PDA

View Full Version : 1994-95 Replacement players


Paulwny
09-06-2002, 02:35 PM
{None of the players who served as replacements in spring training during the strike in 1995 has been allowed into the players union. Thus they each lose about $25,000 a year in marketing money and are not eligible for pension benefits.}

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2002-09-05-replacements_x.htm

Randar68
09-06-2002, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
{None of the players who served as replacements in spring training during the strike in 1995 has been allowed into the players union. Thus they each lose about $25,000 a year in marketing money and are not eligible for pension benefits.}

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2002-09-05-replacements_x.htm

Wasn't Merloni the only one to make it?

Paulwny
09-06-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Wasn't Merloni the only one to make it?

The article mentions Shane Spencer, Cory Lidle and Rick Reed as players.

Randar68
09-06-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The article mentions Shane Spencer, Cory Lidle and Rick Reed as players.

Yeah, I posted that before I read it. LOL DOH!

voodoochile
09-06-2002, 02:44 PM
I thought you had to join the union to play MLB. Learn something new every day.

What are the federal laws on this issue? Are unions allowed to pick and choose their members so long as it doesn't violate the Civil Rights Act and other federal laws covering discrimination?

voodoochile
09-06-2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The article mentions Shane Spencer, Cory Lidle and Rick Reed as players.

Man, after they helped the owners last time they are now being thrown to the wolves. You would think the owners would make that a bargaining chip.

Goes to show you how little the owners care about people who have stood beside them in the past. Makes you truly wonder how much they care about people like us who have no meaning to them except as wallets.

Personally it strikes me as one more reason to side with the players. At least you can understan WHY they don't want the scabs in the union...

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2002, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I thought you had to join the union to play MLB. Learn something new every day.

What are the federal laws on this issue? Are unions allowed to pick and choose their members so long as it doesn't violate the Civil Rights Act and other federal laws covering discrimination?

I'm surprised to hear this, too. I thought MLB was a union shop, but quite obviously, it isn't.

IIRC, "closed shops" are illegal. Basically, you must be a member of the union inorder to work for a particular group of employers. An "open shop" allows anybody to work, but union membership is not guaranteed. This is legal, and apparently what MLBPA has with baseball.

"Union shops" are the most prevalent type. Anybody can be hired, and everybody has the right to join the union--if they choose to . Either way, they are covered by the union's CBA--though they don't necessarily get specific benefits given solely by the union to its members.

Unions generally attempt to negotiate this clause early in their negotiations as a certified collective bargaining agent. I would have thought Miller and the MLBPA would have gotten this worked into their deal years ago. It makes the union's negotiating position stronger.

Maybe Miller didn't want to become a union shop specifically to punish future renegade ballplayers like Reed and Spencer? :?: