PDA

View Full Version : Question for union experts


MarqSox
12-17-2003, 08:25 PM
It seems the snag right now is over the union's unwillingness to OK the contract changes ...

If ARod really wants to get this done, could he leave the union and change the contract independent of the union? I doubt he would do it, but could he?

jabrch
12-17-2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
It seems the snag right now is over the union's unwillingness to OK the contract changes ...

If ARod really wants to get this done, could he leave the union and change the contract independent of the union? I doubt he would do it, but could he?


He can withdraw from the union, but I think they would still give Nomar crap - and anyone else involved in this deal.

Look, if the best players in the game all pull out of the union, the owners would be thrilled. If the union just represents middle relievers and 3rd catchers, it won't last long and wont have any power.

It is possible, but A-Rod wouldn't think of it. He would not be a scab over this. I gotta believe the commish, Henry, Boras, Hicks, and A-Rod will find a way to make it work.

Daver
12-17-2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
It seems the snag right now is over the union's unwillingness to OK the contract changes ...

If ARod really wants to get this done, could he leave the union and change the contract independent of the union? I doubt he would do it, but could he?

Not a chance.

Every player in MLB is subject to the MLBPA,and it is written into every contract,and all contracts are reviewed by the league office to insure they contain the language of the MLBPA agreement.

MarqSox
12-17-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Not a chance.

Every player in MLB is subject to the MLBPA,and it is written into every contract,and all contracts are reviewed by the league office to insure they contain the language of the MLBPA agreement.
Then how did Rick Reed play for 6 years before the union accepted him? They refused his entry because he played as a scab in 94. He wasn't the only one ... besides, a person can't be forced to join a union against his will. Right?

jabrch
12-17-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Then how did Rick Reed play for 6 years before the union accepted him? They refused his entry because he played as a scab in 94. He wasn't the only one ... besides, a person can't be forced to join a union against his will. Right?

Correct - unless "forced" includes broken fingers and horses heads in their beds.

No, seriously, if A-Rod wants to be the guy who destroyed the union, he can. I don't think that is the tag line he wants under his HOF bust.

Daver
12-17-2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Then how did Rick Reed play for 6 years before the union accepted him? They refused his entry because he played as a scab in 94. He wasn't the only one ... besides, a person can't be forced to join a union against his will. Right?

He was not a member of the union,but his contract still contained the agreement with the MLBPA. MLB cannot have a contract that does not contain that clause,it was part of the ruling that granted FA and made the creation of the MLBPA possible.

Rick Reed was not forced to join the union,but I will bet you a dollar to a donut he said yes as soon as they agreed to accept him,just for the retirement benefits he would not receive otherwise.

SluggersAway
12-17-2003, 08:41 PM
scabs are cool.

MarqSox
12-17-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Daver
He was not a member of the union,but his contract still contained the agreement with the MLBPA. MLB cannot have a contract that does not contain that clause,it was part of the ruling that granted FA and made the creation of the MLBPA possible.
OK, so in other words, there is no loophole if the union refuses to budge on ARod's contract. Bummer.

Daver
12-17-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
OK, so in other words, there is no loophole if the union refuses to budge on ARod's contract. Bummer.

The union is not the sticking point on Payrod's contract,Tom Hicks and John Henry are.

All the union is doing is making sure that the integrity of the contract itself is not devalued.

MarqSox
12-17-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The union is not the sticking point on Payrod's contract,Tom Hicks and John Henry are.

All the union is doing is making sure that the integrity of the contract itself is not devalued.
Well right, but if ARod doesn't mind it being devalued, which I get the sense he doesn't ...

mantis1212
12-17-2003, 08:54 PM
Didn't Barry Bonds just withdraw from the Union or am I thinking of something else? Maybe he's just too big to have it negatively affect him?

Daver
12-17-2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
Didn't Barry Bonds just withdraw from the Union or am I thinking of something else? Maybe he's just too big to have it negatively affect him?

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck


No Barry withdrew his name from the MLBPA's collective marketing agreement,which allowed the use of his name and likeness in videogames and such for the $500,000 yearly paycheck. Barry would rather cut his own deal.

gosox41
12-17-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The union is not the sticking point on Payrod's contract,Tom Hicks and John Henry are.

All the union is doing is making sure that the integrity of the contract itself is not devalued.

Kind of like how the union was there when Frank signed his diminsihed skills clause.

Bob

Daver
12-17-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Kind of like how the union was there when Frank signed his diminsihed skills clause.

Bob

What in the hell does that have to do with the MLBPA?

Frank was told not to sign it by Jerry Reinsdorf,and by his late agent,he signed it anyway.It is not the MLBPA's job to protect it's members against their own stupidity.

I would have expected better of you Bob.

MisterB
12-17-2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Daver
What in the hell does that have to do with the MLBPA?

Frank was told not to sign it by Jerry Reinsdorf,and by his late agent,he signed it anyway.It is not the MLBPA's job to protect it's members against their own stupidity.

I would have expected better of you Bob.

I still don't get why JR had to tell Thomas not to sign the contract. I assume whomever wrote up the deal (Schu?) was actually working for JR at the time, and therefore if JR thought it was such a bad idea, he had the authority to tell whomever it was to alter the offer and remove the DSC before it was signed. And if JR thought it was so bad why in hell did he actually exercise the DSC? JR had all the power to offer Frank a contract without a DSC and he chose not to. It makes no sense.

dugwood31
12-17-2003, 10:52 PM
Somebody finally wrote a thread with me in mind! I'm a union organizer, which theoretically means I know labor law. All MLB players are covered under the terms the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Closed shops in Collective Bargaining Agreements are technically illegal right now, so no one has to join the union -- so that explains Reed. In other words everyone's covered under the contract, but the union or employer can't force membership or non-membership of bargaining unit employees. Employees can be obligated to pay dues, but then have the opportunity to have money refunded -- all the while never joining the union. And all shops are open unless a CBA specifically makes it a union shop of some stripe.

The reason Frank's diminishing skills clause is acceptable is because it was either signed as a new contract or because it added significant value for the player (I don't remember which). I believe the CBA's clause in question in the ARod deal covers renegotiated deals only.

I don't see the NLRB involved -- this is a straight up dispute over contract language, and that's what arbitrators do.

Scabs are not cool, I'm afraid.

gosox41
12-17-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Daver
What in the hell does that have to do with the MLBPA?

Frank was told not to sign it by Jerry Reinsdorf,and by his late agent,he signed it anyway.It is not the MLBPA's job to protect it's members against their own stupidity.

I would have expected better of you Bob.

Be cool. Just being a little sarcastic Daver, hence the teal.

On a different not. If A-Rod wants to renegotiate his contract to the point that it is "devalued" isn't that his choice. If A-Rod wants to hurt himself financially (as Frank did) wouldn't that be his right to be what some consider stupid? Especially if it means getting out of a situation he clearly isn't happy in. Is the union looking out for A-Rod and his happiness or A-Rod's contract? Or maybe the union should butt out all together. A-Rod has a pit bull of an agent looking out for him, right?


Bob

dugwood31
12-17-2003, 11:58 PM
The MLBPA negotiates the terms and conditions of employment for all players, and individual players can't negotiate anything that violates the CBA. There's a specific clause that says a current contracted can't be devalued for the player. The only question is does it devalue the original deal? That's a matter of interpretation and the arbitrator will have to decide.

Lip Man 1
12-18-2003, 02:03 AM
The other joker to this is the report that Proud To Be Your Bud is thinking about trying to over rule the union and allow the deal to go down.

LOL

As if Buddy boy has the authority to change a signed CBA!

I hope it does it, I'd love to see MLB be made to look like a fool AGAIN when an arbitrator says "ummmm Bud, no, you overstepped your bounds. Thank you for playing"

Can you imagine the embarassment for those dolts as this whole deal is held up perhaps for a month or six weeks while court / hearing dates are set? Can you imagine how the players involved are going to feel being held hostage by all this.

What a grade A, absolute idiot.

Lip

gosox41
12-18-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by dugwood31
The MLBPA negotiates the terms and conditions of employment for all players, and individual players can't negotiate anything that violates the CBA. There's a specific clause that says a current contracted can't be devalued for the player. The only question is does it devalue the original deal? That's a matter of interpretation and the arbitrator will have to decide.

I've heard this before about the CBA containing that clause. But does this make it set in stone? Most players wouldn't volunteer to give up salary, but it says a lot if A-Rod is that unhappy and is willing to do it.

Also, does it mean all the talk the last few years by A-Rod that he'd be willign to structure his contract to help the team win was complete BS on his part? Wouldn't he know via Boras that this couldn't be done? Wouldn't Boras have thought of this CBA rule before negotiating such a big contract for a long period of time? He had to know the contract would be difficult, if not impossible to move in a trade. If the CBA rule is enforced then it basically means one of baseball's biggest names will be miserable for the next few years because no team is willing to take on the contract as is.

Bob

MarqSox
12-18-2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
As if Buddy boy has the authority to change a signed CBA!

I hope it does it, I'd love to see MLB be made to look like a fool AGAIN when an arbitrator says "ummmm Bud, no, you overstepped your bounds. Thank you for playing"
It's really not that ridiculous if you think about it ... Owner A, Owner B and Player C all agreed on terms. For the union to veto it because it doesn't suit their needs is silly. Bud may very well lose in court, but he'd be doing the right thing, IMHO.

jabrch
12-18-2003, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
I still don't get why JR had to tell Thomas not to sign the contract. I assume whomever wrote up the deal (Schu?) was actually working for JR at the time, and therefore if JR thought it was such a bad idea, he had the authority to tell whomever it was to alter the offer and remove the DSC before it was signed. And if JR thought it was so bad why in hell did he actually exercise the DSC? JR had all the power to offer Frank a contract without a DSC and he chose not to. It makes no sense.


Same reason he told Pippen not to sign a 7 year deal in 1991. He probably said something like, "Dont sign this if you don't plan on living up to it." or "Don't sign this thinking we will renegotiate should it arise" or "SIgning this gives you security, UNLESS your skills diminish."

I doubt he flat out said, "Here is a deal for you - I wouldn't sign it if I were you."

ma-gaga
12-18-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Then how did Rick Reed play for 6 years before the union accepted him? They refused his entry because he played as a scab in 94. He wasn't the only one ... besides, a person can't be forced to join a union against his will. Right?

I don't think the Union has EVER accepted Rick Reed back into it's folds. I can't find authoritive proof, but here's two articles that say that he's not a member of the Players Union.

Latest article about him trying to get a job with the Reds. (http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/reds/daily/1214winterbb.html)

A profile page, which has dated entries. One from May 2000, states that he was DENIED entrance to the union. (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/R/Reed_Rick.stm)

Rick Reed will survive just fine, with or without union benefits. He's a class act that crossed the line for his family. I don't know if you can truly make the comparison of unions/scabs from us working bees to professional atheletes. There's similarities, but the money is so different. Reed made $29MM+ (gross) in his career, that's pretty damn good. I'd expect him to be able somehow to live comfortably off that for the next 50 years.

Please let me know if he's been allowed back into the Union.

MarqSox
12-18-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Please let me know if he's been allowed back into the Union.
I thought I read earlier this year they finally let him in. But I can't confirm that.