View Single Post
11-13-2012, 10:37 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 466
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Vomiting up a limp argument does sound painful.

Do you think there is going to be a 15-30 year CBA next time around?

Do you think it is the long term interest of the players that some teams may fold because the amounts they are paying out now are not sustainable?
i agree the dispute can be framed as whether players long term monetary interests should be advanced or whether, because it may cause teams to fold, whether lower pay is actually in their best interests.

But the CBA doesn't have to be for 15 years for the impact of the final agreement to be felt for that long, or for longer. where the parties end up will impact the resolution of the cba that follows, and the one after that, and so on. giving up ground in a labor dispute has a much longer term impact than the life of the cba. in the long view, every inch matters.

employers make the same arguments about the impact of higher wages on employment in all labor disputes, but whether those arguments are in good faith and whether team will fold without player concessions is debatable. Either way, it is not clear at all that players bargaining for higher wages will hurt them financially. And looking at a single season's pay makes no sense (and is a limp argument) in a context like this.

jacketsinDC is offline   Reply With Quote