Thread by @EugeneFreedman

Tomorrow is Prince O(+> Day so I am going to try to focus on him, rather than collective bargaining. So, why not one more thread about the baseball negotiations.

There's a lot of assumptions about what trading hostile letters means during bargaining. 1/ theathletic.com/1857108/2020/0…

Having lived through 10 term CBA negotiations and hundreds of mid-term agreements, I want to set some expectations. Letters can help clarify positions stated at the table. They can narrow the scope of bargaining by agreeing to things, or as is the case here, explaining 2/

what they won't agree to. They can also serve to diffuse a hostile situation at the table. We don't know wha was said when the parties were on their last zoom call. Collective bargaining isn't afternoon tea. It's not polite society. There's often a lot of hostile language. 3/

In the Federal sector, it's referred to as "robust debate." Basically, as a representative of employees, you can call your boss an asshole and not be subject to discipline. And, many do. You just can't use racial and ethnic slurs. I've seen people throw books at the wall 4/

in anger. I've seen teams walk out of the room in anger and I've seen teams walk out of the room for effect.
There are people who lie in bargaining all the time. I've seen one contract team give their own team member a t-shirt that said, "I make stuff up." It wasn't my team. 5/

I've seen someone make a terrible proposal that was poorly thought out and condescending at the same time . After we beat him up for half an hour about how insulting the proposal was, pointing out all of the problems of why it wouldn't work, instead of where he started, he 6/

was standing up behind a column in the room, complete obscured. He later told his team it was the worst experience of his life.

On some of my contract teams we have had nicknames for all of our team members, usually mean ones, and even meaner ones for the team members on the 7/

other team which we didn't share with them.

Collective bargaining is intense and difficult. That's why I love it. Tempers flair. But, the parties always know that the ultimate goal is to reach an agreement. In baseball's current situation, several reporters have written that 8/

there are owners who would prefer no season at all. That means they share no interest at all with the Players Association. Normally, teams with limited shared interest always have the interest of wanting a negotiated agreement. They can then seek common ground from there. 9/

But, if MLB has no interest in reaching a negotiated agreement, that places things in a different light. I don't believe that's where the parties are. I believe they both want an agreement. I also think that there is a lot of common ground that could make this situation 10/

a win-win. And, I don't think that dueling letters prevent that from occurring.

The main difference between this negotiation and the vast majority of the negotiations I have participated in, is that this one is out in public. There are hundreds of beat writers who need to 11/

write stories about baseball and this is the only baseball news. Some of them are great writers and great reporters. They have great sources and they are working those sources for information. Then, they write what they have learned. MLB has historically turned the public 12/

against the greedy players. I've seen attempts at that strategy again in this negotiations. But, I also don't think it's quite as effective right now. Unfortunately, many in the media have been accepting MLB's talking points without questioning the source. Some, because they 13/

work for MLB Network. That's unfortunate. But, others because they trust their sources who give them good information in a completely different situation. But, right now their sources are selling them talking points. Media should research the subject more. It's not the same 14/

as reporting on games or injuries or even the new TV deal with ESPN or Fox. When you are told how much a team will lose for each game and you write it's unverified, don't then use that for a series of calculations on the proposals. You just called it unverified. 15/

There's no need to fan the flames, put out one party's talking points, and make it seem like an insurmountable chasm.

Let it play out. And, the parties should develop some ground rules to keep things confidential. That would build trust, which will help get a deal. /end