Jump to content
southsider2k5

The MLB lockout is lifted!

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, hi8is said:

Somewhere over the rainbow…

Yeah, unless the owners are willing to compromise on some stuff quite soon I don’t see how spring training and exhibition games start on time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, poppysox said:

 I can assure you that not all employees feel underappreciated or under-compensated.  Actually, most employees are doing just fine for themselves without a union. 

Hahahaha holy shit.  Please point to a verifiable corroborated source of information that backs up this claim.  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Hahahaha holy shit.  Please point to a verifiable corroborated source of information that backs up this claim.  

 

I have worked in both union and non-union environments.  I negotiated contracts on behalf of employers for 30+ years and have a wife who was required to belong to the union of her employer, a major airline for 25 years.  I might not know everything there is to know about this subject...but I know a fair amount.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, poppysox said:

Your bias is keeping you from seeing reality in this case.  There is no little guy or a nice guy trying to earn a living for his family in this case.  Robin Hood would not be in the least interest in getting involved in this clash of the wealthy IMO.  I can assure you that not all employees feel underappreciated or under-compensated.  Actually, most employees are doing just fine for themselves without a union.  A union is most helpful to the underperforming employee and helps him get the wage of the best employees IMO.  I am admittedly biased in favor of starting the season on time.  

In an era of the crashing of workforce participation like none other in modern America, which has literally come to be known as The Great Resignation, this is an interesting take.

  • Like 3
  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

In an era of the crashing of workforce participation like none other in modern America, which has literally come to be known as The Great Resignation, this is an interesting take.

This would take a very long time to discuss and be inappropriate to get into a baseball site.  We will be getting plenty of politics later in the year.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pappysox for baseball president. We have to free the players from the tyrrany of unions. I thought our great country was in fact a union? I always keep a backup country close at hand just in case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I have worked in both union and non-union environments.  I negotiated contracts on behalf of employers for 30+ years and have a wife who was required to belong to the union of her employer, a major airline for 25 years.  I might not know everything there is to know about this subject...but I know a fair amount.

So your irrefutable source on “most employees” is your own personal work experience, that, while valid, is minuscule in the grand scope of labor negotiations.  You being staunchly anti-labor doesn’t make your claims true.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, poppysox said:

I have worked in both union and non-union environments.  I negotiated contracts on behalf of employers for 30+ years and have a wife who was required to belong to the union of her employer, a major airline for 25 years.  I might not know everything there is to know about this subject...but I know a fair amount.

Then you would clearly prefer your wife worked in Asia, where as soon as she turned 35 or 40 working (anywhere) in the airline industry...she would have been out of a job.

 

And without unions, who is protecting those over age 50 or especially 55+ workers in the United States who are making up the biggest percentage of workers (mostly involuntarily, some due to Covid and preexisting co-morbidities?   Now you can quote Ayn Rand back to me, supply and demand forces, equilibrium, survival of the fittest, but the fact of the matter is that America would only work well for the Top 10-15% of society and the rest would totally be screwed over in the labor relations picture you're painting.

Now this might even work from a capitalistic perspective, but eventually you're going to run out of emerging markets to sell to if we continue to gut the middle class...not to mention we're now bordering on becoming a "failed democracy" because so many members of that middle class don't believe they have any where left to turn.

 

As a former member of a teacher's union, I would have been more than happy to give up tenure (after 2-3 years of teaching) if they would have made it possible for teachers to somehow be compensated based on year to year performance, but how are they going to measure or quantify that...the worst teacher in the school could get the biggest raise if it was simply dependent on working with the top classes in any given school.  So then if you look at percentage of improvement or whatever, well, that's even more complicated because the students already performing well will have a ceiling there.  Beyond that, effectiveness of teaching based on a state standardized test score is increasingly challenged as a measure of teaching effectiveness.  Just continuing to raise salaries based on years of service ends up with many older teachers simply clocking in and out until they max out their pensions (let's say at 60% of last five salaries), but then if you're going to take away union protections, are you going to be willing to raise salaries by 25-50%?  Most Americans believe teachers are already fairly compensated, and get "too much" vacation time, for example...or don't believe the media narrative of teachers spending 5-10% of their salaries on student needs being unmet by their building budgets.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Then you would clearly prefer your wife worked in Asia, where as soon as she turned 35 or 40 working (anywhere) in the airline industry...she would have been out of a job.

 

And without unions, who is protecting those over age 50 or especially 55+ workers in the United States who are making up the biggest percentage of workers (mostly involuntarily, some due to Covid and preexisting co-morbidities?   Now you can quote Ayn Rand back to me, supply and demand forces, equilibrium, survival of the fittest, but the fact of the matter is that America would only work well for the Top 10-15% of society and the rest would totally be screwed over in the labor relations picture you're painting.

Now this might even work from a capitalistic perspective, but eventually you're going to run out of emerging markets to sell to if we continue to gut the middle class...not to mention we're now bordering on becoming a "failed democracy" because so many members of that middle class don't believe they have any where left to turn.

 

As a former member of a teacher's union, I would have been more than happy to give up tenure (after 2-3 years of teaching) if they would have made it possible for teachers to somehow be compensated based on year to year performance, but how are they going to measure or quantify that...the worst teacher in the school could get the biggest raise if it was simply dependent on working with the top classes in any given school.  So then if you look at percentage of improvement or whatever, well, that's even more complicated because the students already performing well will have a ceiling there.  Beyond that, effectiveness of teaching based on a state standardized test score is increasingly challenged as a measure of teaching effectiveness.  Just continuing to raise salaries based on years of service ends up with many older teachers simply clocking in and out until they max out their pensions (let's say at 60% of last five salaries), but then if you're going to take away union protections, are you going to be willing to raise salaries by 25-50%?  Most Americans believe teachers are already fairly compensated, and get "too much" vacation time, for example...or don't believe the media narrative of teachers spending 5-10% of their salaries on student needs being unmet by their building budgets.

 

There are industries like airlines where people work all over the world and have a different person they report to every week.  You are just a number and a bargaining unit is necessary to offer some degree of representation.  The vast number of us work in environments where our own contributions can be evaluated by bosses who have supervised our efforts for many years in some cases.  If you want to be treated as just another person who performs such and such type of work...by all means...join the union.  As most of you know, many businesses today allow you to join a union or not.  Pressure is applied to the employee by union reps but ultimately the employee decides what he is comfortable with.  Baseball has vast numbers of rules brought about by the players union fighting for things such as arbitration and free agency and I would admit that those advances came about by negotiating together as a group and fighting together for those improvements.  Almost all of us have the benefits we have for some hard-fought battles between unions and employers.  Most employers today pay the going wage for the type of work required...along with benefits, etc. in order to attract the caliber of employee they want.  In many but not all situations...unions have largely outlived their usefulness IMO.  Now...back to baseball.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, poppysox said:

Most employers today pay the going wage for the type of work required...along with benefits, etc. in order to attract the caliber of employee they want.  In many but not all situations...unions have largely outlived their usefulness IMO.  Now...back to baseball.

There's NOTHING in the record amount of job openings mismatched with job seekers for any position under $15/hour or even $20/hr in the US that would suggest this is being reflected by what's actually happening on the ground.

And back to baseball...the equivalent of those earning under $15-20 in the MLB economy, anything outside of the first, second and occasional high bonus/lower round June draft picks, Pacific Rim players, Latin Americans under age 18, and all the players in their first 3 seasons don't generally enjoy much protection.

Mike Trout in his second and third seasons in baseball recorded 10.1 and 10.2 fWAR seasons.

He was pretty clearly one of the best players in the game already, but made less than $2 million combined his first three years.  By Balta calculations, that would make him worth roughly $160 million to the Angels, not even including marketing/promotional aspects.

 

What other industry can you think in the entire world that limits the very best performer to the baseball equivalent of minimum wage?

If Mike Trout had a career-ending injury after his first three seasons, he would have had just $3.2 million (pretax, including his signing bonus) to his name. 

(That's a mere pittance compared to the CEO of Binance already being worth $96 BILLION when almost nobody in the world was even familiar with Bitcoin and Ethereum a decade ago when Trout was a rookie, let alone Doge Coin and Shiba Inu.)

So does somebody who just happened to be in the right place at the right time (pretty sure the story involves a poker game) deserve that much more than Mike Trout, who was already the best player in the game in years 2 and 3 in his contract but wasn't rewarded for that performance until Spring Training of 2014 ($144.5 million/6 years).

 

Edited by caulfield12
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire entertainment field is like that. Film stars getting their first big break. Bands signing their first contact. Basically anyone signing a contract without any verifiable success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Texsox said:

The entire entertainment field is like that. Film stars getting their first big break. Bands signing their first contact. Basically anyone signing a contract without any verifiable success.

But you kind of made my point for me.

It would be like if Blackpink or Adele were capped at earning $2 million their first 3 years after debuting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

There's NOTHING in the record amount of job openings mismatched with job seekers for any position under $15/hour or even $20/hr in the US that would suggest this is being reflected by what's actually happening on the ground.

And back to baseball...the equivalent of those earning under $15-20 in the MLB economy, anything outside of the first, second and occasional high bonus/lower round June draft picks, Pacific Rim players, Latin Americans under age 18, and all the players in their first 3 seasons don't generally enjoy much protection.

Mike Trout in his second and third seasons in baseball recorded 10.1 and 10.2 fWAR seasons.

He was pretty clearly one of the best players in the game already, but made less than $2 million combined his first three years.  By Balta calculations, that would make him worth roughly $160 million to the Angels, not even including marketing/promotional aspects.

 

What other industry can you think in the entire world that limits the very best performer to the baseball equivalent of minimum wage?

If Mike Trout had a career-ending injury after his first three seasons, he would have had just $3.2 million (pretax, including his signing bonus) to his name. 

(That's a mere pittance compared to the CEO of Binance already being worth $96 BILLION when almost nobody in the world was even familiar with Bitcoin and Ethereum a decade ago when Trout was a rookie, let alone Doge Coin and Shiba Inu.)

So does somebody who just happened to be in the right place at the right time (pretty sure the story involves a poker game) deserve that much more than Mike Trout, who was already the best player in the game in years 2 and 3 in his contract but wasn't rewarded for that performance until Spring Training of 2014 ($144.5 million/6 years).

 

TLTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

But you kind of made my point for me.

It would be like if Blackpink or Adele were capped at earning $2 million their first 3 years after debuting.

It happens in most industries  I bet the entertainers you mentioned didn't have a great deal for them their first couple of releases. Those out of college don't get paid what they are worth. right away. The big accounting firms and law firms pay them a decent wage, make them work crazy hours all for hopefully a big payoff eventually. As long as you are working for someone else, gettting what you are "worth" is pretty tough. They take their cut first. If I had to do it over again, the one thing I would do is work for myself. You get all of the blame and all of the credit.And baseball worth is a tricky thing. You pay Trout $80 million a year, you probably have a team that is going to lose close to 100 games unless your owner loves paying the tax and your fans love paying $200 to sit in the bleachers.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MLB lockout has very little to do with the typical issues involving labor unions or anti-trust laws.

MLB is a monopoly but at the same time  players have a monopoly on the talent that mlb needs to survive.

This isn't like low skilled hourly employees trying to strike against Amazon.  Here, both sides have a ton of leverage and one cannot exist and prosper without the other.

If the two sides do not work this out before Spring Training, they will only be hurting themselves as well as fans of all ages who are waiting for this to be over with.

Maybe more pressure from the media and from baseball fans around the country needs to be brought to bear on owners as well as the players union to get this thing done. Maybe a boycott of all advanced ticket sales until they resolve this. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tray said:

The MLB lockout has very little to do with the typical issues involving labor unions or anti-trust laws.

MLB is a monopoly but at the same time  players have a monopoly on the talent that mlb needs to survive.

This isn't like low skilled hourly employees trying to strike against Amazon.  Here, both sides have a ton of leverage and one cannot exist and prosper without the other.

If the two sides do not work this out before Spring Training, they will only be hurting themselves as well as fans of all ages who are waiting for this to be over with.

Maybe more pressure from the media and from baseball fans around the country needs to be brought to bear on owners as well as the players union to get this thing done. Maybe a boycott of all advanced ticket sales until they resolve this. 

 

Most owners would still be rich and do whatever they want if the value of their teams went to zero. If they never collected another paycheck from playing baseball, a ton of players would be in trouble. Owners have the upper hand, and usually do in most labor disputes. 

Edited by Dick Allen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

It happens in most industries  I bet the entertainers you mentioned didn't have a great deal for them their first couple of releases. Those out of college don't get paid what they are worth. right away. The big accounting firms and law firms pay them a decent wage, make them work crazy hours all for hopefully a big payoff eventually. As long as you are working for someone else, gettting what you are "worth" is pretty tough. They take their cut first. If I had to do it over again, the one thing I would do is work for myself. You get all of the blame and all of the credit.And baseball worth is a tricky thing. You pay Trout $80 million a year, you probably have a team that is going to lose close to 100 games unless your owner loves paying the tax and your fans love paying $200 to sit in the bleachers.

Right away by mentioning the tax as a problem you’ve highlighted how the MLB’s collectively bargained payroll constraints are a major factor here.

Want to compete while still paying Trout $80 million? Develop a strong player next to him in the lineup (check) and develop some pitching (crickets).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Right away by mentioning the tax as a problem you’ve highlighted how the MLB’s collectively bargained payroll constraints are a major factor here.

Want to compete while still paying Trout $80 million? Develop a strong player next to him in the lineup (check) and develop some pitching (crickets).

But if they are good and put up a 5 WAR season, you will have to pay them $40 million. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be curious to know what "one" issue those of you who support the players feel is a must-win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I would be curious to know what "one" issue those of you who support the players feel is a must-win.

I think they shoud get a bigger cut of pie, but I am all for luxury tax. I do think changes have to be made to maximize teams trying to compete.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all you Reinsdorf-lovers and those backers of the poor owners- Look at the Bears insulting offer to Olin Kreutz to be a part-time job coaching the offensive line. The Bears are like all arrogant major league franchises. A person is supposed to feel honored to work for them and work for them for next-to-nothing.

Two large things contributed to baseball players making big money. One was the union. Then there was the advent of free agency. Take these two huge developments away and the players would make little. Where did the concept of spring training come from? Players had to find work in the offseason, and they couldn't stay in shape. Jim Hickman had pretty decent career, but he died poverty-stricken. 

The players will have to give up something. But don't expect me to cry for the owners. Regardless, it doesn't look like the season will start on time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tray said:

The MLB lockout has very little to do with the typical issues involving labor unions or anti-trust laws.

MLB is a monopoly but at the same time  players have a monopoly on the talent that mlb needs to survive.

This isn't like low skilled hourly employees trying to strike against Amazon.  Here, both sides have a ton of leverage and one cannot exist and prosper without the other.

If the two sides do not work this out before Spring Training, they will only be hurting themselves as well as fans of all ages who are waiting for this to be over with.

Maybe more pressure from the media and from baseball fans around the country needs to be brought to bear on owners as well as the players union to get this thing done. Maybe a boycott of all advanced ticket sales until they resolve this. 

 

It’s hard.

In the past, teams derived 60-75% of their revenues from daily attendance, parking, concessions, etc.

In the last twenty years (certainly decade or so), that number has downshifted to the 35-40% range.

Ultimately, the fans still consume the product…but in ways which are much more difficult to immediately impact by so-called fan boycotts, especially due to the advent of RSN’s as well as MLB Advanced Media/BAM Tech.

Of course, the more you keep the fans at arm’s length, the more difficult it is to keep Millennials and certainly teenagers engaged with the sport.

 

As much as the strike in 94-95 was devastating, particularly to the Rust Belt, and then 2007-09, simply have a hard time imagining markets like Pittsburgh and Cleveland surviving a prolonged strike.  Even Minnesota, Detroit, Kansas City…perhaps Cincinnati would all face massive headwinds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

Pathetic.

“Cave, or we stonewall you until you lose game checks” in full effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×