Since most (almost all) players have some form of an agent or another and coupled with the kind of money they get (heck what is the minimum salary in the MLB - 300,000 or something like that), why is the union still needed?

 

I understand that the union is need in the minor leagues, but why does is it still exist in the majors? What is it that they do that they agents can't handle? Are they afraid the owners will grow too big for their britches if the union dissolves/disappears?

 

Unions have their place, but I don't think major league baseball is one of those places at this time.

Since most (almost all) players have some form of an agent or another and coupled with the kind of money they get (heck what is the minimum salary in the MLB - 300,000 or something like that), why is the union still needed? 

 

I understand that the union is need in the minor leagues, but why does is it still exist in the majors?  What is it that they do that they agents can't handle?  Are they afraid the owners will grow too big for their britches if the union dissolves/disappears?

 

Unions have their place, but I don't think major league baseball is one of those places at this time.

Basically because their prospective employers form a cartel of 30 or so, which is small, and could weild immense power over them if the union dissolved.

Actually IMO almost as detremental is the fact that the league also has an anti-trust exemption.

 

On the whole ARod trade, I was really hoping that Selig would have taken the union before an arbitration judge to try to weaken them. Baseball needs to be put back on level ground, but as long as the union is holding up the game for their own selfish gains, the casual fan will continue their exodus to other sports, or even away from the sesspool that is prosports in the 21st century

The union has to protect the Arod contract or next time some club will force a guy who has a bad year to claim he is happy with his newly restructured contract that pays him less.

The union has to protect the Arod contract or next time some club will force a guy who has a bad year to claim he is happy with his newly restructured contract that pays him less.

The difference is the all of the principles agreed on the new deal. If all parties agreed who is the union to step in? If someone DIDN'T like it, then by all means, yes the union should step it.

The union has to protect the Arod contract or next time some club will force a guy who has a bad year to claim he is happy with his newly restructured contract that pays him less.

I understand that, I just wonder why the union is still operational in MLB in this day and age...is it that the players are afraid it will be the early 1900s all over again - prick owners with too much power or what is the reason for have a union for a bunch of multi-millionaires (or in some cases hundred-thousandaires) who have agents to watch their backs....

Basically because their prospective employers form a cartel of 30 or so, which is small, and could wield immense power over them if the union dissolved.

exactly right

 

those who do not understand the purpose of the union do not know their baseball history

 

if there had been a union in 1919, there is no thrown world series and our Sox history is all different

 

Baseball owners operated as feudal lords and would do so again if allowed

 

because in one case this week one deal did not go through - doersn't look to me even that the union had anything to do with that, Selig the Commissioner stopped the talks

The difference is the all of the principles agreed on the new deal.  If all parties agreed who is the union to step in?  If someone DIDN'T like it, then by all means, yes the union should step it.

For the same reason that individual members of the teamsters can't agree to work at a lesser wage or fewer hours.

The owners signed a collective bargaining agreement.

So asshole Don Fehr gets his face on TV every 4 years