No, I'm with Mara and Kennan on this. The coaching and admin staff have nothing to do with the lockout; it's not fair of the owners to reduce their pay.
If all these teams are also cutting their other employees wages and/or making them take forced time off then I like how the Jets are doing it. Make the guy making 40,000 a year lose a week of pay each month but give a guy like Rex his full salary? Obviously this effects the coaches who are making less than Rex too but I still don't see what exempts them from the treatment that all other team employees are getting. If the Jets are the only team with the other employee cuts going on then they do look cheap.
So, in other words, about 1/4 of the teams are making cuts that severe or more severe (say 8 or 9 out of 32). Why is that in any way noteworthy? Does this guy think the Jets are obligated to always do things at least as well as the Giants from his point of view? And the fact that he even says that the Jets are known for treating their coaches well is irrelevant?
Presumably because his job is to write about New York teams, and only one of them is doing the right thing? Why should the coaching or admin staff pay the price for someone else's fight? If the owners want to lockout the league, then part of the price they should be paying is the staff bill. If they don't like that then they can start redundancy proceedings the way any other business would have to and risk losing good staff. It isn't fair that any of the staff should be helping to foot the owners' bill for this clusterfuck.
Getting 75% of your pay to sit at home and do nothing is not a bad deal. Especially when you make as much as Rex does.
I don't care. The principle of it is wrong, as is furloughing non-football staff (unless it's on full pay, which the article doesn't make clear). The owners picked the fight. It's down to them to finance it.
What are you all bitching about? If there is a lockout the coaches should be paid nothing! They should be over the moon happy to be paid 75% of their salary to sit at home and pick their noses all day. Am I ne the bizzaro world? WTF!?!
So if you turned up for work one day and there wasn't any, you'd be happy to take a pay cut until it picked up again?
Here in the US, employment is at will. The owners could fire all of them and pay nothing. 75% of their pay when there are no games to bring in revenue for the owners is not a bad deal at all. In NJ, unemployment pays about $600 per week and it all gets taxed by Uncle Sam.
The owners did pick the fight, but as an employee you should have seen this coming for two years and know that you were likely to lose some, if not all pay, for the duration of a work stoppage. Cutting expenses was always going to be the first the to happen in a lockout. This should be catching no one by supprise. These things alwyas hurt the little guy the most. The people that rely on the extra income earned during the NFL season as vendors or what not will take a big hit if this goes on that long. The very rich fighting the very, very rich tends to take a big crap on the poor. The coaches are not the worst off. The front office staff is most likely in a bad way if this last into august.
on a side note, i keep hearing about how the govt may step in. seeing how the nfl generates $9 Billion per year, of which perhaps $3B goes to Uncle Sam and the State treasuries, I can see why Uncle Sam is getting nervous.
I love how greedy every party is being about this. Cromartie said it right, basically all parties are bunch of greedy scumbags and that the lockout will hurt the lowest employees on the chain the most. If theres no football, either no one should be paid (and owners don't deserve TV revenue for putting out no product) or everyone gets paid including the janitors, groundscrew, concession stand clerks, etc.
Employees lose there jobs all the time because the people running the company they worked for made poor decisions. Life isn't fair. They should be happy to get a paycheck.
I've no issue with the owners putting them all out on the street and leaving them free to find new employers, but what they're doing is saying "we're not going to let you leave, but we're not going to pay you what we promised you either". That's not on. The coaching staff didn't pick this fight and it isn't in their power to end it, so why are they being forced to contribute to its financing? The only people who should be losing money in the whole thing are the owners and the players.
