2012 CBA/Lockout talk, It's not looking good VI
View Single Post
12-18-2012, 02:42 PM
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Originally Posted by
For most of us to have our pay cut 24% would mean we'd no longer be able to afford to live, or at the very least would have to cut out or cut back on quite a few necessities to do so. That's obviously not the case with these guys who can afford multiple houses, multiple vehicles, and a plethora of toys to boot.
It is either right or wrong, why does the salary matter in right or wrong? It matters in whether or not you feel sympathy for them (I do not), but it shouldn't matter if it is right or fair or not.
We can disagree on the question of the offers and if they are fair or not, but the amount of money involved shouldn't influence that debate.
Also, players enter into their contracts knowing full well CBA negotiations can and most likely will redefine those terms. In that context, you may not like it but it's something you have to accept. I get a bonus yearly based on the companies profit margin and in certain years because the company didn't meet expectations (set by the owners) for profit margin the bonus was held back. I didn't like it, but I didn't refuse to work because I didn't get it. It was cushion money, not a necessity I needed to live.
Your analogy doesn't fit.
Did you sign a contract with your company? Is that contract up for re-negotiation? Would you try to negotiate terms you thought were the best you could get or deserved? Or would you just take what they tell you you should get?
You are saying you don't refuse to work when you don't get your bonus, but you agreed to those parameters when you took the job on the bonus.
This example just isn't close to the deal with the CBA. Also, the players are not refusing to work. They would work right now. The issue is the parameters they will work under in the future.
View Public Profile
Visit EverettMike's homepage!
Find More Posts by EverettMike