MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: rocket surgeon on February 04, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
-
stick a fork in da bears...if it hasn't already been stuck. and cutler will be the first one out the door-damn damn damn
-
WTF does this even mean? Context?
-
Politics. With an impact on sports.
-
stick a fork in da bears...if it hasn't already been stuck. and cutler will be the first one out the door-damn damn damn
Pardon?
Not as black and white as Smith made it sound. Each pro team in Chicago has supported it.
And not sure what this has to do with Cutler. He's gone regardless.
-
Pardon?
Not as black and white as Smith made it sound. Each pro team in Chicago has supported it.
And not sure what this has to do with Cutler. He's gone regardless.
i DID NOT post this for any political purposes-strictly about the AFFECT it COULD have on illinois pro sports teams
i should have put that cutler part in teal-it was 100% sarcasm
"each pro team in chicago.." that's the problem. many in chicago(read bear supporters-i guess there are some left) are freaking out.
-
WTF does this even mean? Context?
It is a bill to prohibit workman's comp for injuries to anyone over 35. So if a Bear player has a chronic bad back or knees from playing football and has to retire - he would receive no benefits if older than 35. The McCaskeys are the biggest advocates of the bill. The bill would also affect minor leaguers in any sport as well. Based on politics, I would guess that the Ricketts and Reinsdorf would support it as well - but have not heard that yet.
The impact? Demourey Smith has said that if this amendment is passed as part of the budget bill, he will recommend to the Player's Union that no players sign a free agency deal with the Bears as a general policy.
-
Pardon?
Not as black and white as Smith made it sound. Each pro team in Chicago has supported it.
And not sure what this has to do with Cutler. He's gone regardless.
By team - you mean each OWNER.
-
It is a bill to prohibit workman's comp.
There is no such thing as workman's comp.
-
It's bad optics on the Bears part. I can understand and see both sides of the argument here, ultimately I think it won't pass, too much of a precedent being set against a specific career class.
Sir Lawrence would probably be best to speak on this topic, would be interested in his view on this.
-
i DID NOT post this for any political purposes-strictly about the AFFECT it COULD have on illinois pro sports teams
i should have put that cutler part in teal-it was 100% sarcasm
"each pro team in chicago.." that's the problem. many in chicago(read bear supporters-i guess there are some left) are freaking out.
I didn't think you posted it for political purposes. Not sure how my response insinuated that but I didn't mean for it to.
-
By team - you mean each OWNER.
Sure. I imagine there are multiple people involved in the discussion. For example, I highly doubt Tom Ricketts made a decision without input from others.
-
I didn't think you posted it for political purposes. Not sure how my response insinuated that but I didn't mean for it to.
sorry vander-wasn't aimed specifically at you, but tower mentioned the, gasp! "word" so i thought i'd get out in front of it and blow that flame out before it caught fire, ein'a tower? get it? flame? absolutely with all due respect
-
Meh. It is a bill being debated in a legislature that would impact, among many other people, athletes. Ergo, politics that impact sports.
-
Meh. It is a bill being debated in a legislature that would impact, among many other people, athletes. Ergo, politics that impact sports.
I think the chances are good that it won't pass. A couple states have tried and failed before.
-
There is no such thing as workman's comp.
Workers' Compensation Insurance: It's the LAW. Illinois law requires employers to provide workers' compensation insurance for almost everyone who is hired, injured, or whose employment is localized in Illinois.
-
Yes, workers comp is the law.
-
Workers' Compensation Insurance: It's the LAW. Illinois law requires employers to provide workers' compensation insurance for almost everyone who is hired, injured, or whose employment is localized in Illinois.
Yes.
Several years ago, my son worked at a fast-casual restaurant in Chicago. He was out making a bike delivery when he was sideswiped by a hit-and-run driver. His arm was broken and he suffered a few more minor injuries. He didn't have to pay a cent. Workman's comp covered every penny of it, as well as it should have.
-
Yes.
Several years ago, my son worked at a fast-casual restaurant in Chicago. He was out making a bike delivery when he was sideswiped by a hit-and-run driver. His arm was broken and he suffered a few more minor injuries. He didn't have to pay a cent. Workman's comp covered every penny of it, as well as it should have.
Under the new proposal, someone in the same situation would only receive these benefits if he was 35 or younger.
I think the chances are slim of it actually passing in a state like Illinois, but I would expect to see something similar attempted elsewhere.
-
Wow.
-
Under the new proposal, someone in the same situation would only receive these benefits if he was 35 or younger.
I think the chances are slim of it actually passing in a state like Illinois, but I would expect to see something similar attempted elsewhere.
I have zero knowledge of this bill, what possible rationale could there be for denying worker's comp to someone 35 or older
-
I have zero knowledge of this bill, what possible rationale could there be for denying worker's comp to someone 35 or older
Admittedly I know very little about this bill, but from what I understand things are being mis-stated to some extent here.
It is not denying worker's comp to someone 35 years or older.
It is in specifying that athletes do not compete their entire life, they retire far earlier (aka 35). The law is to adjust how long someone is entitled to an work-injury offset in income differential. It is designed to adjust the duration to reflect the typical age of retirement e.g. 35, for athletes.
As it stands now, athletes are entitled to the work-injury offset until they are 67, even though they would never have been able to work as an athlete at the same salary until that age.
The motive of the law makes sense, but the questions are how things are worded, what are the overall impact of the law and are there situations where many would be unfairly impacted by this law. None of those are areas I an address.
-
Admittedly I know very little about this bill, but from what I understand things are being mis-stated to some extent here.
It is not denying worker's comp to someone 35 years or older.
It is in specifying that athletes do not compete their entire life, they retire far earlier (aka 35). The law is to adjust how long someone is entitled to an work-injury offset in income differential. It is designed to adjust the duration to reflect the typical age of retirement e.g. 35, for athletes.
As it stands now, athletes are entitled to the work-injury offset until they are 67, even though they would never have been able to work as an athlete at the same salary until that age.
The motive of the law makes sense, but the questions are how things are worded, what are the overall impact of the law and are there situations where many would be unfairly impacted by this law. None of those are areas I an address.
So it sounds to me like this bill only covers the wage replacement aspect of workers' comp, not the payment of medical expenses. That makes a big difference.
-
Yes.
Several years ago, my son worked at a fast-casual restaurant in Chicago. He was out making a bike delivery when he was sideswiped by a hit-and-run driver. His arm was broken and he suffered a few more minor injuries. He didn't have to pay a cent. Workman's comp covered every penny of it, as well as it should have.
He wouldn't be covered by workman's comp. There is no such thing. Just like French benefits.
-
He wouldn't be covered by workman's comp. There is no such thing. Just like French benefits.
Of course he would be covered by workman's comp. They have special worklady's comp for the girls.
-
i think ya'll missing the point here-if illinois adopts this change in the law or whatever they are proposing, it puts illinois' professional teams at a competitive disadvantage. if you are an athlete, regardless of what the law may or may not say, why would you consider going there when there are 30-32 other options. not very good from a PR standpoint
-
No, everybody gets it. Just not focused on that one small, obvious aspect.
-
i think ya'll missing the point here-if illinois adopts this change in the law or whatever they are proposing, it puts illinois' professional teams at a competitive disadvantage. if you are an athlete, regardless of what the law may or may not say, why would you consider going there when there are 30-32 other options. not very good from a PR standpoint
Because you got drafted?
And if when your rookie contract is up, you can factor that in when you renegotiate?
I don't really give a rat's ass about any Illinois professional sports, so there's that....
-
He wouldn't be covered by workman's comp. There is no such thing. Just like French benefits.
Maybe you want to check his spelling too.
Workmans comp is just being used as a shortcut for Worker's Compensation Insurance. Very common term.
Do we have your permission to continue to use the shortened version or will you police it every time?
-
The whole thing just shows the McCaskey attitude toward their players. I hope it continues as it certainly shows on the field.
This would save the McCaskeys chicken scratch - they already get a credit for anything they pay as part of the contract between the League and the Union.
It would not affect draftees. The affect is that if it passes, the NFL Players Union will recommend to all free agents that they do not sign with Chicago. I am sure the unions for baseball, basketball, and hockey would follow suit.
-
I have zero knowledge of this bill, what possible rationale could there be for denying worker's comp to someone 35 or older
Eng, here is a little more info.
DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, is prepared to tell potential free agents not to sign with the Bears should a new Illinois bill that he says targets athletes is passed.
Under Illinois state law, injured workers can claim disability benefits known as a “wage differential award,” a calculation based on two-thirds of the difference between the average salary they could earn pre-injury, and the average salary they could earn in “some suitable employment or business” after the injury.
Most permanently injured workers in Illinois can claim compensation benefits until they’re 67 years old. However, legislation sponsored by Illinois Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) would end workers’ compensation benefits for professional athletes when they turn 35, unless they can prove their expected playing career would last longer than that.
Smith told the Spiegel & Parkins Show on Friday that the bill is being pushed by the McCaskey family.
“This bill being sponsored by Ms. Radogno is simply designed to target professional athletes, and take away their right to health care that every worker in the state of Illinois is entitled to,” Smith told the Spiegel & Parkins Show.
“The Bears’ owners are behind it as well, to be blunt, it’s just another way to bankroll the coffers of the rich owners who own these teams at the expense of the players who actually do all the work. … They’re pushing the bill. Our understanding is they are the people who have lined up a lobbyist to promote the bill.”
The Bears released a statement to 670 The Score.
“We join the four other major professional Chicago teams in monitoring and supporting changes to the system that protect athletes’ rights under the workers’ compensation system while acknowledging athletes are not competing professionally until age 67. Nothing in the wage differential language under consideration impacts the right for any athlete to receive just compensation for partial or permanent injury, medical benefits or to file a claim itself.”
Smith described the bill as “just a chicken-scratch thing thrown into the budget at the last minute.” He also referred to previous cases similar to this one around the league.
“Its only effect is to hurt people who get hurt for a living,” Smith added. “…It’s just cheapness. It’s just being cheap.”
Should this bill pass, Smith and the NFLPA plan to sway players from signing with the Bears.
“I will tell you from the bottom of my heart that this union will tell every potential free agent player, if this bill passes, to not come to the Bears,” Smith said. “Because, think about it, if you’re a free agent player and you have an opportunity to go play somewhere else where you can get lifetime medical for the injury you’re going to have, isn’t a smarter financial decision to go to a team where a bill like this hasn’t passed?”
Chris Emma covers the Bears, Chicago’s sports scene and more for CBSChicago.com. Follow him on Twitter @CEmma670 and like his Facebook page.
-
The whole thing just shows the McCaskey attitude toward their players. I hope it continues as it certainly shows on the field.
This would save the McCaskeys chicken scratch - they already get a credit for anything they pay as part of the contract between the League and the Union.
It would not affect draftees. The affect is that if it passes, the NFL Players Union will recommend to all free agents that they do not sign with Chicago. I am sure the unions for baseball, basketball, and hockey would follow suit.
If it passes in Illinois, it'll most likely be proposed as legislation elsewhere, that's where the NFLPA's biggest gripe is with all this. Yes, they will tell UFA's not to sign in Chicago as a smokescreen to leverage other states from debating this.
The actual football talent detriment to the Bears here is minimal. However, the McCaskey's I have no doubt are 100% behind this and from a PR standpoint, I have no doubt Reinsdorf, Wirtz, Ricketts are also 100% behind it, but why bother being out in front of this? They all will let the Bears be the PR buffoons here.
-
Maybe you want to check his spelling too.
Workmans comp is just being used as a shortcut for Worker's Compensation Insurance. Very common term.
Do we have your permission to continue to use the shortened version or will you police it every time?
You're the guy who sits by the copy machine and says "making Xeroxes" all day long, aren't you?
Historically, "Workman's Comp" and "Worker's Compensation Insurance" were not interchangeable terms. The latter is exactly that, insurance, while the former was a straight-up benefit that a few employers simply paid if an employee was injured on the job; whether it was a percentage of their normal wage/salary, a fixed amount, or a combination of both, there was no insurance involved. I presume WC was almost entirely phased out when WCI became the law just about everywhere since they had similar intent. In addition to WCI, some employers might still make a fixed payout to injured employees, but I doubt it's called WC anymore since they're still "comped" by WCI.
-
You're the guy who sits by the copy machine and says "making Xeroxes" all day long, aren't you?
Historically, "Workman's Comp" and "Worker's Compensation Insurance" were not interchangeable terms. The latter is exactly that, insurance, while the former was a straight-up benefit that a few employers simply paid if an employee was injured on the job; whether it was a percentage of their normal wage/salary, a fixed amount, or a combination of both, there was no insurance involved. I presume WC was almost entirely phased out when WCI became the law just about everywhere since they had similar intent. In addition to WCI, some employers might still make a fixed payout to injured employees, but I doubt it's called WC anymore since they're still "comped" by WCI.
It took me as while to get back to you as I wanted to make a few copies to distribute to my friends.
And yes, I understand the differences here, Officer.
-
So follow up question, since players income is taxed based on the physical location where they play their games, would WCI be accounted for the same way?
Also, it's an interesting way to add to already substantial competitive disadvantages that Chicago sports teams have. Taxes are among highest in the various sports leagues, especially income taxes where states like Arizona, Florida, and Texas have a significant advantage for FAs.