Good Article on the Impending Lockout by David Aldridge

[theNBAnerd]

i thought aldridge's proposals were weak, and ignored all the real issues. this will be settled when the players agree to a major cut in their BRI share and the owners agree to ease their cost concerns with some enhanced rev sharing. 90% of what aldridge proposed in his article was not even worthy of being called "secondary" issues.

 

[One Brow]

Initially yes, but after a while, Union leaders will do anything in their power to stay in power, even if it comes at the cost of the long term health of the hands that feed.

Politicians are politicians, even in unions. I agree there.

 

[One Brow]

The owners aren't guaranteed profits.

Nor should they be.

There is nothing wrong with that. The ironic thing is, you slam owners for wanting guaranteed profits then say that the players should guarantee their $$$. You can't have it both ways.

No owner is forced to sign any guaranteed contract (except possibly for first-round draft picks). They sign guaranteed contracts to prevent another owner from signing that player instead. It's called competition in the marketplace. The owners want to limit the competition by disallowing what other owners can offer. The difference here, which is probably why you were confused on this, is that in this situation labor has an edge in negotiations, and the corporations are tryingt to neutralize that edge, rather than the other way around, as is typical in labor negotiations.

If we got rid of unions building costs would drop, plumber costs would drop, car prices would drop, basically everything would become affordable.

Feel free to buy your new business in China, Mexico, etc. No union worries anymore. Look at all that did for their countries.

I have a lot of employees.

Unless you're over 120 years old, I don't think you had any significant business management experience in the time before unions.

Heck, I bet just as many non-union employees are being taken advantage of as unionized employees.

Non-union empolyees benefits from unions, in part because of the threat to unionize if conditions get too bad.

Take for example, Ronnie Price. I bet he doesn't want a lockout.

None of the players do. Lock-outs are actions taken by businesses, not labor. If you are saying Ronnie Price would happily play under the contract offered by the owners, perhaps. Would the owners want to field teams of 15 players where the top talent level is Ronnie Price?

I do agree with your last paragraph. Lock the players out, make the league profitable (which means making it competitive, cutting salaries, getting rid of guaranteed contracts, etc), then bring it back.

Do you agree there is a difference between making the league as a whole profitable, versus every franchise, and it is the players job (as a group, not as individuals) to help in the former, but not necessarily the latter?

 

[One Brow]

The idea that the only reason companies treat their employees with any kind of respect being solely due to unions is so antiquated it isn't funny.

You treat empolyees according the effort it takes to replace them, in any business. Unions changed that for low-skill employees. High-skill employees never needed the help.

 

[One Brow]

Incentives would be a good thing for the CBA. Get paid so much if you play X amount of games, points,assist,etc.

The current CBA already allows for incentives.

 

[One Brow]

i thought aldridge's proposals were weak, and ignored all the real issues. this will be settled when the players agree to a major cut in their BRI share and the owners agree to ease their cost concerns with some enhanced rev sharing. 90% of what aldridge proposed in his article was not even worthy of being called "secondary" issues.

Aldridge proposed a change in BRI to a 50-50 split. That's the approximate split at several restaurants I've worked for (50% of income went to labor on a typical day). That issue is "not even ... secondary"?

 

[zbone]

No owner is forced to sign any guaranteed contract (except possibly for first-round draft picks). They sign guaranteed contracts to prevent another owner from signing that player instead. It's called competition in the marketplace. The owners want to limit the competition by disallowing what other owners can offer. The difference here, which is probably why you were confused on this, is that in this situation labor has an edge in negotiations, and the corporations are tryingt to neutralize that edge, rather than the other way around, as is typical in labor negotiations.

The problem is NBA is not Adam Smith's open market where in theory weakest competitors die when not able to compete for customer. When poorly run businesses vanish this makes market healthier to a certain extent. However, in the NBA that would mean opposite. With existing system in longterm you will end up with 5-10 teams with huge markets and the whole league turning into big Globethrotters circus and consequently dying because of lack of audience. If porr teams don't spend much they lose fans and then money. If they spend much they lose money straight away. It's lose-lose no matter how you run your business under current agreement.

 

[One Brow]

The problem is NBA is not Adam Smith's open market ...

I agree many of the priciples Adam Smith relied on, at least as explained second-hand since I have not read him directly, just don't work in a modern corporate environment, and certainly not the NBA. Sorry if my post was confusing in that regard.

 

[write4u]

I haven't been paying close attention to the specifics of the issue, but the bottom line is that the salaries professional athletes make is obscene. It's difficult to sympathize with them, not that I sympathize with corporate America either, but if teams are unable to make a profit, then the players need to look at the long-term financial health of the league and accept "austerity" measures -- wouldn't we all love to have to deal with their austerity measures.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I haven't been paying close attention to the specifics of the issue, but the bottom line is that the salaries professional athletes make is obscene. It's difficult to sympathize with them, not that I sympathize with corporate America either, but if teams are unable to make a profit, then the players need to look at the long-term financial health of the league and accept "austerity" measures -- wouldn't we all love to have to deal with their austerity measures.

Nice alt account.

 

[carolinajazz]

the bottom line is that the salaries professional athletes make is obscene. It's difficult to sympathize with them.

....bingo! Throw in the pathetic way they look and act...both on and off the court....and this lockout should last for years!!!