So, we are still in the place where MLB wants its two big asks - additional round of playoffs and a reintroduction of the CBT, but they want a CBT that's completely unchanged, despite increasing revenues, and the Union has mostly given up on expanding arbitration eligibility. 1/
George Cohen, the great labor lawyer, who was Chairman of the FMCS in the Obama Administration, (who had negotiated for NBA players in 70s and District Court case for MLBPA in 94-95) once told me that the owners are all rich men who are 2/
never told "no" so they expect to get everything they want. The players are all the most competitive people on the planet and they are rewarded for winning.
So, in the current situation, the owners can't figure out how to take a big win on the playoffs and still give 3/
something substantial to the players so it's a win-win and everyone gains something important to them. The owners are still acting as if this is a zero sum game. It's not. /more thoughts later.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm pleased that there have been so many more truth tellers recently. I just wish they had come sooner. And, I hope that partners like ESPN will allow their writers to bring the honesty (and that they are willing to do so- I know some won't be willing).
The first is that Manfred and the owners want to cancel games. The reason, which is unstated, is that they know the money is back ended. It's in the pennant races and the playoffs. They realized in 2020 that a credible season is short. It's 2/
not 162 long games with all of that money paid to the talent. It's 60 games or maybe a little longer, but with less money going out, yet the same amount of national TV money coming in. Only in a monopoly is making less worth more.
No both sides arguments from Ken Rosenthal this morning. He doesn't pull any punches in his column about the status of negotatiations placing this crisis of lost games on Manfred's lap. 1/
He goes on to make some of the points I've been making regarding the owners treating this as a zero sum game and a cavalier disregard about missing games - he stops short of the reason for that, which I've said is a misguided belief that they can break the union. 2/
Ken goes on to make a point that @joe_sheehan has been making for a while now: the current Union offer on the table is a big win for management. They should take it. 3/
As I've said throughout, I don't want to make a prediction about the timing of an agreement. It happens when the parties are ready to make it happen.
But, what has become increasingly clear is what Evan identifies in this article, "The owners were never, ever going to hand over
hundreds of millions of dollars to the players unless they had to."
Normally a lockout is immediate. Employees don't get paid and aren't allowed to work. They aren't locked out in a period when they are on a months long unpaid vacation. Opening day is when the lockout really
begins. As I've explained before, the leverage on opening day is in the owners' favor. The players get paid over the six months of the regular season. But, owners receive their money back-end-loaded. Most of the national TV revenue is in the playoffs and much of the rest is
The 1947 Taft Hartley amendments to the Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act) are generally despised, but there was one good thing and that was the inclusion of the "good faith" standard in 8(d) of the Act.
I've previously mentioned the duty only attaches to mandatory 1/
subjects (wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment) and not permissive subjects that either party can refuse to bargain over (such as supervisors' pay - or in this case minor league pay for players not on the 40-man roster).
So what is "good faith?" 2/
It's the obligation of both parties to actively participate in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. It includes both an open mindedness and a desire to reach agreement.
years ago. I mistagged the wrong Ken Rosenthal, but the rest is still good. It's a long thread explaining what the NLRB looks at when determining an impasse. 2/
But, if the parties actually reach impasse, then one of the new tools available to management is to unilaterally implement its last, best offer. But, would that change anything? Nope.
We still would nave NO BASEBALL. You want to know why? It's because the players would 3/
Ken wrote an interesting piece today that I want to spend a little time discussing. Yesterday, I made a general warning not to spend too much time reading articles about how to resolve the difference between the parties. I'll give you some reasons why in this thread: 1/
We only know the basics of every proposal. If you were to look at the MLB-MLBPA CBA, it has long articles, particularly the ones on complex subjects like the luxury tax/competitive balance tax, free agency, arbitration eligibility, service time, and a host of other subjects. 2/
Knowing what's been reported in a proposal sheds no light on the language underlying the articles of the CBA that is sometimes more important than the financial differences themselves.
2) We don't know the relative value that each party places on different provisions. 3/