This NYT interview with Dr. Fauci blows the biggest hole possible in @Ken_Rosenthal's reporting from 10 days ago. 1/…
In his article, @Ken_Rosenthal wrote, "The union, by scheduling its own discussion with the same officials for a later date, avoided hearing what the government representatives suggested to MLB, according to sources: a one-month delay, with the idea of getting players..." 2/
"in time to start the season."

Within a day or two the Union had its own meeting with government officials. That was already reported, although perhaps not as widely as the original pieces claiming the Union didn't want to talk to government officials. In a previous thread 3/
I explained that the Union did not want to be on the same call with management because it would lead to the parties posturing on the call, rather than having an honest discussion with the experts, including Fauci. The Union never avoided the discussion, it just wanted 4/
a separate discussion, not a negotiation in front of COVID experts.

But, this interview undermines the original reporting further.

Fauci told the NYT:

The only thing I said was that, from a public health standpoint, it looks like the cases — if you look at the plotting of 5/
the cases — they have peaked, they’re turning around and are starting to come down. And likely, the more time that goes by, the less and less cases we’ll see. Unless — unless — and this is a possibility, we have an unexpected surge related to some of the variants. 6/
"So I think it would really be a close call and I didn’t want to get into any of the dispute about delay it or not delay it."

Apparently, of interviewing any of the government officials or even the Union, Rosenthal went with "according to sources." Those sources were 7/
interested management officials. They were peddling their story of the meeting (probably what they suggested themselves rather than the government) because they thought the government officials would never dispute it and they could get their narrative out in public fast. 8/
They were right. It got out really fast. It was wrong. And, now it's been corrected, 10 days later. But, the narrative remains in the public, at least through other MLB connected reporters and columnists, who continue to argue for a delay in the season "for health reasons." /end
Decided to reopen the thread with more.

You'll recall that the Cactus League wrote a letter asking MLB to delay spring training, MLB then cited that request as a reason to delay the season, and both were reported widely. It was only a few days later
that it was actually MLB who asked the Cactus League to write the letter. @joe_sheehan and others called it immediately, but the MLB media and many others just quoted the letter without any inquisitiveness about the original source.

This is the same thing. MLB asked the
government to delay the season, the government took no such position, but MLB told its reporters that the request actually came from the other party on the call. That got the wide reporting, even though it was false.

MLB manipulates the media, through direct and indirect
methods. Only a more investigatory press will uncover the falsehoods. Unfortunately, those paid by MLB will never do so.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with (((EugeneFreedman)))

(((EugeneFreedman))) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EugeneFreedman

7 Feb
In this article, Buster makes management's case for why the Union and players should want what management wants. It's a very weird way of presenting things. It pretends that this is not a management initiated objective. It pretends that the Union hasn't rejected it repeatedly 1/
But, rather than state the obvious - management really, really, really wants expanded playoffs, it goes through management's reasons (maybe Buster came up with them himself, but more likely they were fed to him by a management official) why it thinks expanded playoffs are such 2/
a great deal for players and the Union.

Obviously, management is holding on to hope that their objective to expand playoffs will still be accepted. It has been rejected twice because it is the major leverage the Union has for negotiations over the next CBA. 3/
Read 29 tweets
2 Feb
I made a mistake in the risk of the potential unilateral implementation in my thread last night. I do my best to get these things right when I make my long, impromptu threads. When I make mistakes of law, I seek to correct them. Here's the correction, as appended tot he original.
Someone asked me to explain this further. So, I'll try. In most bargaining there are duties and the parties cannot withdraw from negotiations. This applies in term contract (CBA) negotiations over mandatory subjects, mid-term bargaining subject to a CBA's reopener clause, and
mid-term bargaining over subjects not covered by the CBA. However, in this case, the mid-term bargaining is over matters already covered by the CBA. That means they can only be negotiated if both parties voluntarily agree to negotiate. In this rare instance, either party can
Read 7 tweets
2 Feb
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/
Read 18 tweets
1 Feb
Has anyone actually read FLRA caselaw?

"And once the agreements take effect, they purport to “irrevocably” block the government’s ability to challenge anything about the concessions to the ICE union for the next eight years."

This is completely wrong. 1/x
Under FLRA law, an agency can refuse to implement a "non-negotiable" provision at any time. Non-negotiable is a term of art in federal sector labor relations. It means a provision that if a provision of a proposal or implemented CBA directly interferes with management rights 2/
defined in 5 USC 7106, it can be invalidated. If an agency declares a provision non-negotiable during the term of the CBA, the burden is on the Union to enforce the provision, meanwhile, the CBA operates in the absence of the provision. The FLRA applies the same standard 3/
Read 5 tweets
31 Jan
Let's discuss this "proposal." MLB is proposing to pay employees exactly what they are entitled to under the season, but shorten their work schedule by ~5%. That's essentially a 5% raise. It moves the dates, which is essentially a push, although take note, MLB was unwilling 1/
to extend the dates of thee playoffs last season because of their TV contracts. It would seem that those TV schedules are no longer untouchable.

And, here's the kicker-expanded playoffs. This is a unilateral desire by management. MLB has wanted expanded playoffs for several 2/
years. It proposed them last year, reaching agreement, but only for one season. The MLBPA proposed splitting the TV revenue increases as part of the players' share of playoff money and MLB balked. That's why the deal was only for one year.

This remains the primary driver of 3/
Read 11 tweets
31 Jan
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal-Comment
[2]..." the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false."
[5] ..."requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be..." 1/
"false, regardless of the client’s wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence."

[6] "If a lawyer knows that the client intends to testify falsely or wants the lawyer to" 2/
"introduce false evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered. If the persuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer the false evidence." 3/
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!