N.F.L. Goes into Labor

6 Reader Comments

Matt Bartel Nov 4 2009
1:40 pm

The Times didn’t do a very good job describing what the MN law actually says. It seems logical that the NFL should be able to suspend employees for doing something that is clearly violates their contract. And can’t employment contracts supersede state law as long as the contract was entered into before the employee started working?

The Williams’ case was a weird one. Are there any other examples of players suing under state law? I can’t think of any. Even the players association said they wouldn’t have backed up the players in most cases.

We’re already taxing ourselves to build sports teams new stadiums; should we let them make our laws, too? Oh, why not?

btw, the banned substance was not listed on the label of the supplements that the Williams took.

“And can’t employment contracts supersede state law as long as the contract was entered into before the employee started working?”

AND NO! If that were the case every employer would have contracts for their employees saying they have to work without lunch breaks, or they are now prostitutes, or they shall work with dangerous equipment with no safety equipment. This is why we have labor laws.

Matt Bartel Nov 4 2009
7:22 pm

But in the case of drugs, an argument could be made that the contract added to the employee protections in the law, not detracted from them. Does that make a difference?

Matt Bartel Nov 4 2009
7:24 pm

Now that I think about it, probably not since the drugs in this case were legal, just against league rules.

Leave a Reply