Secretary Walsh was the head of the Building Trades in Boston before he was Mayor. He was and is a journeyman laborer member of LIUNA. He's more savvy than to volunteer to do this without the Union's assent. I suspect this is being spun. Management probably asked him to help 1/
and he said, he'd be willing if the parties want him to. Meanwhile, management is likely portraying it this way to again make it look like the Union refuses to be reasonable and work with third parties to reach resolution.
Also, as President of his LIUNA local, Secretary Walsh has been through CBA negotiations before, including contentious negotiations.
Sounds like the Secretary said what he says in any major industry bargaining.
"I have spoken to both the MLBPA and MLB about the ongoing contract negotiations and encourage both sides to continue engagement,” Walsh said via a spokesperson.
“Like any contract negotiation in any industry, I stand ready to help facilitate productive conversations that result in the best outcome for workers and employers."
He's not really offering assistance. He's saying he's available if need be. And, to be clear, the Secretary
has no real authority to intervene. He's just saying he wants them to keep bargaining and he can help if they really need it. The NLRB and FMCS are independent agencies outside of the Secretary's jurisdiction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today the Commissioner will hold a press event to say that spring training will be delayed & he will try to place the blame on MLBPA.
He's the one who wanted to jumpstart negotiations-then his side took a 43 day Christmas vacation. Now, they are refusing to make a proposal. 1/
He's also the one who hid the fact that MLB was playing with two different baseballs last year.
Media should press him on management's delays in the bargaining process. Why are they refusing to counter? Why are they not meeting regularly? Why won't they address many issues? 2/
The Union has proposed expanding the playoffs and reinstating the CBT, management's top two interests. Yet, management won't discuss the Union interests of changing the revenue sharing scheme or earlier access to arbitration. Why not? When will they begin negotiating in earnest?
I want to start Monday off with dispelling a narrative I've read that the MLBPA wants major changes to the CBA as compared to MLB. I would characterize the changes proposed by each party to be (as they've been reported recently) as within the scope of the existing language. 1/
The Union is proposing to speed up the qualification for salary arbitration. This could be qualified as a major change as it would affect a significant number of players, but it's also something that was previously in the CBA in the 70s and early 80s. Plus, the parties have 2/
historically adjusted the Super-2 qualification. So adjusting it to all players with 2+ years of service time, while significant, isn't out of the scope of normal proposals. Also, in light of service time manipulation, it makes sense with their overall objective. The other 3/
After the negotiations concluded today I got a number of questions about a possibility of a players' strike. What follows is probably going to be a long thread, so buckle up. Preceding a strike there would have to be a lot of internal union activity, including goal setting, 1/
member education, a vote of the leaders, and likely a vote of the membership (I haven't reviewed the MLBPA Constitution to see if the process is laid out). A vote usually only authorizes a strike at a later point - frequently determined by the leadership. You can't go 2/
into a strike without a goal. It's not just to pressure the employer. There has to be a substantive goal to achieve, otherwise you won't have the members united once it's achieved - some will consider it a waste of time/effort and lose faith in the union. You have to educate 3/
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/
@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/
If we told you that one of your employer's largest revenue sources was going to increase its contract by 30% next year, but your employer said that pay tables/bands would go up 1.9% and 4.7% total over 4 or 5 years would you be happy? That's basically what MLB proposed. 1/
.@BizballMaury has reported that MLB shared TV revenue will increase with new contracts by ~30% in 2022. That is shared by all of the clubs. Along with Regional Sports Networks and gate receipts, that makes the bulk of MLB revenues. Of course, the increase in TV revenue 2/
@BizballMaury will be more significant if expanded playoffs are agreed to by the parties. (They will be) Raising the CBT limit from $210M to $214M and ultimately $220 is a pittance. But, hey, it's movement, right. It's the owner's best efforts to reach agreement before they imposed a 3/
The fundamental premise that he justifies throughout the letter is a lie.
There is no requirement to impose a lockout. It is a voluntary act of management. A tactic. It is classified as economic warfare. Expiration of a CBA does not force management to lock out employees. In 1/
fact, The National Labor Relations Act, promotes labor peace by preserving the continuity of mandatory terms and conditions of employment of an expired CBA until a new CBA is put in place.
A lockout is a leverage tactic; it is economic warfare to pressure employees to accept 2/
management's proposals in bargaining. A lockout (or a strike for that matter) does not terminate the parties' duty to bargain. They must continue to bargain in good faith.
Ultimately, the parties will reach an agreement. But, don't believe the "we were forced to rhetoric." 3/