It looks like someone filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge against MLB. It was filed by an individual not MLBPA. The charges include bad faith bargaining including surface bargaining, which I discussed with @keithlaw on his podcast this week. 1/
What's interesting is that it was filed by an individual. It alleges surface bargaining and direct dealing (meaning going to employees directly and not through their Union representative). It also alleges unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment. And it alleges 2/
coercion against an employee in exercise of their rights to engage in union activity.
Normally the 8(a)(5) charges are union charges (bargaining related), because they affect the rights of the union and duty to bargain, whereas 8(a)(1) coercion is an individual or union charge.
It will be interesting to see how this proceeds and whether the MLBPA supports the charges at this time.
Either way, it will distract from the ongoing negotiations because the Board agent will need to take statements from the negotiators & others unless held in abeyance.
Also, it has Bruce Meyer's name incorrect as an interested party. This might have been filed by a non-player, in which case it will be dismissed quickly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This has shades of the restart negotiations in 2020. Players get paid in the regular season. Teams get paid throughout spring training, regular season, and playoffs, but make the most of their money during the late pennant race and playoffs. Consequently, MLB cares less about 1/
missing early regular season games. The players consider all of the games the same from a financial standpoint.
This lockout was as much to lock out Steve Cohen and other high spending owners during a lapse in the CBT as it was to put pressure on the players to reach 2/
agreement quickly. Management hasn't shown any interest in acting quickly despite public statements to the contrary.
The sunset of the CBT in the expired CBA was a very deft negotiating tactic to make it a management ask during these negotiations rather than merely status 3/
More both-sidesing a complex asymmetrical situation.
Reminder - MLB took 43 days to make a counter proposal after unilaterally, voluntarily implementing a lockout. MLB delayed its most recent counter said it wasn't going to respond at all, wasted time requesting mediation. 1/
Management has refused to address several of the Union's primary interests - earlier arbitration, reduced revenue sharing so teams don't profit from not trying to win, and earlier free agency. The Union has withdrawn the final of those subjects.
Meanwhile, management's two 2/
primary interests have been included in the Union's proposals from the beginning: expanded playoffs and reestablishment of the CBT.
Perhaps the Union could be critiqued for being so interest based early on in the process when their partner is so positional. But, the only 3/
This is a revealing and damning article about how minor leaguers have to live to make ends meet. And, yet, MLB is still trying to squeeze more savings out of its lowest paid employees - those who make less than minimum wage. @Britt_Ghiroli has been really killing it lately 1/
One thing that struck me was this paragraph. Because it is quite American. America was founded with a premise that forced labor from people in bondage was the norm. Company towns that required employees and their families to live pay rent to their employer 2/
buy food, clothes, and essentials from a company owned store (the only store), and essentially earn nothing for their labors was common. Employers hiring Pinkertons or police to beat workers who demanded better wages & working conditions was acceptable.
I spent some time thinking about this overnight. It's a very curious proposal in that it relates to jobs that are outside of MLBPA's bargaining unit. Frequently unions will make proposals for minimum staffing levels, both to ensure that their members are not burning out, but 1/
not too high to deny their members the opportunity to work overtime (for extra money) or create a situation where there have to be rolling layoffs because of overstaffing in a downturn.
But, here, MLB is proposing something that affects minor leaguers only, not bargaining 2/
unit employees. Consequently, as I mentioned earlier in the week (See thread below) regarding minor league salaries, I believe this is a permissive subject, that either party may choose not to negotiate without a duty to bargain attached to it. 3/
Bob is intentionally reporting without context. Don't be Bob.
It's the kind of thing that makes it appears that reaching an agreement is what is delaying spring training. But, we all know better. The owners and Commissioner are locking out the players. 1/
They are preventing the players from participating in Spring Training. They will be the ones delaying the season.
This quote from Bob paints a very different picture than reality. The first 43 of those 72 days were MLB's Christmas vacation. They imposed the lockout and then 2/
decided not to make a counterproposal for nearly 6 whole weeks. They just spent 11 days dicking around instead of countering, during which they asked for FMCS assistance in a labor negotiation that is not at impasse. 3/
Yesterday, the Commissioner said he was making "a good" offer, that canceling games would be "disasterous," and that they were one breakthrough away from reaching agreement.
Today, his personal spokesperson says that MLB knew that its proposal had "no hope to 1/
facilitate a deal in days."
In other words, the Commissioner knew that he was lying yesterday, but wanted to get free PR. Now that it's Super Bowl weekend, the actual substance of his side's proposal doesn't matter.
Management still is not taking this seriously. They have no 2/
intention to reach agreement quickly, if at all. They are still playing around, testing the players to see if they will just give up in order to start spring training. This is silly and it wastes time. It is abusing the process of collective bargaining.