Thread by @EugeneFreedman

I can't retweet Jon Heyman's tweets related to his incredulity that the MLBPA did not make a counter offer, but I can explain why, under labor law, they didn't. (He blocked me) That said, a lack of education on a subject should never preclude taking a position.

The parties 1/

have an agreement. It's called the CBA. It lays out all of the responsibilities of the parties, including the reporting dates for spring training, the start of the season, number of games, salary payment process, league rules, players' playoff share, and all other wages, hours 2/

and terms and conditions of employment. The duty to bargain is based on reciprocal requirements over mandatory subjects. Those mandatory subjects are all contained in the CBA. It is a permissive subject (meaning voluntary) to negotiate certain other things. One of those 3/

permissive subject is reopening an existing agreement. It is not required. It is not mandatory. It's permissive, voluntary. MLBPA has stated it has no desire to reopen the existing agreement. That's their right.

MLB wants to reopen the agreement. They made an offer. MLBPA 4/

rejected it. MLB made another offer. MLBPA rejected it.

Why didn't they counter?, Jon asks. First, because they didn't have to. But, more importantly, once they counter, they have agreed to reopen the existing agreement. Now, those matters become mandatory subjects again. 5/

They have a duty to bargain. If they can't reach agreement, and the parties reach a legitimate legal impasse, management may unilaterally implement terms and conditions. Why would they reopen an agreement they are comfortable with, especially when it puts that agreement 6/

in peril? It makes zero sense.

Yes, MLBPA wants a universal DH, but guess what MLB does too. They could agree on that subject without including new TV revenue for clubs in the proposal. They could agree to a small deal on game play changes. It could benefit both parties. 7/

But, MLB wouldn't make a proposal that didn't pre-stack the deck on playoff expansion in advance of the 2021-22 off-season CBA negotiations. That's always been the real issue between the parties. It will remain so. MLB wants it. MLBPA wants other things in the next CBA. 8/

They will negotiate over those big things at the same time, not management's big thing now and the Union's big thing next time. It makes no sense. Last year, MLBPA proposed a 50/50 split in increased TV revenue from expanded playoffs. MLB rejected that. It would have resolved 9/

the issue last year, this year, and into the future. But, MLB didn't want that then. Perhaps it will lead to a lockout this December. That's too far in the future to know.

But, MLBPA could not counter without giving up what it already has, something that was agreed to 10/

by both parties. Let's not pretend that the CBA is a unilateral document to benefit players. By many accounts the current CBA has greatly benefited management financially and has led to stagnated player salaries, except amount the absolute pinnacle performers. 11/

That said, it has very clear processes laid out for the season this year. The issues of salary arbitration, draft pick free agent compensation, salary minimums are all important, but they aren't going to be changed this year under any counter proposal. They will only be 12/

addressed in term CBA negotiations. That's when the issue of expanded playoffs and those big player financial issues can be addressed concurrently. This is not the time.

MLB knew its proposals weren't going to accepted or countered. It's merely a PR move and those who serve 13/

MLB's PR interests will criticize the Union for enforcing its agreement with MLB, partially because they are trying to serve their bosses, and partially because they are ignorant of the framework under which these discussions occur.

Something that's clear. Until there's a 14/

COVID related quarantine of a team similar to the Marlins or Cardinals last season, the games will go on.

Play ball!

I went back to a treatise on labor law to look at the subject of mid-term when subject to a reopener agreement in the CBA versus voluntary reopener. I made a mistake regarding unilateral implementation last night. If it's subject to voluntary reopener, the duty to bargain does

not attach in the same way. Either party may refuse to bargain and either party may withdraw from bargaining without reaching agreement. Because of that, the employer may not unilateral implement terms and conditions, like it can during required reopeners or negotiations over

matters not contained in the CBA. In those cases of required reopens negotiations over new subjects, economic weapons are availability.