So much here and mostly on track. Ah, you want to talk rules? Who makes them is all that matters for sake of "rules" any more.
I agree with you that the NBA is a joke, but I disagree that professional football is headed that very same way.
You are dealing with a whole lot more money and a much different camp of owners for better or for worse let alone all the marketing and sponsorship and various public subsidies well beyond that earned by other leagues.
Of course.....most places are like that. But I think that what FYB means was that the union has no say in who was selected. Sure there may have been certain clauses but its not like they were there in the interview process They didn't get a vote, nor are they at the table
Where I was. The union had no say even for promotions within the union. Seniority was only supposed to be a tie breaker but it was the supervisor who decided.
For management the vast majority were from the union but the union itself had no say...no input
Having been in a trade union myself and involved with organized labour informally all my life and formally in some capacity since 2008, I can share that the input of the union will vary by market and is often more informal than formal with regards to who is promoted.
In many markets the ownership and management are keen to look for a candidate who is on some level ground with the union and not viewed as an enemy.
Such a supervisor or manager often provides valuable diplomacy and is a buffer including in particular if he or she is a member of the union as well. Of course in such a capacity as an employee of the contractor, the new supervisor or manager would not be able to be a voting member of the union or attend its meetings and so forth any more.
Though we hear often about conflict between labour and capital and strikes, most relationships have common interests including the attainment of more work with higher standards of performance set forth. It's not in their interest to fight everything out in most environments of collective bargaining.
Much of the conflict is at hand otherwise in initial organizing especially when the place of work does not have a union, for the subject usually comes up borne of seriously corrupt and often illegal labour practices by the employer.
Many employers know not to tread near there any more lest they want to empower organized labour, for the ground attained is ground secured for all.
Some of the bigger firms often botch that lesson despite all their success as sheer greed gets the best of them as they are drunk on market and political power. I'd give modern and historic examples, but of course then we would veer well off-topic and into realms better for discussion off this forum.
As a parting thought, to bring us back to “players”, IMO players may not have a voice in who is hired, but they can certainly influence who is fired. By simply tuning out, or “quitting” on a coach, they can quickly bring an end to his tenure with a team. As the saying goes, it is easier to replace a coach than to replace 40 players.
Some things throughout history are simply the same.
The first trade or labour unions are told to be guilds of thieves or houses of "ladies of the night."
Centuries later came the pirates, who essentially were men at sea worked ruthlessly by privateer merchant ships who figured out, when weary at sea, "Hey wait a minute, that guy is a real (expletive)! Now we give him the ol' heave ho and keep the riches and spoils for ourselves! Plus we get to make all the rules! And rum too!"
So when the captain or leader is beyond astray, I do not think much fundamentally has changed even down to any given team in any given sport.
Remember when Mike Singletary of the 49ers, in some meeting with some context I cannot remember, pulled his pants down in front of the players so as to make some point?
The team was awful, and can you blame the players for speaking up after that? Or simply being confused?
I am not sure the reasoning there of Mike Singletary, an otherwise good man with quite the mental lapse and do not care to look up these details, but yeah, when something bizarre like that goes down with coach or management, the players/labour are going to step up because most credibility in the leadership has been lost beyond perhaps any given set of trousers.
Well here we go trouble grows in Philadelphia as fits this topic. In this case akin to the comment about Trestman meeting the QB before being hired as noted above, it's the owner pushing HIS QB over the coach and so out goes the coach.
But there is also pressure from the ranks of the players though, and not only from Jalen Hurts, who became the starter late in the season when Carson Wentz was benched. And benching Hurts in that last game late when it was done did not go over well with players because the Eagles still had a good opportunity to win when down by only 3 points. Hmmm. Uh-oh.
Now as a fan, who really should be ousted should be Howie Roseman, the GM, who overall has botched the drafts and free agency since the Super Bowl win for the 2017 season.
I disagree on your last conclusion, for the input goes from the top down as well as from the bottom up.
Players and many employees don't sit idly and do nothing given such stakes at hand. They know when they are not being given a fair look or being heard out well.
Though not spotlighted in the article, as I explained there is plenty of pressure coming from the ranks of players in such matters and Pederson did not have some of the locker room either.
Such is not a new scenario in professional football by any reasonable measure. This is merely one example.
Of course all that with Pederson is history now here in Philadelphia but for at the quarterback position and the upcoming drama after the draft. The chatter will linger though I figure much of the team will be overhauled and thankfully so.
I figure the new coach will come in and have a competition for the starting spot at QB. But I doubt it will be a real competition given the owner's weight on the matter akin to that of Jerry Jones of the Cowboys always with his team and Dan Snyder of Washington with his team too.
And the players will have plenty to say indirectly at the very least. I'm not looking forward to it including all the usually awful takes of our homer sports media, which are not as good as they used to be years ago partly because local radio and TV have not aged well lately either.
Well with regards to the original post and headline, here is a follow-up.
I have been familiar with the dysfunction of the Texans organization for years as have many in Houston. Andre Johnson was an elite receiver, akin to Calvin Johnson in Detroit, on bad team in a terrible organization too. This is all not new to Houston as old it is is for Detroit and certain other franchises for decades now.
Here's a quote from Andre Johnson, who has the credentials from his career to make such a strong statement:
"If I'm @deshaunwatson I will stand my ground. The Texans organization is known for wasting players careers. Since Jack Easterby has walk into the building nothing good has happened in/for the organization and for some reason someone can't seem to see what's going on. Pathetic!!!"
And I bet you no prospective elite rookie QB wants to go to Houston either let alone any given QB who wants more than transient or clipboard Jesus duty, for this dysfunction in Houston is all well out in the open and well known to any given agent.
Oh you bet it's more than nerve now in Houston when the owner stands by a consistent loser for his GM like this.
McNair is yet another owner who presumes that mere extreme loyalty will endure and turn into competence and success with a pro sports franchise let alone any given business. He certainly reminds me of somebody else who is going to be fired in a few days finally now.
No Mr. McNair it won't let alone that approach has alienated and will alienate far more than Deshaun Watson. Go Deshaun.