N.B.A. Union Chief Outlines Proposals

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Addressing Stern's agenda....he can't be pushing all the cutbacks in one year, is he? I say baby steps -- with such a drastic change to the pay of your workers, Stern, there is no avoiding a backlash. Implement a plan, spread out the salary reduction or at least lower the amount that will be subtracted from existing contracts. I think players can accept shorter contracts in the future if they are able to grasp reality. But Stern's thick head might be his downfall... at least make an effort to meet the player's union half way. They, after all, are the basis of your product.

 

 

They're negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement that will last at least 5-7 years. He won't have an opportunity two years from now to change it, and he'll likely retire before the next CBA. If he wants these changes implemented during his tenure, he has to do it now.

 

Also, he has no real reason to meet the player's union halfway. The players legally can't play in FIBA leagues while under contract with NBA clubs, so during a lockout they make zero money while the owners just sit on loans. The owners will lose some money, but the players will have no incomes.

 

The players' union's demands are ridiculous, and if Stern is smart, he'll be able to leverage the absurdity of their demands into a deal that's even worse for the players by playing off public perception.

 

But ultimately, Stern is in a huge postion of power simply because the group he's representing, the owners, is hurt infinitely less by "No 2010-2011 season" than the players would be.

[sharp/7/shooter 23]

They're negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement that will last at least 5-7 years. He won't have an opportunity two years from now to change it, and he'll likely retire before the next CBA. If he wants these changes implemented during his tenure, he has to do it now.

 

Also, he has no real reason to meet the player's union halfway. The players legally can't play in FIBA leagues while under contract with NBA clubs, so during a lockout they make zero money while the owners just sit on loans. The owners will lose some money, but the players will have no incomes.

 

The players' union's demands are ridiculous, and if Stern is smart, he'll be able to leverage the absurdity of their demands into a deal that's even worse for the players by playing off public perception.

 

But ultimately, Stern is in a huge postion of power simply because the group he's representing, the owners, is hurt infinitely less by "No 2010-2011 season" than the players would be.

 

I'm not saying for Stern to agree on everything the player's union is asking for. I'm saying...show that you [stern] value your worker's interests at least a little. Give them the damn age limit or something minute that they desire, split the reduction of salaries over a two year span...tapering the amount of money the players will get instead of just erasing it all in one year -- make the demands you want more acceptable. You will eventually get your way in the end and the player's union feels some sense of accomplishment in achieving one of their requests. Dropping the ego to accept a demand would send a strong message -- "I want you guys to play, I respect the work you do and this sport -- now let me handle the NBA as a business, so we can all profit in the end."

 

I didn't know that Stern is going to retire soon, but he needs to leave the job in a positive way and not in shambles. A lockout, and a revolution of pay cuts won't accomplish much for the next in line. The NBA doesn't end with Stern when he retires so he shouldn't act like it does.

 

Is this Idealism? Perhaps...no, it is. But honestly, if he acknowledges a request from the union and abides by it, there is a chance the union would warm up to his changes in the next CBA. If they don't, well, we have the lockout and workers without pay -- things will go as planned but Stern could say he at least tried to compromise.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I'm not saying for Stern to agree on everything the player's union is asking for. I'm saying...show that you [stern] value your worker's interests at least a little. Give them the damn age limit or something minute that they desire, split the reduction of salaries over a two year span...tapering the amount of money the players will get instead of just erasing it all in one year -- make the demands you want more acceptable. You will eventually get your way in the end and the player's union feels some sense of accomplishment in achieving one of their requests. Dropping the ego to accept a demand would send a strong message -- "I want you guys to play, I respect the work you do and this sport -- now let me handle the NBA as a business, so we can all profit in the end."

 

I didn't know that Stern is going to retire soon, but he needs to leave the job in a positive way and not in shambles. A lockout, and a revolution of pay cuts won't accomplish much for the next in line. The NBA doesn't end with Stern when he retires so he shouldn't act like it does.

 

Is this Idealism? Perhaps...no, it is. But honestly, if he acknowledges a request from the union and abides by it, there is a chance the union would warm up to his changes in the next CBA. If they don't, well, we have the lockout and workers without pay -- things will go as planned but Stern could say he at least tried to compromise.

 

This is dangerously naive.

 

Stern's position is being held for the same reason the players' union just released that ridiculous set of demands: posturing. Both sides are setting themselves up to have demands they don't mind losing.

 

The difference though, again, is that Stern's side has all the power in the negotiations, just as everyone said they did for the last two years. The only difference is that the idiotic contracts being given out this past offseason have emboldened the players' union into thinking this is a fight they can win. And it isn't.

 

The only way the owners lose this fight is if they fold. PERIOD. In a normal fight between a union and an employer, the employer has incentive to end it because with no workers, they lose money.

 

The ownes lack that incentive because almost half of them are losing money anyway. No NBA season is bad for the individual owners and worse for the league as a whole. It'd be catastrophic for the players, and the previous lockout should've made that obvious to the owners. And if they couldn't figure out that they could destroy a players' union in '98 being represented by players like Kenny "I have to have my $120,000 of 'Hangin' around money'" Anderson, they've surely figured it out by now.

 

Making large displays of reconcilation with the players' union is unnecessary, because they've dominated every CBA negotiation since the early 70s, and the whole reason the previous lockout happened was because the players didn't want to concede in the years leading up to '98 that salaries were getting to be too high.

 

And I'm guessing based on your final paragraph that you've never negotiated with a union before, but I can tell you for fact that no union in the history of anything ever has willingly agreed to reduce salary as a token of good will towards an employer out of gratitude for concessions made at previous negotiations. Not only would doing so get the union leadership fired immediately(and likely lynched), it'd be completely counterproductive towards negotiation goals.

[sharp/7/shooter 23]

This is dangerously naive.

 

Stern's position is being held for the same reason the players' union just released that ridiculous set of demands: posturing. Both sides are setting themselves up to have demands they don't mind losing.

 

The difference though, again, is that Stern's side has all the power in the negotiations, just as everyone said they did for the last two years. The only difference is that the idiotic contracts being given out this past offseason have emboldened the players' union into thinking this is a fight they can win. And it isn't.

 

The only way the owners lose this fight is if they fold. PERIOD. In a normal fight between a union and an employer, the employer has incentive to end it because with no workers, they lose money.

 

The ownes lack that incentive because almost half of them are losing money anyway. No NBA season is bad for the individual owners and worse for the league as a whole. It'd be catastrophic for the players, and the previous lockout should've made that obvious to the owners. And if they couldn't figure out that they could destroy a players' union in '98 being represented by players like Kenny "I have to have my $120,000 of 'Hangin' around money'" Anderson, they've surely figured it out by now.

 

Making large displays of reconcilation with the players' union is unnecessary, because they've dominated every CBA negotiation since the early 70s, and the whole reason the previous lockout happened was because the players didn't want to concede in the years leading up to '98 that salaries were getting to be too high.

 

And I'm guessing based on your final paragraph that you've never negotiated with a union before, but I can tell you for fact that no union in the history of anything ever has willingly agreed to reduce salary as a token of good will towards an employer out of gratitude for concessions made at previous negotiations. Not only would doing so get the union leadership fired immediately(and likely lynched), it'd be completely counterproductive towards negotiation goals.

 

Yeah, very solid points right there. I wasn't educated regarding the previous lockout and the history of the NBA's negotiations with the player's union. No, I have never been in a situation where I was fighting against or for a worker's union, so I acknowledge my lack of experience in that regard.

 

I never said that a token of good will would solely change the outcome of the new CBA, it would benefit Stern on the PR front if things go sour next year. Although, I did say that it would effect the union's relationship with Stern... but I think every company has these issues with ownership (idealistically, I'd like to change that if I were to run a small business).

 

Perhaps I was viewing this in a much smaller scope, seeing how the NBA is a national-global enterprise. Naive? Yeah, I haven't got a clue how to run the NBA and how to go about union negotiations. Dangerously naive?...I'm not in danger at all. I like reading your posts though, insightful if the facts are true.

[BMP 424]

 

NBA Players Association disbanding?

 

By Mark J. Miller

 

Billy HunterNext summer, the NBA needs to renegotiate its collective bargaining agreement with the players. It would seem that this would be the critical time to have a union, but players across the NBA are starting to vote to disband the Players Association, according to Sports Business Journal.

 

"Players for at least two NBA clubs have voted unanimously to authorize decertification after meeting with NBPA Executive Director Billy Hunter," Sports Business Journal reports.

 

Hunter is visiting each team as he does every fall and asking the players for the vote as a strategic countermeasure if the league locks out players when the CBA expires in June, the Journal notes.

 

As a union, the Players Association cannot sue the NBA for its members under the labor exemption to antitrust laws, the Journal reports. But if it became a trade organization rather than a union, it could sue the NBA under U.S. antitrust laws and contend that the league was conducting a group boycott, which is illegal, the site report

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/post/NBA-Players-Association-disbanding-;_ylt=Ao57q..QnsZaYD8lV6i.d9S8vLYF?urn=nba-295701

[BMP 424]

BUMP. What now, DoM???

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

BUMP. What now, DoM???

 

If they vote to disband the Player's Union, then there can be no CBA.

 

That would be fantastic for the players in the short term(and awful for the league), and disastrous for both them and the league long term.

 

Long term though, even if the NBA did find a way for their team's to still have a working business model(doubtful) and even if they did find a way to keep talent from being pooled on 4 teams in big markets/with deep pocketed owners(VERY doubtful, since no CBA likely means no profit sharing for media revenues amongst teams), this would merely end up being awesome for superstars and god-awful for roleplayers.

 

No CBA means no maximum salaries(Cuban wants to pay Dwight 50m a year? It'd be illegal to say he couldn't), but it also means no minimum salaries. Backup players would be lucky to make 250k a year, and it also means that individual players holding out for increased pay in the middle of the season would become painfully common place.

 

You're a backup center making 2m a season, and the starter just went down with a season ending injury? Oh, you want 10m a season now, and you won't play until you get it? Ok, I guess there's nothing to stop you, and the only way to punish you is to not pay you for the time you hold out.

 

But all that said, I doubt they actually do it.

[BMP 424]

If they vote to disband the Player's Union, then there can be no CBA.

 

That would be fantastic for the players in the short term(and awful for the league), and disastrous for both them and the league long term.

 

Long term though, even if the NBA did find a way for their team's to still have a working business model(doubtful) and even if they did find a way to keep talent from being pooled on 4 teams in big markets/with deep pocketed owners(VERY doubtful, since no CBA likely means no profit sharing for media revenues amongst teams), this would merely end up being awesome for superstars and god-awful for roleplayers.

 

No CBA means no maximum salaries(Cuban wants to pay Dwight 50m a year? It'd be illegal to say he couldn't), but it also means no minimum salaries. Backup players would be lucky to make 250k a year, and it also means that individual players holding out for increased pay in the middle of the season would become painfully common place.

 

You're a backup center making 2m a season, and the starter just went down with a season ending injury? Oh, you want 10m a season now, and you won't play until you get it? Ok, I guess there's nothing to stop you, and the only way to punish you is to not pay you for the time you hold out.

 

But all that said, I doubt they actually do it.

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

What about in the event of a lockout, how much power do the players have then to either sue the league or just go play overseas? I agree it's unlikely because there are only a few stars and a lot more bench players/role players who would be in the sore end of that deal.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Thank you.

 

 

What about in the event of a lockout, how much power do the players have then to either sue the league or just go play overseas? I agree it's unlikely because there are only a few stars and a lot more bench players/role players who would be in the sore end of that deal.

 

In the absence of a Players' Union, a lockout would be viewed as refusing people the right to work, and as such, would be illegal.