A change in the union's position On page 2 footnote: 1 The WNTPA has informed the USSF that it does not contest that the MOU is still in effect until the end of this calendar year. The dispute before this Court, therefore, is now confined to whether the MOU includes a “no strike, no lockout” clause approved by the players and signed by the union.
For those who want updates: @Jvlaha tweeted after being in court today. Here's the highlights of what happened: Just left hearing. Judge most likely will deny both sides motions for summary judgment and have a trial before the olympics #USSF vs #USWNT— J. Vlahakis (@jvlaha) May 26, 2016 Extreme contrasts in speaking approach from lawyers. #USSF took measured tone. #USWNT lawyer was aggressive, somewhat brash but effective— J. Vlahakis (@jvlaha) May 26, 2016 Notably #USWNT lawyers refused to allow former lawyer to testify in detail about his discussions with players and no emails produced 1/2— J. Vlahakis (@jvlaha) May 26, 2016 Also movement behind scenes in USWNT fight: union and US Soccer met twice in May in NYC. Best resolution to all of this might be new CBA.— Andrew Das (@AndrewDasNYT) May 26, 2016
Is this what you are looking for? http://thewhitebronco.com/wp-conten...-USWNTPA-USSF-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf
Thanks. A court will grant a summary judgment motion only if there is no genuine issue of material fact. A "material fact" is one that will have a bearing on the court's decision. Courts ordinarily are pretty reluctant to grant summary judgment motions. Thus the tweet suggesting it looks like the court will not grant either summary judgment motion is not surprising. On the other hand, if the suggestion is true that the the court says the case will proceed to a trial that will be completed before the Olympics, I'll be surprised if that actually happens. (Just as I'll be surprised if the EEOC case results in a decision.)
If the USWNT is allowed to strike and they do so, could the federation simply replace them with scabs (I think that's the proper term) for the Olympics?
The announcement by the players and their association in court that the possibility is not on the table. I don't really see it as a change in what the USSF would do if they did strike.
BREAKING: the court ruled in favor of @ussoccer & not the players in CBA lawsuit. Getting more details now. #uswnt— Julie Foudy (@JulieFoudy) June 3, 2016 That is regarding the federation's suit against the PA to prevent a strike, not the EEOC complaint.
Link to an article with more info at FourFourTwo. From the judge's ruling: IMO, not a surprising ruling. All of us who'd read the filings knew the WNTPA didn't have much of a leg to stand on even though the MOU was sloppily done. All that's really been decided is the CBA and its no-strike/no lockout clause is still in place; IOW, no strike before the Olympics. CBA negotiations are still ongoing, as is the EEOC case.
The cost for deflategate are already 22 mil. The women might lose more in legal fees than what they would get with their preferred CBA.
Even Foudy is on that, Not a surprise ruling 2day. Essentially 4 mo's later, CBA still exists, pl's cannot strike, & probably far too much $ spent on lawyer fees.— Julie Foudy (@JulieFoudy) June 3, 2016 1/2 Again, I go back to WHY? Why does Nichols threaten US Soccer re: CBA validity in Dec. Which then forces @ussoccer to sue to protect ...— Julie Foudy (@JulieFoudy) June 3, 2016 2/2 no strike clause. Players then have to pay for a 4 month legal fight that shouldn't have happened. For what? #uswnt— Julie Foudy (@JulieFoudy) June 3, 2016
Which is a shame, honestly. I do wonder if the players have read any of the documents for themselves or are now just listening to the lawyers.
The per diem part of the EEOC argument really bothered me. They have included in the past two CBAs that their per diems will be higher than men at the time of signing. It's been the mechanism for increasing the per diem because the men eventually get a higher per diem in their following CBA and is a very easy way to argue for a higher per diem in their next CBA. The per diem was always argued in the CBA. It's like they don't spend time reading the CBA or are willfully ignorant or chose a poor lawyer. It may be all three. But outside of Horan and Pugh, the WNT is all college educated at some of the best universities in the country. They deserve a raise, but what exactly is the plan. This is like purposely choosing the hard way.
Do the men have CBA? Again, IMO, Playing for the National Team should be a pay for play type. If you get called up for a game, you get paid for that game, if not you don't. Playing for your National Team should not be a full time job, both men and women. Then we could talk about equal pay.
No, it shouldn't. My guess is, the USSF pays the WNT so handsomely because the free market (women's club ball in America) cannot pay them enough to keep them from either playing abroad or quitting and finding a real job. Without the tail-wags-dog approach the USSF has taken, the WNT might not be as dominant as they are, so it's kinda one hand washing the other. But while it's been successful in terms of trophies, it's still weird to see the USSF usurp the role of club ball in growing the women's game.
As Foudy stated, who's leading and guiding the WNT? They seem to be making ill advised, questionable and not thought-out decisions. I know the team states they can focus on the pitch and not let this stuff effect their play. I disagree.