View Single Post
Old
11-22-2012, 02:13 AM
  #31
jeety mcjeet
I know a thing or 2
 
jeety mcjeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That aspect that intrigues me the most about this is this statement:




It's been suggested in other threads that the PA is attempting to set up something that offers a disincentive to future lockouts. There is nothing player associations can do to effectively fight a lockout.

If that is the case, is it possible Mr. Klempner's statement is indeed accurate? The era of collective bargaining in professional sports may come to an end. Why would any group band together to make it easier for their employers to control their salaries and conditions/rights with virtually no input from them?
It has also been suggested that future lockouts will be avoided when both sides have something to lose. The word exploitation probably shouldn't be used to describe a average salary for union members of 2 million+. Perhaps "protecting the owners" creates an environment that is beneficial to the players as a whole.

jeety mcjeet is offline   Reply With Quote