MLB Collective Bargaining Discussion

[bob2the2nd]

You're wrong because the status quo you're arguing from is that of the final deal.

$25 million is not the amount players get paid for the playoffs. In 2018, the amount was $88,188,633.49 (link)

The owners offered $50 million (56% of the 2018 amount) for roughly twice the games. That's agreeing to work for 28% of your established value, just in order to make your boss a bunch more money. Yes, I understand that if the first round is 5 games, it might be less than half. Let's round that 28% up to 33%.

It's still detrimental to labor to agree to slash your established value by that much. If ownership wants to make more money off your labor, they should be willing to pay MORE than the established rate--not less.

In this scenario, it's not even your boss because typically your boss works alongside you. It's just the principal shareholder of your company.

right you are correct. I was thinking this was in addition to the previous amount, not the total amount. I stand corrected.


That said the premise you are coming from as far as "established" value is still one where fans are in the stands.

 

[jup]

sorry, i miss spoke earlier(the post you are quoting). I worked out the numbers earlier in this thread and the players should have been all over a playoff expansion.

They were earning an extra 25-50 million (we clearly dont know), for half the teams in baseball to play an extra 3-5 games (a week's worth). In otherwards it was enough money to pay EVERY SINGLE PLAYER the median baseball salary of those games, despite the fact that only half of the teams were playing.

so to call this insubstantial is incorrect

Maybe

But you are giving extra playoff rounds to get regular pay for games played ???

And that is with the fact that your usual pay for the playoffs probably will be zilch if their is no fans in the stands to create a gate. So no playoff shares replaced by standard salary - and what do you get for agreeing to more playoffs with big time TV revenue streams for the owner.

Maybe it makes sense to you

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

right you are correct. I was thinking this was in addition to the previous amount, not the total amount. I stand corrected.


That said the premise you are coming from as far as "established" value is still one where fans are in the stands.

For sure.

I come at this from a point where the owner's justification for his profits is that he's taking on risk, just like any other entrepreneur.

The starting point, to me, is between two options:

1. The 2020 season happens, and players get paid their agreed-upon salary
2. Ownership cancels the 2020 season and players do not get paid

The players' willingness to back off their full salary owed to pro-rate their contracts for the number of games this pandemic allows just so the season can happen should have been enough to get this done. That's the middle ground, from my uninformed, uninvolved viewpoint.

Everything else the owners were demanding to try and protect themselves from the possibility of losing money this season is selfish from where I stand. The only value they add to the organization is the willingness to take on risk, so absorb the fucking risk when it finally hits you--don't cry for everyone else to subsidize you.

 

[bob2the2nd]

"I'm confused here. Didn't the final offer made by the owners pay full rather than discounted salaries? If so, you don't need to spread the playoff money around to give everyone their full pro-game salary because nobody is being paid at discount anyway. "

And again Q - THE PLAYERS - as in all 1800 (this year at 60 man) - are giving extra playoff rounds to the owners that will generate a bunch more revenue - what are the guys that don't make the playoffs getting for the concession if they only get there regular pay???

You attract more bees with honey, and if you want their vote .......

the argument "i wont do this, because my boss may make more money" is not a strong argument. I would venture 90% of the people on this board have a boss that profits off of their employment, and as the employee works overtime the boss makes more money*. I understand baseball players felt taken advantage of, but at the end of the day their choices are 1) As a group decide to not play in fear of COVID, 2) As a group decide that they will take the best available offer, or 3) Reject the best available offer, be forced to work taking less pay and benefits than was offered in option 2, and the entire time threaten litigation despite the fact that its a hail mary attempt.


*for full time jobs this is true. Overtime even if the company has to pay you 1.5x (and almost no salary jobs do) still is at the advantage of the company as your general benefits have already been covered.

 

[bob2the2nd]

For sure.

I come at this from a point where the owner's justification for his profits is that he's taking on risk, just like any other entrepreneur.

The starting point, to me, is between two options:

1. The 2020 season happens, and players get paid their agreed-upon salary
2. Ownership cancels the 2020 season and players do not get paid

The players' willingness to back off their full salary owed to pro-rate their contracts for the number of games this pandemic allows just so the season can happen should have been enough to get this done. That's the middle ground, from my uninformed, uninvolved viewpoint.

Everything else the owners were demanding to try and protect themselves from the possibility of losing money this season is selfish from where I stand. The only value they add to the organization is the willingness to take on risk, so absorb the fucking risk when it finally hits you--don't cry for everyone else to subsidize you.

So i 100% full agree the owners acted like complete asses the entire time. I thought i had made that very clear. The players out negotiated them and out maneuvered them and there is 0 argument there.

But my beef with the players is that all they had to do was accept the damn offer and while it wasnt 100% of what they were looking for, they would have still come out smelling a lot better than the owners. The owners have plenty of money, they can and do play the villian plenty (rightly-so), but the players rely on the support of the fans and at the end of the day owe it to the fans to actually care about the game. By saying they woudl rather leave open the option of litigation versus taking most of what they were asking is a slap to the face of the people that support these teams.

It took 10 years for baseball attendance to get back to pre 1994 levels after the 94 strike, because of what a stain it put on the sport. To me this just takes me right back to 94 all over again, and i have zero faith either of these sides can come to a long term agreement in 1.5 years

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

So i 100% full agree the owners acted like complete asses the entire time. I thought i had made that very clear. The players out negotiated them and out maneuvered them and there is 0 argument there.

But my beef with the players is that all they had to do was accept the damn offer and while it wasnt 100% of what they were looking for, they would have still come out smelling a lot better than the owners. The owners have plenty of money, they can and do play the villian plenty (rightly-so), but the players rely on the support of the fans and at the end of the day owe it to the fans to actually care about the game. By saying they woudl rather leave open the option of litigation versus taking most of what they were asking is a slap to the face of the people that support these teams.

It took 10 years for baseball attendance to get back to pre 1994 levels after the 94 strike, because of what a stain it put on the sport. To me this just takes me right back to 94 all over again, and i have zero faith either of these sides can come to a long term agreement in 1.5 years

I don't feel like the players owe anything to the fans.

I also don't think it's their responsibility to shut up and take what's offered. What did we miss out on, an expanded playoffs and maybe a few regular season games? Sounds like, from the fan perspective, you got most of what you wanted and the players didn't have to kiss the ring to get it.

Good conversation.

 

[LL3]

I don't feel like the players owe anything to the fans.

I also don't think it's their responsibility to shut up and take what's offered. What did we miss out on, an expanded playoffs and maybe a few regular season games? Sounds like, from the fan perspective, you got most of what you wanted and the players didn't have to kiss the ring to get it.

Good conversation.

I believe the players owe a tremendous amount to the fans, as do the owners...that’s just math, especially in a sport that is having a hard time acquiring a new, younger base. How should this debt be paid by both parties? Beyond providing a top notch product, it is up for interpretation....but showing them indifference is hardly ever a good answer.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

"I'm kind of confused again. I thought you said before that the players did not like the owners' offer regarding playoff money because it was getting spread around, and was therefore too small to matter. But now, you're saying the player's association wanted to spread that money around to get a yes vote...which they overwhelmingly didn't get anyway. So what did the Player's Association end up wanting? Did they want the extra $25B in playoff money spread around , or not? "

Come on Q.

Never said the MLBPA liked or didn't like an offer. I clarified something that people were misrepresenting. The money in the proposals went to all the players not just playoff teams.

And my point was that when your spread it around, the large sum advertised (good PR) wasn't quite the bounty it seemed.

The point about the vote seemed obvious to me but then I know what I was thinking, you don't. Hence - THE OWNERS want the union to vote YES on their proposal, so they have to attract more than 50% of the constituency. So THE OWNERS made the proposal to spread the money around so that THE OWNERS could get a yes vote on their proposal because they WOULD NOT be ignoring at least half the league from getting any $$$'s for approving extra playoffs. My post has nothing to do with the PA. Seemed straight forward enough when I typed it, guess not.

But this goes right back to the point I made earlier -- the owners don't wouldn't give a shit which players got how much money. All they cared about was 1) the total amount they'd be paying, and 2) getting a "YES" vote from the players. If the hold-up on the players' end was how the money was going to be distributed...all they had to do was counter and ask for it to be distributed differently. No logical reason for MLB not to have agreed to whatever distribution the MLBPA wanted. You can call that pure speculation on my end, but that's disingenuous.

The reason the MLBPA didn't ask for the money to be distributed differently -- according to you -- is that the majority wouldn't have voted for it anyway.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

"I'm confused here. Didn't the final offer made by the owners pay full rather than discounted salaries? If so, you don't need to spread the playoff money around to give everyone their full pro-game salary because nobody is being paid at discount anyway. "

And again Q - THE PLAYERS - as in all 1800 (this year at 60 man) - are giving extra playoff rounds to the owners that will generate a bunch more revenue - what are the guys that don't make the playoffs getting for the concession if they only get there regular pay???

You attract more bees with honey, and if you want their vote .......

Okay -- and I'm assuming you're speaking from some knowledge here -- this is the exact point at which the players would be confirming that they were the turds in the punchbowl. That's simply horrible, bad faith bargaining.

Usually, the definition of a good deal is one where both sides win. Any time there is a "win-win", both sides should be on board. In this case, you're talking about a situation where a majority of players (16 teams worth) would be making more money, and at $25M for just one extra series, they're making significantly more on a per game basis than than they'd normally make. They're getting more in terms of pay than they're giving up in terms of playing extra games. That is a good deal for those players.

The players for the other 14 teams are giving up nothing, because they're not being asked to play any extra games, so they're getting nothing in return. It is an absolute nothing for them. So if a majority of players are getting a good deal, it doesn't affect the rest, and the owners benefit, that's the kind of deal that gets signed elsewhere 10 times out of 10. But according to you, that's a non-starter with the players because they don't want to see the owners make more money even if a majority of the players also would be making more money.

It's really even worse than that. An expanded playoffs might have helped baseball as a whole get some additional exposure with fans, and some additional goodwill. That's good for everyone affiliated with the game. So when you asked "why should the players who aren't getting any extra money (and who also aren't being asked to play any games) vote for that deal, the answer is "if it is good for baseball PR, and costs you nothing, why wouldn't you?"

That's rejecting a deal out of pure spite. The players' position essentially is "yes, it would be a win for players, a win for the owners, a win for fans, and a win for the public's perception of the game. But we're rejecting that anyway because...fuck the owners."

Frankly, only some employees benefiting from a side deal happens a lot in collective bargaining where some job classifications get a boost, and some don't. Typically, that happens if there is a labor shortage in one job classification, and so the employer wants to raise the pay of that classification so as to attract/retain more employees. I personally have never even heard of a situation -- much less seen it myself -- with a union turning that down without even countering, effectively saying "We'd rather screw you than let you pay those classifications more money."

"We'd rather screw you than gain something for ourselves" is the kind of thing that would result in the other side walking out of negotiations, filing an immediate 8(a)(3) or 8(b)(3) charge, and further damaging that bargaining relationship moving forward.

 

[Derek]

Expanded playoffs is most certainly not a win for everybody

 

[jup]

Okay -- and I'm assuming you're speaking from some knowledge here -- this is the exact point at which the players would be confirming that they were the turds in the punchbowl. That's simply horrible, bad faith bargaining.

Usually, the definition of a good deal is one where both sides win. Any time there is a "win-win", both sides should be on board. In this case, you're talking about a situation where a majority of players (16 teams worth) would be making more money, and at $25M for just one extra series, they're making significantly more on a per game basis than than they'd normally make. They're getting more in terms of pay than they're giving up in terms of playing extra games. That is a good deal for those players.

The players for the other 14 teams are giving up nothing, because they're not being asked to play and extra games, so they're getting nothing in return. It is an absolute nothing for them. So if a majority of players are getting a good deal, it doesn't affect the rest, and the owners benefit, that's the kind of deal that gets signed elsewhere 10 times out of 10. But according to you, that's a non-starter with the players because they don't want to see the owners make more money even if a majority of the players also would be making more money.

It's really even worse than that. An expanded playoffs might have helped baseball as a whole get some additional exposure with fans, and some additional goodwill. That's good for everyone affiliated with the game. So when you asked "why should the players who aren't getting any extra money (and who also aren't being asked to play any games) vote for that deal, the answer is "if it is good for baseball PR, and costs you nothing, why wouldn't you?

That's rejecting a deal out of pure spite. The players' position essentially is "yes, it would be a win for players, a win for the owners, a win for fans, and a win for the public's perception of the game. But we're rejecting that anyway because...fuck the owners."

Frankly, only some employees benefiting from a side deal happens a lot in collective bargaining where some job classifications get a boost, and some don't. Typically, that happens if there is a labor shortage in one job classification, and so the employer wants to raise the pay of that classification so as to attract/retain more employees. I personally have never even heard of a situation -- much less seen it myself -- with a union turning that down without even countering, effectively saying "We'd rather screw you than let you pay those classifications more money."

"We'd rather screw you than gain something for ourselves" is the kind of thing that would result in the other side walking out of negotiations, filing an immediate 8(a)(3) or 8(b)(3) charge, and further damaging that bargaining relationship moving forward.

It took awhile, but I heard from you.

Giving up expanded playoffs is a lose for the players. You and I are clearly not going to agree on that because you will say it is for a unique reason and doesn't necessarily carry into the future, and I just don't agree.

Once the players agree to it, the cat has been out of the bag, tough to put it back in. There is a certain inertia threshold that has to be overcome for anything to change, once that threshold has been achieved, not so much ever again.

First the deal on expanded playoffs was for 2 seasons, '20 & '21, then to sweeten the pot late in the game, the owners reduced it to just '20. You just give up tooo big a bargaining chip going into the CBA by breaking through that threshold without something significant in return. And simply getting paid for the extra games and teams that are a part of that isn't enough.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It took awhile, but I heard from you.

I'm flattered that you were so eager for me to respond.

Giving up expanded playoffs is a lose for the players. You and I are clearly not going to agree on that because you will say it is for a unique reason and doesn't necessarily carry into the future, and I just don't agree.

But...we actually do agree on that. It was the players deliberately choosing a lose/lose over a win/win.

First the deal on expanded playoffs was for 2 seasons, '20 & '21, then to sweeten the pot late in the game, the owners reduced it to just '20. You just give up tooo big a bargaining chip going into the CBA by breaking through that threshold without something significant in return. And simply getting paid for the extra games and teams that are a part of that isn't enough.

It isn't a bargaining chip except in the minds of bad (or bad faith) negotiators . The players would have been just as capable of extracting value for agreeing to expanded playoffs in 2021 either way. Heck, you could even argue that it would have given the players even more leverage next year because the owners would be under pressure from fans/media who liked it in 2020 to make sure it happens again.

This was just the players cutting off their noses to spite the owners, which I suspect is why a guy like Bauer ended up scratching his head over the lack of a deal.

 

[jup]

But this goes right back to the point I made earlier -- the owners don't wouldn't give a shit which players got how much money. All they cared about was 1) the total amount they'd be paying, and 2) getting a "YES" vote from the players. If the hold-up on the players' end was how the money was going to be distributed...all they had to do was counter and ask for it to be distributed differently. No logical reason for MLB not to have agreed to whatever distribution the MLBPA wanted. You can call that pure speculation on my end, but that's disingenuous.

The reason the MLBPA didn't ask for the money to be distributed differently -- according to you -- is that the majority wouldn't have voted for it anyway.

Then why were all the owner's offers couched as - a kicker to increase the amount players earned in the "regular" part of the season. No where did they ever present it as money to playoff teams only. It was always - play regular season games at a discount, and if we actually have a post season we will kick money back to reduce the actual discount you had to take for "regular" season games.

The point was clear - reduce the sting of taking a discount (and sift risk to the players) on regular season games, by the post season incentive. And that is because half the league wouldn't be participating in the post season NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT. So players on tanking teams (close to half the league) know none of that money is coming their way if it is post season only, and have no incentive to vote yes on the proposal. So as much as you want to say the owners didn't give a shit how the money was divvied up, that is not what their proposals said.

And once again - this has nothing to do with the MLBPA - at some point the deal had to go to a vote. In order to get enough players to yes (whether the PA agreed or not) there has to be something in it for the concession they were giving up, and it had to have an impact that was spread to every player who was making that choice. And telling half your constituents that the discount on regular season games was so that their brethren on the playoff teams could rake in more $$$'s isn't something a union leadership is going to find palatable.

I want your vote but don't want to give you the money the owners offered to you. I want it to go to the haves, not the have nots, is the message it sends. You want to deliver that message Q ?????

So all the noise about the PA countering to define how the money would be split up just doesn't carry water Q.

 

[Derek]

The players had every right to turn down expanded playoffs. It doesn't mean they negotiated in bad faith.

 

[Lee]

Expanded playoffs seems like a bad idea to me. The season is already too long to be honest. Sundays during football season are special because there are only 17 of them, every day of their expanded playoffs are an event.

Basketball is a long season too, and their first round of their playoffs is typically meh for the casual fans. But baseball, once the playoffs starts, every game is so important and becomes an event. Really sports needs to do things for the casual fan to draw them back into the sport, not sure expanding the playoffs does that in baseball...it draws out a season into a cold month where no one wants to see November baseball in Cleveland or other cold cities.