is streaming. One could be watching an NFL game or Masterpiece Theater.

Eventually the ratings measurements will catch up to the different ways people watch TV, but they haven't yet. Until they do, all we have to go by is share. And, NFL share numbers are not falling off.

Find it interesting that you're taking the side of the meatballs claiming their silly "i ain't watching football anymore" nonsense is actually effectual.

You say you want to use share, and it is not down. Then say, "viewership is down based upon conventional measures of viewership which include rating and share", the metric share is used to show viewership is down ... in your own statement.

Other than that you want to use something that cannot be measured to counter all the things that can be measured. OK, I cannot dispute something that cannot be measured. You must be right because you know something that cannot be measured, any investment tips?

You say you do not watch football, so it would be logical to say the people you hand around with do not watch football. I do, and the people I run with do. These people are no longer at the bar on Sunday watching, they are still there to watch Saturday college ball, but have disappeared for pro ball. I am not taking their side, I am merely telling you what they are doing. They said they were going to stop watching, they are no longer at the bar ... could they be watching at home? Possible.

Sports is generally a live TV thing, so they surely can tell if data usage is up during match up games. If they cannot it still results in the same issue for the NFL, how do you sell billions in advertisement if you can not tell your customer someone is watching?

Please provide some back up for, "NFL share numbers are not falling off". I cannot find anything ...

if they weren't going to be allowed to take a knee. Only three were protesting before so three left the field. They won't strike because the majority of the players aren't part of the protest, although a majority of the players appear to be sick of the White House having made this a patriotism issue.

They wouldn't win another game this year. Jerry Jones is daring them.

"If it ain't in the contract, it ain't"

Unless it's spelled out that they have to stand for the anthem, they don't have to.

And the owners are talking about changing the rule governing standing for the national anthem. And Jerry Jones can choose to play whoever he wants. Having a contract doesn't guarantee a player a spot on the field, or even a spot on the team. Jerry can forfeit games also. Forfeiting a game may be the best thing he can do for his image. Can you imagine the coverage if he forfeits a game based on the principle of standing and saluting the flag?

The NFL cannot survive without white people watching games, and Trump has very successfully turned this into a patriotism issue. The NFL players are now in the position of having to explain that they're patriotic, but they're protesting something that has nothing to do with the flag. You and I may understand what they want, we can agree with what they want, but they're on the losing end of the optics on this issue.

It's the players right to express themselves. You can't pick and choose what the constitution says. Free speech is guaranteed. Standing for a song is not unconstitutional.

The players have free speech but that doesn't mean the owners are obligated to host it. I could go into Walmart and protest them and they would be absolutely within their rights to have removed.

This is really basic. If you're going to snark about the constitution, you might want to make sure you actually understand it yourself.

Snark. If the players want to express their right knowing the owners could retaliate against them they can. By owner do you mean they own the team or the men.? Do they still have free will or do you think employment takes that away too. I believe owning men was abolished. Just because you say someone is wrong doesn't make it so. Interpretation comes to mind. I won't come out and say your wrong because it's rude that seems to be your style.

whether workers should protest against their owners over something that Trump and the Republicans want them to do.

Resistance to protest against police brutality makes some strange bedfellows.

The lack of unanimity reflects the decline of respect for labor unions in this country, IMO.

slowly with the brutal hits. They should not be forced to bow down to the demands of racists..

SMH at the farce put on by the owners/coaches the first week of this Trump-fueled nontroversy.

they should lift their fists to the sky....

Hit the owners where it hurts and Trump, Fox News, and his goons would definitely shut up about it.