strato

Not all unions are bad man....we need to quit selling ourselves down the river...and stick together...thats what made this country...

nogumbo4u

I agree with you brother. I come from a family of union members and we do need to stick together. The idea of a union is great but with all things in a corporate society such as ours, what starts as a good idea often gets corrupted and misused. When unions were organized the common man had no voice. The only thing someone knew about current events was what happened to make it into their local paper. Now, some jackass preacher in BF Florida wants to burn a Qur'an and it's an international incident that, not only, the president chimes in on but the leader of our forces in the middle east, but that's a whole different subject.

My point is that everything is out there for everyone to see. The kind of labor abuses that rallyed labor unions together in the first place are not going to go unchecked as they did. I'll say this again, unions ABSOLUTELY served their purpose in history (THANK GOD FOR THE LABOR LAWS THEY HELPED TO CREATE). But they, like most big businesses (and they have become a business) have succomed to power grabs, political influence and in some cases corruption. All the while you and I pay the price, union or not.

How does this relate to the NFL? Same thing has happened in the NFL. Players were payed peanuts and had no rules to protect them on the field. They had no benefits to help them pay for medical care after retirement. Football players were left with a lifetime of misery for almost nothing in return. The players unionized and set the record straight. Now, you have young players who don't even know about the history of the NFL and what it took to get them the big salaries and medical treatment. They come into the NFL with a sense of entitlement. They want more, the owners aren't going to take less. All of the back and forth and negotiating and meetings and lawyers and on and on comes with an administrative cost that is pushed down to us...the fan.

At the end of the day they are arguing over how much of OUR money are they going to demand from US in order to see our team play.

I know you don't HAVE to buy season tickets. Tell that to a Saints fan this year.

Proud member of the Who Dat Nation since 1974.

strato

I agree..there needs to be a rookie cap...and remember our beloved Mr. Brees is spearheading a lot of this..If i was a player ..i would probably be doing the same thing....i just hope they can work this out and keep the game i love from going in the crapper...

Cruize

A local unionized plant went on strike for better pay a few months back. Now, 200+ guys who were making $20+/Hour (lowest) are out of work. The plant owners said screw you and shut the plant down.

xan

I'm going to tread into this thread lightly. Being an economist who is in a union, and also a business owner who has employed union labor, I may not have a unique perspective, but I can add a few things. They won't clear anything up or sway one to a particular side, but they are worth factoring into one's opinion.

1) Entitlement. One is entitled to what one negotiates with the payer. Vernon Davis (VD) negotiated the highest paying contract in NFL history for a tight end. As long as he performs as per the contract, he is entitled to any and all compensation specified in the contract. I find that concept getting diluted by the misperception that the term implies "worth" in a value judgment sense relative to the rest of society. It is not. Entitlement is simply between the two contractual parties. So, for a second week, we must make SF regret having VD.
2) Relativism/Social Justice. Born in the United States, in the later part of the 20th century, to a family of means, Alex Smith had a knack for throwing an oblong ball to another person. Born anywhere else on the planet, his skills would not command much in the marketplace; had he been born in Zimbabwe, for example, he would not even have had the chance to throw a ball, much less get paid for it. Farmers and teachers command orders of magnitude higher salaries than people who can throw balls in Zimbabwe. So it is with great cosmic fortune he works in a country whose society values ball throwing, and works for an employer who is willing to pay him a top 10 contract for throwing a ball to people. It is not that our society doesn’t value farming or teaching, it is just that at this unique point in time, it values ball throwing more. As long as Smith pays his taxes, he should earn whatever his culture is willing to pay. So, let’s see if Alex Smith continues to get his entitlements if he throws those balls to our players. I hope he has a teaching degree to fall back on.
3) Market Power - A. Individuals hold little market power to negotiate higher than market rates for services. When individuals collude, they can leverage potential withholding of services to gain premium wages. Competition is the enemy of premium wages, so colluding individuals need to have enough membership to have leverage, but not so much that the benefits of collusion become too diluted. The opposite is true, as fewer buyers drive down market prices. This is one of those situations where both sides wish to limit membership and drive market prices to favorable positions. Inducing defection is the goal of each side towards the other. Owners are going to count on the rank and file player earning the lowest wages to defect, as they have far fewer resources to commit to a prolonged period of unemployment. Small market owners need the group to justify franchise valuation and maximize total return. Players are hoping that big market teams, with the allure of breaking away from the pack and earning a higher return on investment, will force a disbanding of the owners who will negotiate higher salaries based on their expected higher yields. Each side is counting on maintaining its membership to maximize its leverage over the other side.
4) Market Power – B. Competitive balance stemming from collusion of both sides to limit wages and to equally distribute (most) revenues has served to increase the foundation of the major sources of revenues. Because each team competes with the same level of resources, its deployment of those limited resources determines its competitive outcome. Without a negotiated balance, a similar situation to Major League Baseball would occur, where only a few teams are competitively viable, and thereby profitable. Baseball franchise values fluctuate with regional demand for television revenues, creating lower potential revenues and lower potential wages/returns on investment. Highly productive players, whose negotiated relative salaries command a premium, but with no teams capable of paying that premium, will either have to accept lower salaries or not play at all. This situation has resulted in depressed value for smaller market teams and lower market share, revenues and profitability for baseball as a whole.
5) Anarchy. Otherwise known as Darwinism, Survival of the Fittest, The Free Market and Touch S*$T, Deal With It. Unregulated Free Markets will go through episodes of collusion, surpluses and shortages. Every participant will try to extract maximum value, driving costs down and finding price/quality pressure points that achieve maximum profitability. A paradox similar to that of the Pittsburgh Pirates can occur where one can field a truly uncompetitive product yet still be highly profitable. They are the “Sham-Wow” of professional sports.
6) Morality. Regardless of whether one believes in Social Justice or Anarchy, morality is irrelevant. Because “right” and “wrong” are intrinsic to one’s position on the field (or skybox), one should hear, but not factor in biased value judgments. Rules governing the process should dictate the ethics. If it is agreed that competitive balance is “good for the game” or long run profit maximizing, then rules promoting those outcomes should be enacted and enforced. If it agreed that competitive balance has no impact on long run profit maximization, then restrictions should be removed from participants.

As an ironic note, I find it very interesting that the Union (by definition, a collusive organization) wishes to decertify for the sole purpose of promoting a government intervention in relief of negotiating against a collusive ownership. If one has an “anarchistic” position, you don’t care about collusion and you don’t want government intervention. If you are a “justice seeker,” you only care about the minimum contract between parties, and collusion only truly matters if the minimum is less than that of what any American can expect from his society. This would be similar to investment bankers filing suit with the Federal Government to get a higher piece of the Goldman Sachs/Barclay’s/et al. pie. I’m not sure either side will be happy letting our Federal Government decide what’s in the best interest of the Game.

Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger."
Hobbes: "Common lament."

bobad

Currently, the Government sides heavily with unions. The owners wouldn't get fair treatment in arbitration.

subguy

jeanpierre

Well, this is the thing...

Players have too big a percentage of the pie(.)

The moves to alienate the fans (pay per view gravitation, more boxes, less seats, exclusivity ticket distribution) should anger fans to boycott merchandising (Buy Who Dat Shirts without NFL mdse logos)

And with each franchise doing over a couple of billion dollars each year, I know this much...

We should not have to fund stadiums.

We really should have more resources for education.

We really need to adjust tax codes to a flat tax rate.

We should have to pay for parking at games.

xan

The distribution of revenues was a negotiated allocation. The next allocation looks to be different. Value judgment over the allocation is irrelevant. The owners are only entitled to that allocation they negotiate. There is no moral desert to any preordained share.

Flat taxes are regressive, which means they disproportionately burden the
poor. Historically, flat taxes have ensured that wealth generation by the bottom strata of wage earners is stunted and that wealth distribution polarizes to the top tier. Accordingly, economic activity falls and the economy shrinks. History shows that progressive tax systems distribute tax burden so that lower tiered wage earners generate wealth, which in turn INCREASES the total wealth of the top tiers. It is understandable to believe that a flat tax is "fair" but it has no relation to how a flat tax actually performs in an economy.

Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger."
Hobbes: "Common lament."

bobad

What? No they don't. If you have a 10% flat tax, a "poor" person making 25K pays $2500 in tax. A "rich" person making 250K pays $25000 in taxes. Which would you rather pay, 2.5K or 25K?

If you want to pay more, just send it in. The IRS will gladly take it.