Quote:
|
And that is what you will be called.
|
I don't know if the usage would be correct. If you look the word up in the dictionary, virtually all definitions refer to strike-breakers. This isn't a strike but a lockout.
I would not want anything to do with an individual who seeks retribution on someone else simply because that someone makes the decision to fill a spot that is not being filled. If the NFL officials choose not to accept the terms of what the NFL is offering, that's fine. That's their decision, but to retaliate against someone else making a different decision is not only unprofessional but in bad taste. What if I, as a union member, am adamant that we only accept X and the union votes to accept x-y? Am I justified in ostracizing another union member who voted to accept the agreement? If I can ostracize someone who filled in during a lockout, why can't I do the same to someone who voted to accept an agreement I didn't like and went to work under that agreement? Giving a pass to one and not the other has no logical basis.
The officials' union either needs to get the players on their side -- saying there won't be any games until the officials' demands are met -- or they need to sign the NFL's offer and go back to work. Or they need to quit.
You ostracize, retaliate, etc. others at the risk of YOUR own integrity. Make such decisions VERY wisely. How can you do your job on the field if you give up (at least some of) your integrity for purely financial reasons?