Thread by @EugeneFreedman

This is an insightful piece from @jaysonst about management's unwillingness to negotiate over rule changes. The problem with that stance and one of the quotes in the article is, for many of these rule changes, they have to. Frequently I refer to mandatory and permissive 1/

https://twitter.com/jaysonst/status/1466776132213170178

@jaysonst subjects of bargaining. Here's a quick refresher. Mandatory subjects have a parallel duty to bargain in good faith. They are wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Many of the rule changes would be mandatory as conditions of employment - for example the 2/

@jaysonst pitch clock. It's a pace of work issue, which is a mandatory subject no different than the pace of an assembly line. But, here's the kicker, it is permissive to waive the right to negotiate over mandatory subjects in the future. The article quotes someone saying, 3/

@jaysonst "And one more thing, he said: Rule changes have always been different because, unlike with economic proposals, the commissioner has the legal right to unilaterally implement any rule change, one year after it has been rejected by the union.... 4/

@jaysonst "So he could wait until this labor smoke cleared, propose a pitch clock, then impose it, even over the union’s objection, in 2023."

Ah, but it's not a legal right. It's a right contained in the CBA. And, we don't know the status of that article at the present time. If the 5/

parties have not tentatively agreed to maintain, what we normally call "roll over," Article XVIII—Rule Changes, the Commissioner no longer has that right. That article includes the previously mentioned waiver, "Except as specifically provided in this Article XVIII,..." 6/

...the right of the Clubs to make any rule change whatsoever shall not be impaired or limited in any way, provided that the Clubs shall not make any change
which is inconsistent with the provisions of any then existing agreement between the Clubs and the Association."

Without 7/

that affirmative waiver of rights in the CBA, those matters that are new changes on mandatory terms and conditions of employment must be negotiated. Now, I'm not saying that all rule changes need to be negotiated. Some don't affect working conditions. The shift may very well 8/

be one of those. I haven't analyzed it thoroughly. Hell, this thread, like most of mine, are streams of consciousness. But, a pitch clock. That's mandatory. No question. Robot umps is complicated b/c it could affect working conditions, but there is a bargaining obligation w/ 9/

another Union - the one that represents the umpires themselves. For the players there may be only effects bargaining, not substance required.

And, only the issue of the equipment - like pre-tacked balls, I'd say that's mandatory as well.

Ultimately, this comes down to 10/

whether the parties have already agreed to roll over the Rule Changes article in the 2016 CBA. My guess is no if the Union is still trying to negotiate some of those specific matters. /E

I should add there is a second affirmative waiver in the same article. "Such proposals to change playing or scoring rules shall normally be made only during the off-season. If the Clubs and the Association fail to reach agreement on a proposed change which is subject to...

"negotiation, the proposed change shall not be put into effect until the completion of the next complete succeeding season..." This, affirmative waiver, gives management the right to implement if they parties cannot reach agreement w/in a year. Without that waiver, the NLRA

processes would be a backstop. And, for matters that are already agreed to and covered by the CBA/agreed upon rules, there would not be any changes allowed but for an agreement of the parties.