/cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/534555/NNafterdark2.jpg)
Welcome back to Niners Nation After Dark, where we have no intention of using replacement writers anytime soon. I mention that because things took an odd little turn earlier today in the 2011 NFL Lockout. It was generally a commonly accepted principle that due to the fact that this was a lockout and not a strike, the owners could not use replacement players. In the 1987 players' strike, the owners were allowed to replace their striking workers with replacement players. This was a fortunate event because otherwise we might never have been able to see Keanu Reeves' masterful performance as QB Shane Falco in The Replacements (classic scenes after the jump).
Well, yesterday (or earlier today depending on your time zone) an NFL official stated that there was nothing legally preventing the league from using replacement players during a lockout. I'm trying to find more information on this from my labor law textbook (well, actually trying to find my labor law textbook), but part of the issue comes down to whether the lockout and replacement workers would be "demonstrably destructive of employee rights and is not justified by the service of significant or important business ends." (Brown Food Store, 380 U.S. 278, 282). This could be where the argument develops. Mind you this is just one case on the matter. I'll do some more research into the subject.
And even still, a lot of this depends on how the National Labor Relations Board rules on the issue of whether the decertification is a sham. Once that is figured out, then we can figure out whether there will be an injunction against the lockout, which could force the parties back to the negotiating table. The mess only continues.....