Owners Vote to re-open contract talks

Owners Vote to re-open contract talks

Post by Michael Silverm » Wed, 09 Dec 1992 13:41:31


They also voted to enact a rule that a 75% in favor vote will
be required to lock out the players "in the future."

Does anybody know if this applies this upcoming spring?

A lockout would be worse than 1981....

This labor-management strife (that will be upcoming) is getting
sickening...every three years just like clockwork.

It seems as if there is a better chance of Yassir Arafat
getting B'nai Brith Man of the Year than for owners and players
to stop bickering with themselves and each other.

PS: Down with the anti-trust exemption!

--

"One likes to believe in the freedom of baseball" - Geddy Lee

 
 
 

Owners Vote to re-open contract talks

Post by Charles M Kozier » Wed, 09 Dec 1992 23:46:25

Quote:

>They also voted to enact a rule that a 75% in favor vote will
>be required to lock out the players "in the future."

>Does anybody know if this applies this upcoming spring?

>A lockout would be worse than 1981....

ok, i saw this reported on espn.

it was not explicitly stated, but clearly implied, that it *would*
apply to this coming year. if so, it is the most sensible thing that
baseball has done in the past year.

peter gammons, whom i personally think seems to have his head on
reasonably straight, says he thinks there will *not* be a lock-out,
for the simple reason that the same owners who cannot get along with
the players also cannot get along with themselves. 75% is a *huge*
difference from 50% -- if only 8 of the 28 oppose, it is off.
i figure that the expansion teams have a lot to lose by not
opening on time, because they will lose attention to the lock-out
itself, and that leaves 21 of 26 of the existing owners required to lock-out.

my guess is that if there is a lock-out, it will be more like the
one in 88 or 89 (whatever) which was only for a few games. the owners
want that TV money too much.

--
charles

 
 
 

Owners Vote to re-open contract talks

Post by Dr. Da » Thu, 10 Dec 1992 06:28:54


Quote:

>A lockout would be worse than 1981....

I agree.  The worst part about it would be the myriad mediot morons who would
insist on calling it a "strike", and blaming the players and the Players'
Association.

Quote:
>This labor-management strife (that will be upcoming) is getting
>sickening...every three years just like clockwork.

Actually, if you look closely, what happens is that every three years the
current agreement expires, and the players insist on making baseball a little
bit more like every other industry has been for the past 50 years.  The
owners, who preferred it when they could tell their "boys" which field to
pick cotton in, naturally resist.

Quote:
>It seems as if there is a better chance of Yassir Arafat
>getting B'nai Brith Man of the Year than for owners and players
>to stop bickering with themselves and each other.

I haven't seen much evidence of "bickering" within the ranks of the players,
or even between players and owners.  All of the bickering happens among the
owners, in trying to figure out how to keep a little bit of 1902 alive into
the 21st century.

Quote:
>PS: Down with the anti-trust exemption!

Ah, yes, the mythical A.T.E.  There isn't one, you know.  Not legislatively
speaking, anyway.  The so-called "antitrust exemption" is really nothing more
complicated than three consecutive legally indefensible Supreme Court rulings.
The first, in 1922, claimed that Major League Baseball did not constitute
interstate trade; nobody (not even the Court) believes this any more.  The
second and third both held essentially that, while baseball is in fact bound
by antitrust laws in principle (the way pro football and basketball have been
bound in fact for years), nevertheless it would be too disruptive to too many
people (read: the owners) to actually enforce the law, so we won't.

Great.

I'm currently in the middle of reading Marvin Miller's new book, "A Whole
Different Ballgame".  Fascinating stuff.  You Bowie Kuhn-haters out there
*must* read this; it'll make your whole year.  ("Bowie's second intention
was to pick my brains.  There was scant possibility of reciprocity in that
department...")

Quote:
>"One likes to believe in the freedom of baseball" - Geddy Lee

--
       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,

 Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR |      Walt "Lefty" Whitman

 
 
 

Owners Vote to re-open contract talks

Post by Ted Fra » Thu, 10 Dec 1992 08:48:35

Quote:


>>PS: Down with the anti-trust exemption!

>Ah, yes, the mythical A.T.E.  There isn't one, you know.  Not legislatively
>speaking, anyway.  The so-called "antitrust exemption" is really nothing more
>complicated than three consecutive legally indefensible Supreme Court rulings.
>The first, in 1922, claimed that Major League Baseball did not constitute
>interstate trade; nobody (not even the Court) believes this any more.  The
>second and third both held essentially that, while baseball is in fact bound
>by antitrust laws in principle (the way pro football and basketball have been
>bound in fact for years), nevertheless it would be too disruptive to too many
>people (read: the owners) to actually enforce the law, so we won't.

>Great.

To be fair, part of the reason behind Flood v Kuhn was that Congress had
held hearings regarding the revocation of the exemption, and refused to
do anything about it, leaving the presumption that the Court should adhere
to precedent in the absence of Congressional action to "correct" the
statutory interpretation.  (Witness the 1991 Civil Rights Act, the intent
of which was just that -- to force the Court to adopt a particular
interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that the Court refused to
adopt.)

The disruption argument is clearly wrong -- there was evidence that the
owners were well aware in the 1970's that they could lose the exemption.  
--

standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637