They added: “The risk of not resolving our equal treatment disputes, which have not been discussed in either the negotiations or by the EEOC, is too high for both sides.” The way we arrived at that time is legally simple. After USWNT won the 2015 World Cup — with its reach greater than ever, after packing stadiums in Canada and breaking home viewer records — the players and their union said there was no CBA. This would have allowed the players to strike before the Rio 2016 Olympics and put them into negotiations for a new CBA. U.S. Soccer claimed at the time that a four-year letter of intent, signed in 2013 instead of a new CBA, had linked players to the “no strike, no lockout” clause already in effect. “Women`s national players are paid differently because they specifically requested and negotiated a very different contract from the men`s national team in previous negotiations, when they proposed and rejected a similar pay-to-play agreement in the last round of negotiations,” the association said. But the Federation`s new letter argued that while women may show that they have been paid less for equal work, they cannot blame inequality on gender discrimination. Instead, according to American football, women should put the responsibility for their pay at the foot of their own union, which negotiated a collective agreement that exchanged potential bonuses for benefits such as paid child care and wage guarantees. “After making all these decisions in contract negotiations,” the association`s letter said, “the complainants cannot plausibly state that their compensation scheme reflects gender discrimination and not the result of compromises made during collective bargaining.” CHICAGO (Via U.S. Soccer) – U.S. Soccer, in collaboration with the U.S.
Women`s National Team Players Association (ETCNTPA), has announced that the parties have ratified a new collective agreement by 2021. The agreement hosts the Women`s World Cup in 2019 and the 2020 Olympic Games. This new plot, according to the women`s chief lawyer, Jeffrey Kessler of Winston-Strawn, is pure despair – and legally untenable to get started. Employers, he said in an interview, cannot hide behind collective bargaining agreements to practice illegal wages. “Imagine an employer wanting to circumvent the minimum wage laws and said, “Well, the union agreed,” Kessler said. The law does not allow that. “Some appellate courts have said, no accused, you can`t say that,” Spiggle said of precedents in which the defendants argued that women negotiated fewer terms. “You can`t say that the company relied on the history of women`s wages, because this about wages was itself part of an unequal system. The whole playing field on which this agreement was negotiated was uneven. So, defendants, you can`t rely on this uneven terrain to justify your uneven results. That argument can be put forward here, which she tried to do here at trial. … I think it is a legitimate legal issue that is being raised.