#months. and no idea what progress has been made with negotiating the new union contract and what kind of raise to expect and waiting for my

[azer1ck]

Wheeee nesting Thursday

[shirlleycoyle]

World’s Most Powerful Tech Companies Celebrate Bessemer Union Loss

As the U.S. labor movement processes the defeat of a high stakes unionization effort in Amazon's Bessemer, Alabama warehouse, the world's most powerful companies are taking a moment to celebrate, remake their case for a future without unions and more of the status quo—which is less pretty than the companies would like to admit. They're also flipping the narrative to say this is an empowering moment for workers.

On Friday, for example, Chamber of Progress, a new technology coalition that brands itself as "inclusive," sent out a press release that said Amazon employees' rejection of the union was a "progressive story," specifically an indicator of "worker satisfaction with wages, benefits, and working conditions—and that progressive goals are being achieved without unionization." The coalition's partners include Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instacart, and DoorDash.

“The number one driver of unionization votes is worker wages, so this is a pretty powerful signal that Amazon’s Alabama employees feel they’re being paid fairly," said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich, a former Google lobbyist. “We all want workers to have good pay, benefits, and working conditions. While unions can be a tool for achieving that when workers are being treated unfairly, Amazon’s employees clearly said that isn’t the case in Bessemer."

“The last few weeks have seen some partisans and union activists project their own agendas onto Bessemer—and they have already started to criticize workers for rejecting a union," he continued. "Let’s celebrate Bessemer as a progressive success story where workers are already receiving what a union would advocate for.”

Promptly after the defeat of the union on Friday, Amazon invited reporters to interview a group of cheerful, pro-company Amazon warehouse employees on Zoom.

"The people have spoken," said JC Thompson, one of four Amazon employees who spoke at the Bessemer warehouse press event on Friday. "We do have issues but overwhelmingly we were happy today that this was a win for our coworkers. It wasn't a win for anyone else but us."

"When you go down the list of all the benefits Amazon has versus what the union here has traditionally negotiated, it's just better with what we have now," Will Stokes, another Amazon warehouse worker, told reporters.

Moments earlier, National Labor Relations Board officials in Birmingham had certified the results of the election, with 1,798 workers voting against the union and 738 voters in favor of the union, in a landslide defeat for the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU).

On Zoom, the four Amazon workers—who stated that they had not been paid by Amazon to sing the company's praises—commended the Amazon's wages and opportunities for career growth and recycled many of the company's anti-union talking points, such as the idea that a union would drain their paychecks and that some of the RWDSU's Alabama contracts paid less well than Amazon. Alabama is a right-to-work state meaning it cannot collect dues without authorization. Accusing the union of lying, their responses were riddled with misinformation and faulty logic. The Amazon workers spoke about their access and support from management, while pro-union workers have spoken at length to Motherboard about how many of them have never met or interacted with their managers.

 "[Amazon] did a great job of telling us basic factual information," Stokes, the Amazon warehouse worker, told reporters. "There was so much misinformation coming out and most of it was from the union."

"For me, I could clearly see this was not something we needed," said Lavonette Stokes, an Amazon warehouse worker. "I saw some contracts the union negotiated for poultry plants right here in this area, and they were horrific and all I could think of was I need more than a 35 cent year increase. Amazon gives us a 55 cent raise on an hourly basis every six months."

But this isn't a logical comparison. The poultry industry is one of the lowest paid industries in the United States, particularly in the South. On average, it pays much less than warehouse work. Meanwhile, Amazon, which its $15 starting wage touts as "industry-leading," is actually driving down wages in the warehouse industry.

Amazon workers also defended the company's compulsory anti-union meetings and messages, a USPS mail-box installed on site during the election, and other tactics Amazon used to sway workers to vote against the union. (In February, Motherboard obtained text messages from Amazon urging workers to vote from the USPS mailbox they had installed on site.)

"We think the mailbox was a convenience more than anything," said Stokes. "To my knowledge no manager or person in senior management has tried to influence our votes. Our votes were our votes."

"The mailbox had nothing to do with the union vote. It was simply for employees," said Thompson, the other worker.

The unfortunate reality is that much of this anti-union rhetoric will continue as Amazon attempts to utilize its victory to fend off future union drives, and other tech companies take advantage of opportunity to spread the same empowering message.

"It’s easy to predict the union will say that Amazon won this election because we intimidated employees, but that’s not true," Amazon posted on Friday in a blog post titled "the election in Bessemer." "Our employees heard far more anti-Amazon messages from the union, policymakers, and media outlets than they heard from us. And Amazon didn’t win—our employees made the choice to vote against joining a union."

World’s Most Powerful Tech Companies Celebrate Bessemer Union Loss syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[junker-town]

What we know about the CBA talks between the NFL and NFLPA

Photo by Larry French/Getty Images

The NFL and NFLPA are trying to get a jump start on negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement two years in advance.

The NFL and NFLPA have a daunting task ahead of them: Reach common ground on a new collective bargaining agreement in time to avoid a work stoppage ahead of the 2021 season.

The current CBA — set to expire after the 2020 season — was agreed upon in 2011 after a 132-day lockout. There were two even worse work stoppages a few decades ago when the 1982 and 1987 NFL seasons were both shortened by player strikes.

Seeking to avoid that kind of labor dispute, the NFL and NFLPA got a jumpstart on their 2021 negotiations by kicking them off two years in advance. How much progress they’ve made since then depends on who you ask.

The two sides had early meetings

When exactly the NFL and NFLPA descended on Minneapolis in spring 2019 for the first negotiations isn’t clear. Giants owner John Mara said at the NFL Annual Meeting the two sides would have preliminary talks “in early to mid-April,” and the first indication that the talks started came on April 9.

That’s when ESPN’s Todd Archer reported Jerry Jones missed a press conference to announce a new contract for DeMarcus Lawrence because he’s in Minneapolis for CBA talks. A few hours later, a joint statement was released:

“Today, the members of the NFL’s Management Council and the NFLPA’s Executive Committee met to discuss negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. The League and the Union have committed to meet regularly in the coming months, which will involve staff, NFL leadership, members of the NFLPA Executive Committee and Player Representatives.”

They met throughout the summer and finally broke talks in late August ahead of the 2019 regular season.

Did progress on a new CBA actually get made this early?

The talks started two years ahead of the expiration of the CBA, so the biggest question the sides had to answer in the preliminary meetings was just how much work they have to do.

According to the Washington Post’s John Clayton, it really wasn’t much. He wrote that there was optimism a deal could get done as early as 2019. That always seemed unrealistic, though.

Still, Clayton said both sides were happy with the current CBA due to the fast rising salary cap and minimum spending requirement (teams are required to spend at least 89 percent of their caps):

With that much money being spent, the feeling among some union leaders is that there is an incentive for players to make a deal rather than enter into an extended labor dispute. The NFL is on the verge of surpassing $15 billion in revenue, with the league’s television deals due to be extended within the next year. Each team received $255 million of shared revenue last year, with most of it coming from television.

NFLPA president Eric Winston wasn’t quite as positive about the status quo, though:

Any conversation with NFL owners will be a renegotiation for a new deal, not an extension. At our board meetings we told everyone to prepare for a work stoppage; nothing has changed. https://t.co/DE2RLh1tBL

— Eric Winston (@ericwinston) March 27, 2019

In August 2019, the Washington Post said the talks were “progressing,” but also said it’s still way too early to expect a resolution to come soon:

Executives with several NFL teams said it’s a good sign that talks are taking place without obvious acrimony or public sniping between the two sides. But they described the discussions as remaining in the relatively early stages and said they would be surprised if the process accelerates enough in the coming weeks to produce a near-term deal. A more realistic goal, one of those executives said, might be next spring.

Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, who also serves as the team’s NFLPA rep, also said he doesn’t expect an easy negotiation:

“I’ve got a feeling it won’t be as simple as it was last time,” Jenkins told ESPN. “Just because you have more players like myself who have been through the lockout before, saw how the NFLPA leadership handled that into where we are now, which I don’t think was a bad deal but there is a lot that I feel like we want to get back as players, or get as players.”

A month after the preliminary talks got started, NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reported the conversation between the two sides was “cordial” and “amicable.”

Though it’s possible a deal could be reached before the 2019 season, negotiations would have to ramp up considerably. Unless the pace changes, that’s not seen as feasible. Perhaps more likely is a deal next spring, a year before the CBA expires following the 2020 season.

One source went as far as saying, as of now, there are disagreements but no contentious issues like last time. “Nothing that would make it blow up,” as of now, one person briefed on the talks said.

The New York Times warned that it’s still early to get too optimistic, though.

Officials from the league and the players’ union, who asked not to be identified so as not to be seen as negotiating in public, cautioned that labor negotiations had just begun and could quickly sour.

But the NFL’s early negotiation tactics bode well for the future. Via the Times:

The N.F.L., however, has shifted away from its combative approach of the last round of bargaining. People involved in the current discussions expect the league to agree to a modest increase in the players’ share of league revenue, and for there to be few major changes to an agreement that has led to significant gains in league revenue and player compensation for the past eight years.

Two years ago, NFLPA officials told players to begin the process of saving money for a potential lockout. That’s advice that hasn’t changed. He said as much in May 2019:

NFLPA Exec Dir De Smith sent an email out to all NFL agents this morning, advising them to urge player clients to save money in the event of a work stoppage. "We are advising players to plan for a work stoppage of at least a year in length," the letter states. More in SBD.

— Liz Mullen (@SBJLizMullen) May 28, 2019

And again in January 2020 just before Super Bowl 54. Via NBC Sports:

“People need to understand that it’s really easy to call for a work stoppage; it’s really hard to win one,” Smith said at the rally. “So that’s why I started notifying players four years ago about saving their checks, making changes to their debt structure, and the reality is that if we want to hold out and get everything we want, that’s probably going to mean a two-year strike.”

Those comments from Smith came just days before Rapoport said optimism abounds in the early CBA talks:

From Super Bowl Live: Progress is being made on the new 10-year extension for a CBA, and optimism abounds. pic.twitter.com/fxH7Eprezi

— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) February 1, 2020

There’s a clear battle between the two sides in setting the early narrative. The NFL appears to be pushing optimism, telling reporters and fans that both sides are happy with the current circumstances and probably won’t need a lengthy fight. The NFLPA, on the other hand, is warning that a labor dispute is likely and that an agreement is still distant.

What’s the No. 1 priority in the CBA talks?

A wise group of men once said “cash rules everything around me.” The negotiations of the next CBA will revolve around money, money, money, a couple other things, and money.

In 2011, the NFL and NFLPA agreed to a split of the league revenue with players getting 47-48.5 percent. That was down from 50 percent in the prior CBA. It was widely considered a win for the league and a loss for the players.

With league revenues soaring so much that the salary cap rose from $123 million in 2013 to $188.2 million in 2019 — more than a 50 percent increase in six years — a couple percentage points represent a LOT of money.

It’s unclear what exactly constitutes a “modest increase” for players, but if the NFL is willing to cede a chunk of their revenue it’ll help grease the wheels. What the league wants in return is more games. Via NFL.com in late August:

there still has yet to be a breakthrough on the No. 1 issue, with NFL owners continuing to want more regular-season games and NFL players continuing to want a larger share of revenue without adding regular-season games, sources say. Players are guaranteed 47 percent of total revenue under the current CBA, which is set to expire after the 2020 season.

The two sides are reportedly agreeable on the idea of expanding the postseason field from 12 teams to 14, though.

What other money issues will the NFL and NFLPA haggle over?

The NFLPA will aim to raise that revenue sharing percentage, and that number will likely be the crux of the negotiation. But the money talks will go deeper than that. Both sides have other ways to try to get a bigger piece of the pie. Here are some examples:

The 89 percent spending floor could be raised to force teams to pay players more, or lowered to allow teams to save more.

The NFL secured large amounts of “stadium credits” in the 2011 CBA — allotments of league revenue that help pay for new stadiums. Owners are aiming to seek even more stadium credits in the next CBA too, according to ESPN. “The [stadium credits] issue has prompted the NFLPA to scoff at the notion that the current talks relate to an ‘extension’ of the 2011 agreement,” wrote Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk. The NFLPA considers the NFL’s requests “a major tweak” of the 2011 agreement.

A rookie wage scale was introduced in the 2011 CBA to end increasingly gigantic contracts for early draft picks. Sam Bradford received a six-year, $78 million deal after he was the No. 1 pick of the 2010 NFL Draft. In the most recent draft, Baker Mayfield received a four-year, $32.68 million contract for being the No. 1 pick. The wage scale is probably here to stay, but the NFLPA could aim for higher amounts for rookies or shorter contracts for first-year players that lets them cash in on second deals sooner.

The franchise tag could be in the crosshairs too with players now threatening to sit out seasons — and Le’Veon Bell even following through — to avoid it. The tag originally served to give teams more time to extend stars, but now it’s become a way to artificially avoid allowing the best players in the game to set the market higher at their respective positions.

There are a few non-money items on the agenda too

Money is the biggest reason to expect a lengthy fight, but there are also non-money issues: the league’s personal conduct policy, the substance abuse policy, and the commissioner’s unilateral authority to hand down punishment, to name a few.

The possibility of an 18-game regular season, increased or decreased practice time, and changes to the players’ healthcare plan are a few more wrenches that could be tossed into the mix.

The idea of an 18-game schedule has been floated by the NFL for several years. The league reportedly came to the NFLPA with the idea of allowing players to only play in 16 games per season — aiming to quell the union’s concern of players being overworked. There are several issues with that idea that would make it a bad compromise for both sides, though.

That was also around the time a group of Hall of Famers led by Eric Dickerson threatened to boycott future induction ceremonies if the next CBA doesn’t include significantly better healthcare benefits and revenue sharing for Hall of Famers.

The conflicting reports on the CBA meetings thus far make it tough to gauge the progress so far. The likely answer is that it’ll take a lot more time for an agreement to be reached.

[jonathandiaz398-blog]

Family Feud! Mediaite Rings in Thanksgiving With Our 5 Favorite Fighting Cable News Rivals

Best Cable News Fights 2019: ABC's The View, Fox News's The Five

Ah, Thanksgiving. Increasingly, it's a day which has become known for loved ones getting together -- not only for turkey and pumpkin pie -- but for fierce debates about news and politics. But here at Mediaite, we spend 365 days a year watching cable news families air their disagreements live on national television in throughly entertaining fashion. So we thought we'd mark this special occasion with a tribute to five of our favorite cable news family feuds. These are rivals who regularly appear on the same show and frequently throw down with each other. Without further ado, pass the stuffing and pour the cider. It's time to celebrate some fighting cable news families! 5. Ana Navarro and Steve Cortes ---- CNN Though it has become more infrequent in recent months, this pairing has produced plenty of fireworks. Navarro, an anti-Trump GOP strategist, and Cortes, one of CNN's most prominent Trump surrogates, see eye to eye on almost nothing. And moreover, they seem to truly have a disdain for one another. That contempt bubbled over in this memorable January segment on Cuomo Prime Time -- in which Navarro actually filed her nails on the air, in an effort to show utter disregard for Cortes during a heated debate on immigration. "You can do your nails," Cortes told Navarro. "You know who can't do their nails are people who have been killed, Ana, by dangerous known illegal aliens who have been allowed to stay in this country because of the leftist policies that people like you promote in so-called sanctuary cities." "I'm so tired of you calling me leftist already just because you want to compromise your values!" Navarro said. "I don't care if you're tired of it!" Cortes replied. "Go back to filing your nails." "I don't care what you call me!" Navarro fired back. "To me, you're as irrelevant as Donald Trump Jr." 4. Sean Hannity and Geraldo Rivera (and Dan Bongino) -- Fox News's Hannity These days, seldom is a dissenting voice heard on Hannity -- a program which constantly promotes the positions of President Donald Trump. So it is a refreshing change of pace when Geraldo Rivera stops by to offer a different perspective on the issues of the day. This explosive debate on Joe Biden back in August was a standout. Hannity (with the help of his henchman Bongino) clashed with Geraldo on whether the former vice president is to blame for the activities of his son, Hunter Biden. "Biden's got a lot of other issues going on but you can't blame Joe Biden for his brother James or his bad boy son," Geraldo said. "Of course he knows what's going on, Geraldo!" Hannity shot back. Bongino then jumped in. "He plays this lunch bucket Joe image and he's a corrupticrat like everyone else and you are giving him a pass because what you don't have an ironclad smoking gun in front of you," Bongino told Geraldo. "That's not fair," Rivera shot back. "Joe Biden, what you know that I what do you know that the American people don't know? Don't vote for him if you don't like him for various substantive reasons but he's not dishonest. " "Get lost!" Bongino said. "This is ridiculous." Bongino, for once, was right. The discussion was ridiculous. Still, give us a hundred Geraldo segments on Hannity over the usual conspiracy-mongering from the likes of Gregg Jarrett or Jeanine Pirro. 3. Chris Cuomo and Matt Schlapp ---- CNN He guests on all three cable news networks with great frequency. But American Conservative Union chair and staunchly pro-Trump advocate Matt Schlapp's appearances on CNN stand out -- particularly when he drops by to spar with primetime host Chris Cuomo. (And let's be honest: Would a list about cable news fighters be complete without Chris Cuomo?) The pair memorably brawled back in August, when Cuomo asked Schlapp about why the president gave a phony excuse for skipping out on the G7 climate crisis meeting. "I'm not going to condemn them for lying," Schlapp said. "I don't have any idea why he didn't go to that meeting ... Why do I get to be the person that determines whether someone else who speaks is lying or not?" "They just lied!" Cuomo shot back, at which point Schlapp deflected again about the media's "spin" about the meeting. "I'm just saying, don't lie!" Cuomo cried out, exasperated. "I'm just saying, you shouldn't get on your high horse about who's lying and who's not," Schlapp said, after a tense back and forth. "I don't have some kind of magical machine to know when someone's lying or not lying," he added. Matt Schlapp can, seemingly, never be talked off of his positions. Chris Cuomo, though, will never stop trying. And that makes for some exciting collisions. 2. Greg Gutfeld and Juan Williams -- Fox News's The Five Excluding primetime, The Five has become the highest-rated show in all of cable news. And a big part of the reason why is the intense rivalry between Williams, The Five's lone Democratic voice, and Gutfeld, the show's firebrand. These two duke it out on a near-daily basis -- often in a manner that leaves their three colleagues frozen on the sidelines, watching the pair do battle. There are just so many Gutfeld-Williams throwdowns to choose from. But we've chosen this multi-segment February clash, following Michael Cohen's testimony on Capitol Hill, as the one which best captures the Gutfeld-Williams dynamic. "Are you guys ever going to let me finish?!" Williams said, "No, because you're always finishing! There's somebody sitting there who hasn't said a damn word!" Gutfeld replied -- referring to guest panelist new york city ymca Morgan Ortagus. After a tense back-and-forth, the conversation truly erupted when Williams accused Gutfeld and fellow panelist Jesse Watters of being in the tank for President Donald Trump. "You are so blind because you, like Greg, are deep in the bunker!" "If you say that again, I'm going to throw you off the set!" Gutfeld shot back. 1. Joy Behar and Meghan McCain -- ABC's The View Yes, we know these two technically don't qualify as a cable news duo. But The View, despite airing on network TV, unquestionably has the DNA of a cable news debate show. Behar, a staunch progressive, and McCain, an anti-Trump conservative with some progressive positions, don't quite disagree on everything. But seldom does a show pass without this tandem getting into a spirited battle over something. As was the case with our second-place rivals Gutfeld and Williams, there was a treasure trove of material to choose from to sum up the Behar-McCain rivalry. But ultimately, we selected this episode from June in which an exasperated McCain lamented being The View's "sacrificial Republican." "You know what, Joy, I come here every day open-minded just trying to explain it and it's not a fun job for me," McCain said. "I know you're angry, I get that you're angry that Trump's president, but I don't think yelling at me is going to fix the problem." "Am I yelling at her? Am I yelling?" Behar replied. "Yes!" McCain said Seconds later, moderator Whoopi Goldberg -- as is so often the case -- was forced to break up the skirmish. "Okay, guys! Okay!" Goldberg said. But McCain got one more shot in at Behar before the show went to break. "Don't feel bad for me, bitch," McCain said. "I get paid to do this." Ultimately, though, when the show returned from commercial, both made it clear that there was no bad blood -- saying that each refers to the other as bitch in their off-set communications, and both are comfortable with the term. "Women can debate on TV in a spirited way without it being personal, and I know this is a big shock. We get along backstage," McCain said. "We're both pugilistic," Behar added. "It's fine." And so it is for many families sitting around the table this Thanksgiving. They may argue, they may snap at each other, they may even use some choice language. But at the end of the day, like Joy Behar and Meghan McCain, they are family -- if not by blood, then by network contract. And they share a bond that can never be broken. (Until contract negotiation time, anyway.) From our entire Mediaite family to yours, Happy Thanksgiving! Have a tip we should know? [email protected] https://www.mediaite.com/tv/family-feud-mediaite-rings-in-thanksgiving-with-our-5-favorite-fighting-cable-news-rivals/

[bigyack-com]

Trump’s Bizarre Apple Factory Visit

Charles Schwab is reportedly in talks to buy TD Ameritrade in a $26 billion deal that could be announced as early as today. (Want this by email? Sign up here.)

Why did Tim Cook let Trump’s inaccuracies slide?

President Trump toured a Texas plant that makes high-end Apple computers yesterday, and inaccurately played up the six-year-old factory as evidence of success for his three-year-old presidency, Jack Nicas of the NYT reports. Apple’s C.E.O., Tim Cook, didn’t correct the president, raising questions about whether he may be compromised over his company’s desires to skirt tariffs. “For me, this is a very special day,” Mr. Trump said during the visit. “I said, ‘Someday we’re going to see Apple building plants in our country, not in China. And that’s what’s happening.’ ” Later he posted on Twitter “Today I opened a major Apple Manufacturing plant in Texas that will bring high paying jobs back to America.” But the plant opened in 2013. It’s owned and run by a company called Flextronics, and builds devices on Apple’s behalf. Mr. Cook spoke immediately after Mr. Trump but did not correct him. Instead, he thanked the president and his staff. “I’m grateful for their support in pulling today off and getting us to this far. It would not be possible without them,” he said. Perhaps tariffs were in Mr. Cook’s mind. Apple pays the trade levies on Apple Watches, iPhone components and other consumer products as a result of Mr. Trump’s trade war, and has sought waivers. When Mr. Trump was asked yesterday if he would exempt Apple from tariffs, he said, “We’ll look into that.” “It illustrated the complicated position that Mr. Cook and other corporate executives find themselves in with this president, forced to stand silently by while he sometimes misleads about their businesses,” Mr. Nicas writes. But if Apple succeeds in wriggling its way out of tariffs, Mr. Cook’s spot could become even tighter — especially if the president speaks out on topics such as immigration, on which Mr. Cook has disagreed with him in the past.

Henry Paulson’s warning on U.S.-China relations

Even if the world’s two biggest economies reach a truce, their relationship is likely to worsen, Henry Paulson, the former Treasury secretary, tells Andrew for his latest DealBook column. Animosity between the two countries has merged “military prisms and ideas into economic policies,” Mr. Paulson said in a preview of a speech he planned to make today at a Bloomberg event on the economy in Beijing. • “It should concern every one of us who cares about the state of the global economy that the positive-sum metaphors of healthy economic competition are giving way to the zero-sum metaphors of military competition,” he planned to say. More worrisome: the U.S. could close off its financial markets to Chinese investment, Mr. Paulson said. “It would eventually threaten U.S. leadership in finance, as well as New York City’s role as the world’s financial center,” he said. He also raised a worst-case scenario. China, which owns more than $1 trillion in U.S. debt, could decide to sell Treasury bonds, potentially sending their value down and pushing interest rates much higher, a worry that Andrew raised in a previous column.

A U.S.-China trade deal could slip into 2020

Negotiators are said to be making progress on a first trade deal with China, but reports suggest that hopes of an agreement being reached before the end of the year are beginning to evaporate. “Trade negotiators from the U.S. and China are making progress in key areas even as concerns grow that efforts to nail down the first phase of a broader deal are stalling,” Bloomberg News reports. It adds that “some people close to the talks describe them as being in a sensitive, make-or-break stage and caution that what President Donald Trump proclaimed as a done deal a month ago, sending U.S. stocks soaring to records, could still easily fall apart.” • Separately, Bloomberg News reported that China’s chief trade negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He, has said that he is “cautiously optimistic” about reaching a “Phase 1” deal with the U.S. But the timeline for a deal remains unclear. Reuters, citing trade experts and people close to the White House, reports that the “completion of a ‘Phase 1’ U.S.-China trade deal could slide into next year,” as “Beijing presses for more extensive tariff rollbacks, and the Trump administration counters with heightened demands of its own.” • When Mr. Trump was asked yesterday if he would secure a deal by the end of the year, he said: “I haven’t wanted to do it yet. Because I don’t think they’re stepping up to the level that I want.” And some people doubt further progress will be made any time soon after a preliminary deal is signed. • “Our base case is that the Phase 1 trade deal gets done and that might be about as good as it gets, that Phase 2 and Phase 3 remain distant next year,” Andrew Sheets, chief cross-asset strategist at Morgan Stanley, told CNBC. More: China may be running out of economic ammunition to use against the U.S.

G.M. sues Fiat Chrysler over U.A.W. contracts

General Motors sued Fiat Chrysler yesterday, claiming that it bribed United Automobile Workers officials in contract negotiations to get a leg up on G.M. over the course of a decade, the NYT’s Neal Boudette reports. The corruption went far beyond garden-variety embezzlement and personal enrichment, G.M. claimed in its lawsuit. The company contends that: • The illegal activity was authorized by Fiat Chrysler’s chief executive at the time, Sergio Marchionne, and helped Fiat Chrysler win union acceptance of cost concessions that were denied to G.M. in labor contracts in 2011 and 2015. • Fiat Chrysler executives bribed union leaders to win support for Fiat Chrysler’s highly public effort to pressure G.M. into a merger in 2015. The union’s president, Gary Jones, resigned hours after G.M. filed the lawsuit. • “The day’s events embroiled two of the country’s three biggest automakers and the union that represents their workers, a controversy the likes of which the industry has rarely experienced,” Mr. Boudette writes.

Google’s staff clash deepens

Google has hired an anti-union consulting firm to advise its management as it deals with widespread worker unrest, Noam Scheiber and Daisuke Wakabayashi of the NYT write. The company has grappled with internal strife recently, including accusations that it has retaliated against organizers of a global walkout and cracked down on dissent inside the company. The newly hired firm, IRI Consultants, promotes its anti-union success on its website. The move “is the latest evidence of escalation in a feud between a group of activist workers at Google and management that has tested the limits of the company’s traditionally transparent, worker-friendly culture,” the reporters write. But hiring IRI was a surprising turn. “Union organization — even labor unrest — has traditionally been rare among big tech companies because their employees have usually been treated and paid well,” Mr. Scheiber and Mr. Wakabayashi write.

What would a wealth tax mean for entrepreneurs?

At this stage, no one needs reminding that many Democratic nominee hopefuls want to tax the wealthy, with Senator Elizabeth Warren in particular looking to disincentivize the accumulation of fortunes above $1 billion. But in his latest column, Greg Ip of the WSJ wonders what it might mean for entrepreneurs. • Ms. Warren’s wealth tax of up to 6 percent a year, along with other levies, are intended to shrink the fortunes of billionaires and multimillionaires. • But, Mr. Ip writes, research shows that “countries with a lot of billionaires per capita had higher incomes per capita,” and a country’s share of the world’s billionaires also “corresponded closely to its share of the world’s largest, most successful companies.” • “While this doesn’t mean billionaires make an economy successful, it does show the two go hand in hand,” he adds. • For most billionaires, Ms. Warren’s tax proposal could easily eat up most if not all of their returns. “Founders would have to steadily sell off their holdings to pay their taxes, shrinking their stake,” Mr. Ip writes. • That could disincentivize many entrepreneurs from growing huge and successful companies. • “This isn’t a reason not to tax billionaires; it’s a reason to be careful about how it’s done.”

“We followed the president’s orders”

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the E.U., told the impeachment inquiry yesterday that he was following President Trump’s orders when he pressured Ukraine to conduct investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals, Nicholas Fandos and Michael S. Schmidt write in the NYT. He said he reluctantly followed Mr. Trump’s directive, in what Mr. Sondland claimed was a clear “quid pro quo.” He added, “We followed the president’s orders.” “Mr. Sondland linked the most senior members of the Trump administration to the effort — including the vice president, the secretary of state, the acting chief of staff and others,” Mr. Fandos and Mr. Schmidt write. “He said they were informed of it at key moments, an account that severely undercut Mr. Trump’s frequent claims that he never pressured Ukraine.” Ukrainian officials may have known as early as late July that a $391 million package of security assistance was being withheld by the Trump administration, a Defense Department official, Laura Cooper, testified later. Mr. Sondland’s testimony may be a career-endangering blow for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has long tried to portray himself as balancing loyalty to Mr. Trump with defending the traditional security interests of the U.S., write David E. Sanger and Edward Wong in the NYT. But the testimony undercut any notion that Mr. Pompeo was not a participant in Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine. More: Mr. Sondland had not even finished his testimony before it was called the “John Dean moment” of the impeachment drama. The F.B.I. tried to interview the anonymous whistle-blower who helped ignite the inquiry, several people familiar with the matter said, but the interview never took place.

Revolving door

HSBC is reportedly planning to replace Samir Assaf, the long-serving head of its investment bank. He is expected to be moved to a non-executive role.

The speed read

Deals • Alibaba’s $13 billion I.P.O. in Hong Kong and Saudi Aramco’s anticipated $26 billion I.P.O. in Riyadh will reportedly deliver only modest fees for the banks that are advising the companies. And many global banks have been sidelined in Aramco’s offering. (Reuters, FT) • LVMH has reportedly increased its offer for Tiffany, to around $130 a share, valuing the company at around $15.8 billion. The offer prompted the jeweler to open its books to the luxury goods giant, raising expectations that a deal could happen. (FT) • PayPal announced the $4 billion acquisition of the private e-commerce company Honey, which tracks prices and automatically applies online discounts for consumers. (FT) • SoftBank is reportedly sounding out Japan’s top three banks to borrow around 300 billion yen, or about $2.8 billion, to help fund its WeWork bailout. (Reuters) Politics and policy • A federal judge halted the executions of four federal prisoners, essentially stymieing the Trump administration’s plan to resume the use of the death penalty. (NYT) • A bill compelling the U.S. to support pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong is headed to President Trump’s desk. The president is expected to sign it, setting up a confrontation with China that could imperil a long-awaited trade deal. (NYT, Bloomberg) • Senator Kamala Harris said at the Democratic debate yesterday that “Donald Trump got punked” into meeting with Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader. (Axios) • Mr. Trump’s nominee for Food and Drug Administration commissioner sidestepped questions about whether he would push for a ban on flavored vaping products. (NYT) Brexit • The opposition Labour Party unveiled its election manifesto, which includes scrapping university fees, reducing the workweek and nationalizing utilities. (Reuters) • Boris Johnson pledged to delay tax breaks for high earners if he is elected, in favor of a tax change that would help those with lower incomes. (FT) • The Conservative Party has come under fire for rebranding one of its Twitter feeds as an account that critics say tried to appear to be a neutral fact checker. (FT) Tech • Elon Musk’s announcement of a Tesla factory in Germany took the industry by surprise, but the deal had been in the works for months. (NYT) • The Trump administration has approved “several” individual licenses for U.S. companies to do business with Huawei. (FT) • The U.K.’s Labour Party said that it would provide government-sponsored broadband service if it wins the December election. But is that even possible? (NYT) • China set up a $21 billion fund to further develop its advanced manufacturing sector. Don’t expect the Trump administration to be happy about it. (WSJ) • Apple and Intel have filed an antitrust lawsuit against the SoftBank-owned Fortress Investment Group, alleging that it stockpiled patents to initiate lawsuits against tech companies that demanded as much as $5.1 billion. (Reuters) Best of the rest • Minutes of the Fed’s last policy meeting reinforced its message that it may be done cutting rates, barring economic weakness. But its officials are puzzled about how to best regain their handle on short-term interest rates. (NYT, Bloomberg) • Prince Andrew said yesterday that he would step back from public duties, seeking to contain a firestorm over his ties to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. (NYT) • Media workers have anonymously posted salary information on crowdsourced spreadsheets, many of them hoping their efforts will lead to higher pay. (NYT) • FedEx delivers billions to the taxman, the company’s C.E.O. says. (WSJ) • As businesses try to correct power imbalances, they find a growing need for experts who can help address issues like unconscious bias. (NYT) Thanks for reading! We’ll see you tomorrow. We’d love your feedback. Please email thoughts and suggestions to business@nytimes.com. Source link Read the full article

[filtration-products]

Day Zero in Cape Town: Delaying the Inevitable

The prediction for Day Zero – when water will be switched off in Cape Town – may have been pushed back but it’s still only months away. How did a major city in the modern era reach this desperate stage and what solutions will be required to secure water supplies in the future?

The looming threat of ‘Day Zero’ in Cape Town – the predicted day when taps will be shut off across the city – has set the alarm bells ringing around the world.

[Native Advertisement]

It has raised the question of how a major city in a modern era could infact run out of water – a service that has historically been taken for granted globally.

Day Zero had originally been moved forward to April 12th due to a drop in dam levels. However, described by officials as a “moving target”, this was then moved back to May 11, before being moved to June 4 and, at the time of going to print, July 9.

Deputy Mayor Ian Neilson reportedly said that Day Zero has been moved due to “Capetonians reducing their water usage and city’s efforts to bring down consumption. This is very encouraging, but we cannot afford to relax our efforts.”

From February, Capetonians were asked to reduce water consumption down 50 litres of water per person daily in an effort to conserve supplies. Several reasons have contributed to what is being considered the Western Cape’s worst drought in over 100 years.

Cape Town’s population has expanded to over four million people in 2018 from 2.4 million in 1995, yet the city’s dam storage meanwhile has only increased by 15 percent.

Furthermore, water consumption has increased while the region has received below average rainfall. Add a third dry winter into the mix with insufficient conservation efforts and the history leading up to Day Zero becomes clear. Simply put: water demand has outpaced water supply.

International best practise

In a statement, Ian Neilson, deputy mayor previously said: “It is still possible to push back Day Zero if we call stand together now and change our current path.”

Currently a ‘Critical Water Shortages Disaster Plan’ is being drafted for April. Neilson said this “draws on international best practices” and reflects “what other cities around the world have implemented when faced with extreme drought conditions”.

Meanwhile Helen Zille, premier of the Western Cape, outlined plans for Day Zero in a column for the Daily Maverick.

She said: “As we begin the countdown to Day-Zero, the ground has shifted. While we must still do everything possible to prevent this ghastly eventuality (and we still can if EVERYBODY abides by the new water restrictions of 50 litres per person per day), my focus has shifted to overseeing plans for the day the taps run dry – and the weeks that follow.”

Agricultural demand

One of the reasons behind Day Zero being pushed back has been a decline in agricultural water use. At the time of going to print, agricultural water use had dropped from 50 percent of water released from Western Cape dams, down to 30 percent. Importantly, Neilson expects this could drop to less than 10 percent by April, with the sector reaching its seasonal limit of water use.

However, some believe this could be a case of ‘too little, too late’, with high agricultural consumption in the past as one reason why Cape Town is facing Day Zero.

Although the city of Cape Town has been under pressure to implement water restrictions, the “agricultural takings have been less controlled”, according to Will Maize, senior research analyst at Bluefield Research.

Data from the city government shows that while residential water consumption is on target with planned usage, agricultural usage has been above what was planned.

News24 reported that in 2015, nearly 40 percent of Western Cape’s water supply went to agriculture, particularly long-term crops such as fruit and wine, as well as livestock. Although the local tiers of governance – Western Cape province and City of Cape Town – went “above and beyond” to prepare for drought, the system failed at the “level of national government”, the report said.

Cape Town resident Julius Steyn, CEO of engineering company GrahamTek says efforts are underway to cut water to farming community but that it’s a complicated process.

“Water to agriculture has been cut significantly,” he told WWi magazine. “There are national, long-standing contracts in place with agricultural unions – so it’s not just a matter of cutting off the water to the farming community. Cut backs have happened to the agricultural community, so they are using less water than they would have used in non-drought circumstances. In a sense, the agricultural sector is already suffering so you can’t just go and cut the water off – they have to get their allocated quota.”

  Day Zero plan

If the Day Zero eventually is reached, the following would happen.

One week before the six dams providing water to the Western Cape Water Supply System drop to 13.5 percent, a date will be announced when all taps in Cape Town’s residential suburbs will be cut off. This excludes hospitals. From that point, municipal water will only be available at 200 points of distribution (PoDs) across the city, which will be monitored by police and law enforcement.

The maximum allocation will be 25 litres per person per day, distributed on the assumption that an average family comprises four persons. For larger families, proof of additional numbers may be needed through identity documents.

Although the city is hoping that the Day Zero situation will only last three months, Zille warned however that such plans could create a “logistical nightmare”, suggesting that if every family sends one person to fetch the water allocation, there would be 5000 people at every POD daily.

City executive mayor Patricia de Lille has previously said that these sites would be extended or include 24-hour operations to cater to such crowds. Furthermore, people would have to carry 100 litres of their water allocation by hand – practically impossible – meaning the provision will have to be made for transport.

Political pressure

With questions being raised as to how the situation is being handled by local authorities, it’s important to note the political situation in the region.

The Western Cape is the only province in the country run by the Democratic Alliance, the official opposition party. Meanwhile, South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC) controls the rest of the country, including the National Department of Water and Sanitation (NDWS), which maintains regulatory control over agricultural water use.

Meanwhile, the city has made good progress with reducing water losses. In total, from 2012 pressure management and pipe replacement efforts have provided Cape Town an estimated 54,400 m3/day – a 7.1 percent supply boost under normal conditions. “The city has been successful with its pressure management improvements so is understandably dismayed at being dragged through the mud in the current situation,” says Maize.

Desalination plans

Meanwhile, GrahamTek has built a desalination plant to provide emergency supply during Day Zero.

The US$2.1 million plant has already been built, using reverse osmosis membrane technology, and will be able to provide between 2500 m3/day and 12,500 m3/day of potable water. The company is in the advanced stages of negotiation with authorities to agree a location.

CEO Steyn says: “Day Zero will have a huge economic impact on businesses, with staff potentially having to take two to three hours per day off work to collected their allocated 25 litres.

“Our solution is two-fold: it will provide local businesses with water, as well as staff for their families, to avoid disrupting the working day.”

The company has historically provided utility-scale desalination projects with 80 percent of its project pipeline outside of South Africa. For this latest development, it has come up with a financial agreement for local businesses to enable it to provide the scaled down operation.

Commenting on the wider reasons for the drought and Day Zero situation in Cape Town, Steyn said it’s a question of “political will, not the intelligence involved or available capability”.

Several ideas have been discussed to provide emergency water supplies during the crisis. A combination of groundwater extraction and small-scale desalination is expected to provide between 120 million to 150 million litres per day.

Zille added: “As the drought is likely to persist, we will have to go for large-scale desalination in the years ahead, and we are grateful to all those entrepreneurs and consortia who have come forward to make proposals in this regard. A feasibility study for a $1.1 billion 450,000 m3/day desalination plant for South African utility Eskom concluded in 2016 but the plans have been postponed to after 2025.

It’s a question of political will, not intelligence or capability

“Cape Town was contemplating desalination for a long time but wasn’t willing to pull the trigger due to high costs,” adds Maize.

For the short term, the City of Cape Town lists seven projects to help secure alternative water sources, including four desalination projects (Cape Town harbour, Strandfontein, Monwabisi and V&A Waterfront), two groundwater projects (Cape Flats and Atlantis) and a water reuse project (Zandvliet). However, all of the projects were listed behind schedule, apart from the V&A Waterfront desalination development.

This temporary plant is expected to provide 2,000 m3/day of water and is being constructed on land made available to the city by the V&A Waterfront at no extra cost.

Moving forward

Maaike Feltmann, is the programme manager at the Netherlands Water Partnership (NWP), which has helped to facilitate cooperation between the Dutch and South African governments, as well as advising on a water master plan for the region.

Commenting on the Day Zero situation, she told WWi magazine: “It’s a political issue but I think the solution won’t be on the political level but more with businesses in the private sector who are going to provide water for themselves, as was seen during the energy crisis,” she says.

One of the challenges during Day Zero will be the class differences in the region, according to Maaike.

“The difficulty in this situation will be the difference between the poor and rich,” she adds. “Water is such a basic need and there will be solutions for people who can pay for it but people who don’t have the money to provide for themselves will have a hard time”.

Commenting on the potential for international collaboration and solutions, the programme manager adds that “the City of Cape Town is overloaded with offers and suggestions from abroad, so it’s a very long process”. She says: “On a B2B level, there are organisations working together to see how they can come up with decentralised water supply systems.”

While decentralised solutions may appease water demand in the short-term, the prediction for the Day Zero situation has reaffirmed the need for diversified water supplies.

“Long-term planning processes require re-thinking amidst an increasingly volatile water cycle,” adds Bluefield Research’s Maize. “Designing resilient water supply systems requires diversification of water supply sources; augmenting surface and ground water supplies with desalination, and even more-so, water reuse. It is also important that regulators – from national to municipal or city level, align policies to ensure that conservation efforts are fair, equitable, and apolitical.”

Tom Freyberg is chief editor of WWI magazine.

Introducing Filtration-Products.com: Filtration-Products.com page captures the latest information, statements and filter products straight from the treatment biz. Filtration-Products keeps you posted on filter and all the main industrial innovations including wound filtration, pleated elements, melt blown depth elements, bag filters, Pre-RO filtration, from brands such as Omnioure appropriate for air filtration, and anything else the filter world has to tell.

from Filtration Products https://ift.tt/2wdVffH

[furynewsnetwork]

LISTEN TO TLR’S LATEST PODCAST:

Will Ricciardella

Every morning, prominent news outlets like Axios, Politico, The Washington Post, and The New York Times email their newsletters to thousands of people across D.C. and beyond. And every weekend, The Daily Caller News Foundation searches for the most outrageous examples of bias in each one.

From claiming federal bureaucracies that are completely insulated can best help the people they’re supposed to serve, to alleging there is a secret cabal of Trump advisors that have to save him from himself, the establishment media makes my job easier.

Below is a list of the most egregious examples from the past week:

New York Times Daily Briefing:

1. NYT doesn’t mention that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is outside the purview of officials in Congress or the executive branch, and has virtually unlimited, unconstitutional power. 

As the Trump administration pushes for deregulation, one body, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, may be too popular to cut.

“It is an agency about protecting the little guy, and that is tough to oppose,” one policy analyst said.

2. In a nation where government is involved intimately in the economy, this is business as usual. And if there is no evidence, why is this displayed so prominently in the newsletter? 

In a series of emails in 2015, a business associate of President Trump’s promised to engineer a real estate deal, with the help of Russia’s leader, that he said would help Mr. Trump win the presidency.

There is no evidence that the associate, Felix Sater, delivered on the promise [emphasis mine]. But the emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump’s campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage.

3. They said the same thing when Reagan wanted to win the Cold War and instituted some of the same policies in the 80s.

Japan denounced North Korea’s latest provocation today, a missile fired over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido that landed in the sea. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that he had spoken with President Trump and that the two countries’ stances “are completely matched.”

The U.S. is overhauling its own nuclear arsenal, and the Air Force has announced new contracts for cruise and ground-based missiles

The Trump administration has embraced the programs, but critics warn against a new arms race and billions of dollars squandered.

Axios a.m.:

1. Summary: Trump can’t do anything right. Here are all the things he can’t do right. Irony alert: this definitely isn’t journalism done right. 

President Trump’s understaffed, self-conscious administration faces a cascade of crises and heavy lifts this fall that it’s ill-equipped to shoulder simultaneously:

The once-in-a-century (or even millennia, per CNN meteorologist Tom Sater) Houston flooding could mean disruption and agony for months in the nation’s petrochemical capital, with national economic repercussions that could disturb the current fragile reverie.

Charlottesville has torn open a topic that won’t go away with a few free-expression rallies or statue removals. The issue promises to haunt the country and taint Trump.

Trump’s response has also opened a deep wound within the administration. Economic adviser Gary Cohn, SecState Rex Tillerson and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin have been more public than others with their personal responses. But there is a deep sense of unease in many quarters.

The special counsel’s work is becoming increasingly visible as he issues subpoenas, with real risks to the White House as he reportedly delves into financial transactions touching Trump and his family.

Most in the West Wing don’t have a good sense of what’s coming with the Mueller investigation. But veterans of past administrations warn that it’s going to make the internal battles thus far look like child’s play once the possibility of legal liability is in the mix.

The Hill agenda for September is punishing, with colossal fights on debt limit, government funding to avoid a shutdown, and the budget (to provide a reconciliation vehicle for a tax overhaul). Steve Bannon called it the “meat-grinder” month.

These fights will require complex tradeoffs, with the House and Senate leadership in the driver’s seat. So the path to even getting to a tax reform bill is long and precarious. And Trump has little political capital outside his shrinking base.

The United Nations General Assembly in New York, with the year’s biggest matrix of heads of state, hits in mid-September.

Chief of Staff John Kelly has made rapid progress in shaping up the West Wing, but the internal ecosystem is still gelling.

What Trump is thinking, per a source: “The president’s state of mind is that he is doing fine, and the media/establishment are in denial.”

Why it matters: Alumni of past White Houses say this torrent would be daunting even for a White House with a coherent team and smooth processes in place. But it threatens to be debilitating at a time when the Trump White House is short on bandwidth, goodwill and momentum.

2. The guy that worked in an administration that may be partly responsible for the technological advances North Korea threatens us with now, turns around and blames Trump for the crisis.

Ned Price, a National Security Council spokesman in the Obama administration, argues for Foreign Policy (“Trump’s Nuclear Crisis Was Of His Own Making”) that Trump’s “fire and fury” threat provoked “an entirely manufactured crisis magnified by an irrational response from an American president eager to display bravado and bluster on the world stage.”

3. Never heard of this “Committee to Save America” that is supposedly running the country. Have you? Also, maybe, just maybe, Trump doesn’t demand absolutely loyalty. Throwing that out there as another possibility. 

“Away from the cameras and apart from the nonstop drama of the White House, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has come to play a role unlike any other Cabinet member,” the WashPost’s Greg Jaffe and Dan Lamothe write on the front page:

“The retired Marine general has become a force for calm, order and, in the eyes of the president’s critics, quiet resistance to some of President Trump’s most combative and divisive instincts.”

“Mattis has maintained this air of independence without directly provoking a president who demands absolute loyalty.”

Be smart: Mattis is a linchpin of what we call the unofficial Committee to Save America — administration and congressional leaders who see themselves as playing a behind-the-scenes role in protecting Trump and the nation from some of his instincts.

 Politico’s Playbook: 

1. Well, so long as Mexico doesn’t have to deal with their most vulnerable citizens (poor, unskilled, uneducated) because they cross the border into the U.S., why would they agree to it? Just an idea: maybe that’s something you can add to your report?

MEXICO TO TRUMP: WE’RE NOT PAYING FOR THE WALL — CNN: “In response [to a Trump Sunday tweet], the country’s foreign ministry released a statement saying Mexico would not pay for a wall or other physical barrier at the border ‘under any circumstances.’ ‘This determination is not part of a Mexican negotiating strategy, but a principle of national sovereignty and dignity,’ the statement said.” http://cnn.it/2xq6VIA

2. Because Donald Trump represents the sovereign interests of the country that elected him over countries and international bodies that have not, no one wants to offer help…and that’s all his fault. Out of the realm of possibility is that these nations just might be unreasonable. 

ON THE WORLD STAGE — “World in no rush to offer Trump help post-Harvey,” by Nahal Toosi: “As soon as Hurricane Harvey hit, Mexico — a country described by President Donald Trump as a source of rapists and drugs — stepped up to offer boats, food and other aid to the United States. Another offer of help came from Venezuela, a country in severe political and economic crisis that has been repeatedly sanctioned by the Trump administration; it said it could give $5 million in aid. The European Union has proudly noted that it is sharing its satellite mapping with U.S. emergency responders dealing the Harvey’s devastation. This despite Trump’s chastisement of European countries he views as overly dependent on the U.S. military. Then there’s tiny Taiwan, which has reportedly offered $800,000 in aid – a number likely calculated to annoy China as much as to curry favor with Trump.

“But compared to past crises, the list of foreign governments lining up to help the United States this time is relatively short for the time being. And the few countries that have raised their hand may get more out of it – politically, at least – than the U.S. The relative dearth of global goodwill, some analysts say, may stem from anger at Trump over his ‘America First’ approach to the world [emphasis mine], which has irked even staunch U.S. allies.” http://politi.co/2vPoCPL

3. Most economists would also say that increased profits would encourage entry into the marketplace, putting downward pressure on prices. This would benefit those income groups most vulnerable in our economy. Stupid economics. 

THE BIG PICTURE — “The reality beneath Trump’s tax reform talk,” by Brian Faler: “President Donald Trump’s tax plans hardly match his populist rhetoric. Though he sold his plan to rewrite the tax code as a boon to the average American worker in a speech Wednesday, he mostly focused on the taxes paid by America’s largest corporations. Trump argued that his plans to cut the 35 percent corporate tax rate for the first time in 30 years would benefit regular wage earners by putting more money in corporate coffers, which he said business leaders would then use to hire more people and raise wages.

“But most economists say companies’ shareholders would be the primary beneficiaries of a corporate tax rate cut. That’s because it would make companies more profitable [emphasis mine], which would boost their stock price while also leaving them with more money to pay out dividends. The official Joint Committee on Taxation, as well as the Treasury Department and the independent Tax Policy Center, all say shareholders bear roughly three-quarters of the burden of the corporate tax, and therefore would be the main winners were it cut.” http://politi.co/2vumf9T

Follow Will Ricciardella on Twitter and Facebook

Click here for reuse options! Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Media Criticism: The Most Biased And Inane Newsletter Items Of The Week appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

via Headline News – The Libertarian Republic

[junker-town]

What we know about the CBA talks between the NFL and NFLPA

Photo by Larry French/Getty Images

The NFL and NFLPA are trying to get a jump start on negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement two years in advance.

The NFL and NFLPA have a daunting task ahead of them: Reach common ground on a new collective bargaining agreement in time to avoid a work stoppage ahead of the 2021 season.

The current CBA — set to expire after the 2020 season — was agreed upon in 2011 after a 132-day lockout. There were two even worse work stoppages a few decades ago when the 1982 and 1987 NFL seasons were both shortened by player strikes.

Seeking to avoid that kind of labor dispute, the NFL and NFLPA are getting a jumpstart on their 2021 negotiations.

The two sides had early meetings

When exactly the NFL and NFLPA descended on Minneapolis in the spring to get negotiations started isn’t clear. Giants owner John Mara said at the NFL Annual Meeting the two sides would have preliminary talks “in early to mid-April,” and the first indication that the talks started came on April 9.

That’s when ESPN’s Todd Archer reported Jerry Jones missed a press conference to announce a new contract for DeMarcus Lawrence because he’s in Minneapolis for CBA talks. A few hours later, a joint statement was released:

“Today, the members of the NFL’s Management Council and the NFLPA’s Executive Committee met to discuss negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. The League and the Union have committed to meet regularly in the coming months, which will involve staff, NFL leadership, members of the NFLPA Executive Committee and Player Representatives.”

They met throughout the summer and finally ended talks in late August ahead of the 2019 regular season.

Did progress on a new CBA actually get made this early?

The expiration of the CBA is still nearly two years away, so the biggest question the sides can answer in these preliminary meetings is just how much work they have to do.

According to the Washington Post’s John Clayton, it might not be much. He wrote that there is optimism a deal could get done as early as this year. That’d be extraordinarily quick, but Clayton says both sides could be happy with the current CBA due to the fast rising salary cap and minimum spending requirement (teams are required to spend at least 89 percent of their caps):

With that much money being spent, the feeling among some union leaders is that there is an incentive for players to make a deal rather than enter into an extended labor dispute. The NFL is on the verge of surpassing $15 billion in revenue, with the league’s television deals due to be extended within the next year. Each team received $255 million of shared revenue last year, with most of it coming from television.

NFLPA president Eric Winston hasn’t been quite as positive about the status quo, though:

Any conversation with NFL owners will be a renegotiation for a new deal, not an extension. At our board meetings we told everyone to prepare for a work stoppage; nothing has changed. https://t.co/DE2RLh1tBL

— Eric Winston (@ericwinston) March 27, 2019

In August, the Washington Post said the talks were “progressing,” but also said it’s still way too early to expect a resolution to come soon:

Executives with several NFL teams said it’s a good sign that talks are taking place without obvious acrimony or public sniping between the two sides. But they described the discussions as remaining in the relatively early stages and said they would be surprised if the process accelerates enough in the coming weeks to produce a near-term deal. A more realistic goal, one of those executives said, might be next spring.

Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, who also serves as the team’s NFLPA rep, also said he doesn’t expect an easy negotiation:

“I’ve got a feeling it won’t be as simple as it was last time,” Jenkins told ESPN. “Just because you have more players like myself who have been through the lockout before, saw how the NFLPA leadership handled that into where we are now, which I don’t think was a bad deal but there is a lot that I feel like we want to get back as players, or get as players.”

A month after the preliminary talks got started, NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reported the conversation between the two sides was “cordial” and “amicable.”

Though it’s possible a deal could be reached before the 2019 season, negotiations would have to ramp up considerably. Unless the pace changes, that’s not seen as feasible. Perhaps more likely is a deal next spring, a year before the CBA expires following the 2020 season.

One source went as far as saying, as of now, there are disagreements but no contentious issues like last time. “Nothing that would make it blow up,” as of now, one person briefed on the talks said.

The New York Times warned that it’s still early to get too optimistic, though.

Officials from the league and the players’ union, who asked not to be identified so as not to be seen as negotiating in public, cautioned that labor negotiations had just begun and could quickly sour.

But the NFL’s early negotiation tactics bode well for the future. Via the Times:

The N.F.L., however, has shifted away from its combative approach of the last round of bargaining. People involved in the current discussions expect the league to agree to a modest increase in the players’ share of league revenue, and for there to be few major changes to an agreement that has led to significant gains in league revenue and player compensation for the past eight years.

Two years ago, NFLPA officials told players to begin the process of saving money for a potential lockout. That’s advice that hasn’t changed.

NFLPA Exec Dir De Smith sent an email out to all NFL agents this morning, advising them to urge player clients to save money in the event of a work stoppage. "We are advising players to plan for a work stoppage of at least a year in length," the letter states. More in SBD.

— Liz Mullen (@SBJLizMullen) May 28, 2019

These early meetings may have given an indication whether or not that’s still likely to be necessary.

What’s the No. 1 priority in the CBA talks?

A wise group of men — let’s call them a clan — once said “cash rules everything around me.” The negotiations of the next CBA will revolve around money, money, money, a couple other things, and money.

In 2011, the NFL and NFLPA agreed to a split of the league revenue with players getting 47-48.5 percent. That was down from 50 percent in the prior CBA. It was widely considered a win for the league and a loss for the players.

With league revenues soaring so much that the salary cap rose from $123 million in 2013 to $188.2 million in 2019 — more than a 50 percent increase in six years — a couple percentage points represent a LOT of money.

It’s unclear what exactly constitutes a “modest increase” for players, but if the NFL is willing to cede a chunk of their revenue it’ll help grease the wheels plenty. What the league wants in return is more games. Via NFL.com in late August:

there still has yet to be a breakthrough on the No. 1 issue, with NFL owners continuing to want more regular-season games and NFL players continuing to want a larger share of revenue without adding regular-season games, sources say. Players are guaranteed 47 percent of total revenue under the current CBA, which is set to expire after the 2020 season.

The two sides are reportedly agreeable on the idea of expanding the postseason field from 12 teams to 14, though.

What other money issues will the NFL and NFLPA haggle over?

The NFLPA will aim to raise that revenue sharing percentage, and that number will likely be the crux of the negotiation. But the money talks will go deeper than that. Both sides have other ways to try to get a bigger piece of the pie. To name a few:

The 89 percent spending floor could be raised to force teams to pay players more, or lowered to allow teams to save more.

The NFL secured large amounts of “stadium credits” in the 2011 CBA — allotments of league revenue that help pay for new stadiums. Owners are aiming to seek even more stadium credits in the next CBA too, according to ESPN. “The [stadium credits] issue has prompted the NFLPA to scoff at the notion that the current talks relate to an ‘extension’ of the 2011 agreement,” wrote Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk. The NFLPA considers the NFL’s requests “a major tweak” of the 2011 agreement.

A rookie wage scale was introduced in the 2011 CBA to end increasingly gigantic contracts for early draft picks. Sam Bradford received a six-year, $78 million deal after he was the No. 1 pick of the 2010 NFL Draft. In the most recent draft, Baker Mayfield received a four-year, $32.68 million contract for being the No. 1 pick. The wage scale is probably here to stay, but the NFLPA could aim for higher amounts for rookies or shorter contracts for first-year players that lets them cash in on second deals sooner.

The franchise tag could be in the crosshairs too with players now threatening to sit out seasons — and Le’Veon Bell even following through — to avoid it. The tag originally served to give teams more time to extend stars, but now it’s become a way to artificially avoid allowing the best players in the game to set the market higher at their respective positions.

There are a few non-money items on the agenda too

Money is the biggest reason to expect a lengthy fight, but there are also non-money issues: the league’s personal conduct policy, the substance abuse policy, and the commissioner’s unilateral authority to hand down punishment, to name a few.

The possibility of an 18-game regular season, increased or decreased practice time, and changes to the players’ healthcare plan are a few more wrenches that could be tossed into the mix.

The idea of an 18-game schedule has been floated by the NFL for several years. The league reportedly came to the NFLPA with the idea of allowing players to only play in 16 games per season — aiming to quell the union’s concern of players being overworked. There are several issues with that idea that would make it a bad compromise for both sides, though.

That was also around the time a group of Hall of Famers led by Eric Dickerson threatened to boycott future induction ceremonies if the next CBA doesn’t include significantly better healthcare benefits and revenue sharing for Hall of Famers.

The preliminary meetings were a chance for both sides to see just how far apart they are, and how much ground needs to be made up.

[junker-town]

What we know about the CBA talks between the NFL and NFLPA

Photo by Larry French/Getty Images

The NFL and NFLPA are trying to get a jump start on negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement two years in advance.

The NFL and NFLPA have a daunting task ahead of them: Reach common ground on a new collective bargaining agreement in time to avoid a work stoppage ahead of the 2021 season.

The current CBA — set to expire after the 2020 season — was agreed upon in 2011 after a 132-day lockout. There were two even worse work stoppages a few decades ago when the 1982 and 1987 NFL seasons were both shortened by player strikes.

Seeking to avoid that kind of labor dispute, the NFL and NFLPA are getting a jumpstart on their 2021 negotiations.

The two sides have had early meetings

When exactly the NFL and NFLPA descended on Minneapolis in the spring to get negotiations started isn’t clear. Giants owner John Mara said at the NFL Annual Meeting the two sides would have preliminary talks “in early to mid-April,” and the first indication that the talks started came on April 9.

That’s when ESPN’s Todd Archer reported Jerry Jones missed a press conference to announce a new contract for DeMarcus Lawrence because he’s in Minneapolis for CBA talks. A few hours later, a joint statement was released:

“Today, the members of the NFL’s Management Council and the NFLPA’s Executive Committee met to discuss negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. The League and the Union have committed to meet regularly in the coming months, which will involve staff, NFL leadership, members of the NFLPA Executive Committee and Player Representatives.”

Will progress on a new CBA actually be made this early?

The expiration of the CBA is still nearly two years away, so the biggest question the sides can answer in these preliminary meetings is just how much work they have to do.

According to the Washington Post’s John Clayton, it might not be much. He wrote that there is optimism a deal could get done as early as this year. That’d be extraordinarily quick, but Clayton says both sides could be happy with the current CBA due to the fast rising salary cap and minimum spending requirement (teams are required to spend at least 89 percent of their caps):

With that much money being spent, the feeling among some union leaders is that there is an incentive for players to make a deal rather than enter into an extended labor dispute. The NFL is on the verge of surpassing $15 billion in revenue, with the league’s television deals due to be extended within the next year. Each team received $255 million of shared revenue last year, with most of it coming from television.

NFLPA president Eric Winston hasn’t been quite as positive about the status quo, though:

Any conversation with NFL owners will be a renegotiation for a new deal, not an extension. At our board meetings we told everyone to prepare for a work stoppage; nothing has changed. https://t.co/DE2RLh1tBL

— Eric Winston (@ericwinston) March 27, 2019

In August, the Washington Post said the talks were “progressing,” but also said it’s still way too early to expect a resolution to come soon:

Executives with several NFL teams said it’s a good sign that talks are taking place without obvious acrimony or public sniping between the two sides. But they described the discussions as remaining in the relatively early stages and said they would be surprised if the process accelerates enough in the coming weeks to produce a near-term deal. A more realistic goal, one of those executives said, might be next spring.

Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, who also serves as the team’s NFLPA rep, also said he doesn’t expect an easy negotiation:

“I’ve got a feeling it won’t be as simple as it was last time,” Jenkins told ESPN. “Just because you have more players like myself who have been through the lockout before, saw how the NFLPA leadership handled that into where we are now, which I don’t think was a bad deal but there is a lot that I feel like we want to get back as players, or get as players.”

A month after the preliminary talks got started, NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reported the conversation between the two sides was “cordial” and “amicable.”

Though it’s possible a deal could be reached before the 2019 season, negotiations would have to ramp up considerably. Unless the pace changes, that’s not seen as feasible. Perhaps more likely is a deal next spring, a year before the CBA expires following the 2020 season.

One source went as far as saying, as of now, there are disagreements but no contentious issues like last time. “Nothing that would make it blow up,” as of now, one person briefed on the talks said.

The New York Times warned that it’s still early to get too optimistic, though.

Officials from the league and the players’ union, who asked not to be identified so as not to be seen as negotiating in public, cautioned that labor negotiations had just begun and could quickly sour.

But the NFL’s early negotiation tactics bode well for the future. Via the Times:

The N.F.L., however, has shifted away from its combative approach of the last round of bargaining. People involved in the current discussions expect the league to agree to a modest increase in the players’ share of league revenue, and for there to be few major changes to an agreement that has led to significant gains in league revenue and player compensation for the past eight years.

Two years ago, NFLPA officials told players to begin the process of saving money for a potential lockout. That’s advice that hasn’t changed.

NFLPA Exec Dir De Smith sent an email out to all NFL agents this morning, advising them to urge player clients to save money in the event of a work stoppage. "We are advising players to plan for a work stoppage of at least a year in length," the letter states. More in SBD.

— Liz Mullen (@SBJLizMullen) May 28, 2019

These early meetings may have given an indication whether or not that’s still likely to be necessary.

What’s the No. 1 priority in the CBA talks?

A wise group of men — let’s call them a clan — once said “cash rules everything around me.” The negotiations of the next CBA will revolve around money, money, money, a couple other things, and money.

In 2011, the NFL and NFLPA agreed to a split of the league revenue with players getting 47-48.5 percent. That was down from 50 percent in the prior CBA. It was widely considered a win for the league and a loss for the players.

With league revenues soaring so much that the salary cap rose from $123 million in 2013 to $188.2 million in 2019 — more than a 50 percent increase in six years — a couple percentage points represent a LOT of money.

It’s unclear what exactly constitutes a “modest increase” for players, but if the NFL is willing to cede a chunk of their revenue it’ll help grease the wheels plenty.

What other money issues will the NFL and NFLPA haggle over?

The NFLPA will aim to raise that revenue sharing percentage, and that number will likely be the crux of the negotiation. But the money talks will go deeper than that. Both sides have other ways to try to get a bigger piece of the pie. To name a few:

The 89 percent spending floor could be raised to force teams to pay players more, or lowered to allow teams to save more.

The NFL secured large amounts of “stadium credits” in the 2011 CBA — allotments of league revenue that help pay for new stadiums. Owners are aiming to seek even more stadium credits in the next CBA too, according to ESPN. “The [stadium credits] issue has prompted the NFLPA to scoff at the notion that the current talks relate to an ‘extension’ of the 2011 agreement,” wrote Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk. The NFLPA considers the NFL’s requests “a major tweak” of the 2011 agreement.

A rookie wage scale was introduced in the 2011 CBA to end increasingly gigantic contracts for early draft picks. Sam Bradford received a six-year, $78 million deal after he was the No. 1 pick of the 2010 NFL Draft. In the most recent draft, Baker Mayfield received a four-year, $32.68 million contract for being the No. 1 pick. The wage scale is probably here to stay, but the NFLPA could aim for higher amounts for rookies or shorter contracts for first-year players that lets them cash in on second deals sooner.

The franchise tag could be in the crosshairs too with players now threatening to sit out seasons — and Le’Veon Bell even following through — to avoid it. The tag originally served to give teams more time to extend stars, but now it’s become a way to artificially avoid allowing the best players in the game to set the market higher at their respective positions.

There are a few non-money items on the agenda too

Money is the biggest reason to expect a lengthy fight, but there are also non-money issues: the league’s personal conduct policy, the substance abuse policy, and the commissioner’s unilateral authority to hand down punishment, to name a few.

The possibility of an 18-game regular season, increased or decreased practice time, and changes to the players’ healthcare plan are a few more wrenches that could be tossed into the mix.

The idea of an 18-game schedule has been floated by the NFL for several years. The league reportedly came to the NFLPA with the idea of allowing players to only play in 16 games per season — aiming to quell the union’s concern of players being overworked. There are several issues with that idea that would make it a bad compromise for both sides, though.

That was also around the time a group of Hall of Famers led by Eric Dickerson threatened to boycott future induction ceremonies if the next CBA doesn’t include significantly better healthcare benefits and revenue sharing for Hall of Famers.

The preliminary meetings were a chance for both sides to see just how far apart they are, and how much ground needs to be made up.

[junker-town]

What we know about the CBA talks between the NFL and NFLPA

The NFL and NFLPA are trying to get a jump start on negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement two years in advance.

The NFL and NFLPA have a daunting task ahead of them: Reach common ground on a new collective bargaining agreement in time to avoid a work stoppage ahead of the 2021 season.

The current CBA — set to expire after the 2020 season — was agreed upon in 2011 after a 132-day lockout. There were two even worse work stoppages a few decades ago when the 1982 and 1987 NFL seasons were both shortened by player strikes.

Seeking to avoid that kind of labor dispute, the NFL and NFLPA are getting a jumpstart on their 2021 negotiations.

The two sides met in Minnesota

When exactly the NFL and NFLPA descended on Minneapolis to get negotiations started isn’t clear. Giants owner John Mara said at the NFL Annual Meeting the two sides would have preliminary talks “in early to mid-April,” and the first indication that the talks started came on April 9.

That’s when ESPN’s Todd Archer reported Jerry Jones missed a press conference to announce a new contract for DeMarcus Lawrence because he’s in Minneapolis for CBA talks. A few hours later, a joint statement was released:

“Today, the members of the NFL’s Management Council and the NFLPA’s Executive Committee met to discuss negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. The League and the Union have committed to meet regularly in the coming months, which will involve staff, NFL leadership, members of the NFLPA Executive Committee and Player Representatives.”

Will progress on a new CBA actually be made this early?

The expiration of the CBA is still two years away, so the biggest question the two sides can answer in these preliminary meetings is just how much work they have to do.

According to the Washington Post’s John Clayton, it might not be much. He wrote that there is optimism a deal could get done as early as this year. That’d be extraordinarily quick, but Clayton says both sides could be happy with the current CBA due to the fast rising salary cap and minimum spending requirement (teams are required to spend at least 89 percent of their caps):

With that much money being spent, the feeling among some union leaders is that there is an incentive for players to make a deal rather than enter into an extended labor dispute. The NFL is on the verge of surpassing $15 billion in revenue, with the league’s television deals due to be extended within the next year. Each team received $255 million of shared revenue last year, with most of it coming from television.

NFLPA president Eric Winston hasn’t been quite as positive about the status quo, though:

Any conversation with NFL owners will be a renegotiation for a new deal, not an extension. At our board meetings we told everyone to prepare for a work stoppage; nothing has changed. https://t.co/DE2RLh1tBL

— Eric Winston (@ericwinston) March 27, 2019

Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, who also serves as the team’s NFLPA rep, also said he doesn’t expect an easy negotiation:

“I’ve got a feeling it won’t be as simple as it was last time,” Jenkins told ESPN. “Just because you have more players like myself who have been through the lockout before, saw how the NFLPA leadership handled that into where we are now, which I don’t think was a bad deal but there is a lot that I feel like we want to get back as players, or get as players.”

A month after the preliminary talks got started, NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reported the conversation between the two sides was “cordial” and “amicable.”

Though it’s possible a deal could be reached before the 2019 season, negotiations would have to ramp up considerably. Unless the pace changes, that’s not seen as feasible. Perhaps more likely is a deal next spring, a year before the CBA expires following the 2020 season.

One source went as far as saying, as of now, there are disagreements but no contentious issues like last time. “Nothing that would make it blow up,” as of now, one person briefed on the talks said.

The New York Times warned that it’s still early to get too optimistic, though.

Officials from the league and the players’ union, who asked not to be identified so as not to be seen as negotiating in public, cautioned that labor negotiations had just begun and could quickly sour.

But the NFL’s early negotiation tactics bode well for the future. Via the Times:

The N.F.L., however, has shifted away from its combative approach of the last round of bargaining. People involved in the current discussions expect the league to agree to a modest increase in the players’ share of league revenue, and for there to be few major changes to an agreement that has led to significant gains in league revenue and player compensation for the past eight years.

Two years ago, NFLPA officials told players to begin the process of saving money for a potential lockout. That’s advice that hasn’t changed.

NFLPA Exec Dir De Smith sent an email out to all NFL agents this morning, advising them to urge player clients to save money in the event of a work stoppage. "We are advising players to plan for a work stoppage of at least a year in length," the letter states. More in SBD.

— Liz Mullen (@SBJLizMullen) May 28, 2019

These early meetings may have given an indication whether or not that’s still likely to be necessary.

What’s the No. 1 priority in the CBA talks?

A wise group of men — let’s call them a clan — once said “cash rules everything around me.” The negotiations of the next CBA will revolve around money, money, money, a couple other things, and money.

In 2011, the NFL and NFLPA agreed to a split of the league revenue with players getting 47-48.5 percent. That was down from 50 percent in the prior CBA. It was widely considered a win for the league and a loss for the players.

With league revenues soaring so much that the salary cap rose from $123 million in 2013 to $188.2 million in 2019 — more than a 50 percent increase in six years — a couple percentage points represent a LOT of money.

It’s unclear what exactly constitutes a “modest increase” for players, but if the NFL is willing to cede a chunk of their revenue it’ll help grease the wheels plenty.

What other money issues will the NFL and NFLPA haggle over?

The NFLPA will aim to raise that revenue sharing percentage, and that number will likely be the crux of the negotiation. But the money talks will go deeper than that. Both sides have other ways to try to get a bigger piece of the pie. To name a few:

The 89 percent spending floor could be raised to force teams to pay players more, or lowered to allow teams to save more.

The NFL secured large amounts of “stadium credits” in the 2011 CBA — allotments of league revenue that help pay for new stadiums. Owners are aiming to seek even more stadium credits in the next CBA too, according to ESPN. “The [stadium credits] issue has prompted the NFLPA to scoff at the notion that the current talks relate to an ‘extension’ of the 2011 agreement,” wrote Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk. The NFLPA considers the NFL’s requests “a major tweak” of the 2011 agreement.

A rookie wage scale was introduced in the 2011 CBA to end increasingly gigantic contracts for early draft picks. Sam Bradford received a six-year, $78 million deal after he was the No. 1 pick of the 2010 NFL Draft. In the most recent draft, Baker Mayfield received a four-year, $32.68 million contract for being the No. 1 pick. The wage scale is probably here to stay, but the NFLPA could aim for higher amounts for rookies or shorter contracts for first-year players that lets them cash in on second deals sooner.

The franchise tag could be in the crosshairs too with players now threatening to sit out seasons — and Le’Veon Bell even following through — to avoid it. The tag originally served to give teams more time to extend stars, but now it’s become a way to artificially avoid allowing the best players in the game to set the market higher at their respective positions.

There are a few non-money items on the agenda too

Money is the biggest reason to expect a lengthy fight, but there are also non-money issues: the league’s personal conduct policy, the substance abuse policy, and the commissioner’s unilateral authority to hand down punishment, to name a few.

The possibility of an 18-game regular season, increased or decreased practice time, and changes to the players’ healthcare plan are a few more wrenches that could be tossed into the mix.

The idea of an 18-game schedule has been floated by the NFL for several years. The league reportedly came to the NFLPA with the idea of allowing players to only play in 16 games per season — aiming to quell the union’s concern of players being overworked. There are several issues with that idea that would make it a bad compromise for both sides, though.

That was also around the time a group of Hall of Famers led by Eric Dickerson threatened to boycott future induction ceremonies if the next CBA doesn’t include significantly better healthcare benefits and revenue sharing for Hall of Famers.

The preliminary meetings were a chance for both sides to see just how far apart they are, and how much ground needs to be made up.