The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

[Joey]

From SLAM:

For the players, getting rid of their union is not a new idea. It’s just an option that hasn’t moved ahead very much since it was introduced.

But all of that may soon change.

With NBA labor talks set to resume tomorrow in New York, according to multiple published reports, some 50 hard-line and extremely frustrated NBA players — guys like Paul Pierce, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, Ray Allen etc. — are seriously looking into decertifying the union if the framework of a deal that’s considered fair can’t be reached this weekend.

The NY Times reports:

About 50 players, including some All-Stars, are planning a drive to dissolve their union if talks again falter, or if the talks produce a labor deal that they deem unpalatable, according to a person who has spoken with the group. The threat could throw a wrench into negotiations as league and union officials attempt to broker a deal, knowing that any compromise might trigger a legal battle that could last for months. “It’s a potential threat to all,” said Gabe Feldman, the director of the sports law program at Tulane University. “It could signal the breakdown of collective bargaining talks.”

Dissolving the union, also known as decertification, would allow the players to sue the N.B.A. under federal antitrust law, and could force the owners to end the lockout. But there are many potential obstacles, both legal and otherwise, and the decertification process could take two months. By that time, the entire 2011-12 season might be lost. The most immediate outcome of a decertification drive would be chaos, the mere threat of which could hasten a deal. Feldman said it could be “just another ploy to gain leverage” for the players and a “major weapon in collective bargaining.” But it also could make it tougher to reach a deal. The 50-player faction is essentially demanding that the union make no more concessions. That means holding firm for a 52.5 percent share of league revenue — as the union has done so far — and rejecting any new restrictions on contracts and free agency.

Decertification would signal the end of Billy Hunter’s run, and for that to take place, 30 players need to sign a petition, leading to an election, after which a majority win would trigger the dissolving of the union.

There’s no telling at the moment if this renewed push for union decertification will lead to action from either side of the labor fight, but due to the uncertainty it causes, the mere threat will undoubtedly place additional pressure on everyone to get a deal done soon.

That’s not such a bad thing.

Source

[Joey]

Basically, the NFL owners simply are in a better position that the NBA owners, so there was a lot less reason to continue to lock the players out.

80% of ALL revenues in the NFL are shared.
I can guarantee you that has alot to do with it.

[Joey]

To say the players have achieved nothing in these negotiations is ludicrous. Look at what a good portion of the owners were initially pushing for.

Not sure anyones saying the players have achieved 'nothing'.

The fact that the owners have backed off their initial claims so drastically should show you how ludicrous those claims were in the first place.

The players could have initially pushed for 70%... means nothing.



And how has the NBPA not Bargained in Good faith?

[jimmie]

Decertification does nothing but bad things for the non-elite players. I can't believe that 51% of them would be stupid enough to vote for it (or that 31% of them would even petition for a vote).

In the short term, as has been mentioned, the machinations of decert would take long enough to effectively negate the 2011-12 season. And there's no guarantee that contracts would not be invalidated by court ruling, which means there'd be effectively no rosters with which to re-start games anyway. And in that worst-case scenario for the players, they'd be left with nothing -- no contracts, nowhere to play, nothing.

In the long term, contraction is a given, and probably not just 3 or 4 teams. That means less jobs. That means an even bigger gap between the elite players and the rank-and-file. Just like real life. Which is why, when guys like Nash and Durant (who I love) say they're "standing for principle" and "looking out for future generations of players" etc., I have to grimace. While they might actually be that idealistic, this isn't Occupy Wall Street that they're doing. I have to believe they're simply too far removed from 'real life' to understand how little we care about their concept of "fairness". I'm all for 'standing up to The Man' when you're hard-done-by, but come on -- are any of these guys, including those making the league minimum, really hard-done-by?

Union decertification is a HUGE gamble for the players. Given the potential negative outcomes vs. the potential positives, it's pretty much a doomsday scenario. It makes sense for the ~50 or so elite or soon-to-be elite who stand to gain from a true open market (Wade really does believe that he's worth $50M per year, and he might actually get it in an open market from some over-rich dumbass owner). But if guys like Reddick think that's not going to have a trickle-down effect on them, to the point that they can kiss $3M/year contracts away in favour of $500,000, they need to give their head a shake.

[mcHAPPY]

Not sure anyones saying the players have achieved 'nothing'.

The fact that the owners have backed off their initial claims so drastically should show you how ludicrous those claims were in the first place.

The players could have initially pushed for 70%... means nothing.



And how has the NBPA not Bargained in Good faith?

Seriously? Ok.


The NBAPA has been seeking to keep a system the same that has created a league of have's and have not's while seeing over half the teams lose money and the league never making a profit over the duration of the just expired CBA. This is an old debate with 60 pages of comments. Except for 5-6 teams in the league, the current system is not achieving parity. The players have too much power and influence in roster shaping and decision making it is not healthy or long term viable for the league. However, the players don't care about this. They want to continue allowing a system where stars can buddy up, role players can be paid excessive amounts compared to their worth, and teams can amass over $100M payrolls while other teams simply cannot.

The players opposed a hard cap.... the owners relented.

The players opposed a strict punitive tax system.... the owners relented.

The players opposed removing a number of exemptions..... the owners relented.


The players have a choice to keep the freedom of player movement at 47% of BRI or more restrictions placed on player movement with 50% of BRI. Time to make a choice.


Like many fans, I'm getting fed up with this. If an agreement is not reached this weekend, I hope the players do decertify, the season (or more) is lost, and a worse agreement eventually is done.

When times are good, labour agreements reflect this. When times are bad, labour agreements reflect this. Times are bad.

[mcHAPPY]

Via Twitter:

Chris_Broussard Federal Mediator George Cohen will attend owner/player meeting Saturday, says NBA spokesman Tim Frank

[Hugmenot]

Decertification is the SOLE reason why the NFL Lockout was so short.

A surprising statement.

Personally, I think 31 of the 32 teams turning a profit was a much bigger factor in encouraging the owners to resolve the conflict before the regular season.

[Joey]

It was the only Leverage the NFLPA had, and they utilized it. And it worked.

You could speculate that had the players not decertified it would have been resolved just as quickly; but that is just that. Speculation.

It was upon the Decertification that steps were taken to remedy the situation, very quickly.
This is my understanding anyway.

[Joey]

The players have a choice to keep the freedom of player movement at 47% of BRI or more restrictions placed on player movement with 50% of BRI. Time to make a choice.

An ultimaturm like that indicates not bargaining in good faith.

I could say to you "Eat this Pile of Sh-t, or you can Eat this Pile of Bigger Sh-t."
You have to eat eventually, so if I just keep offering the exact same thing, you should eventually relent. Yes?

I'd probably go on a bit of a Hunger Strike before accepting either option.

[Hugmenot]

80% of ALL revenues in the NFL are shared.
I can guarantee you that has alot to do with it.

Where did you get that information?

The following summary PDF says 55% for this year with a minimum of 47% for each year covered in the CBA.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ary/index.html

[jimmie]

An ultimaturm like that indicates not bargaining in good faith.

I could say to you "Eat this Pile of Sh-t, or you can Eat this Pile of Bigger Sh-t."
You have to eat eventually, so if I just keep offering the exact same thing, you should eventually relent. Yes?

Yes. When not accepting the pile of sh-t now means that the next offer will be a 3 massive piles of sh-t that you have to swallow now, and you know that there will be nothing more if you wait than MORE piles of sh-t, you should accept the small pile RIGHT NOW before thing get worse. Negotiation doesn't mean you hold out until you win, it means you give/take until it's clear that the side with the most leverage is unwilling to give any more. Then you accept your losses and move on. Maybe the next time around, in 7-10 years when you have another chance to negotiate, the financial circumstances will be different (ie. the majority of teams aren't losing money, the best players aren't amassing on 3-4 teams, etc.) and your side will enjoy greater leverage.

I'd probably go on a bit of a Hunger Strike before accepting either option.

But would you wait until you were too weak to eat before giving it up? Is "the principle" at stake really that important to you?

[Hugmenot]

An ultimaturm like that indicates not bargaining in good faith.

I could say to you "Eat this Pile of Sh-t, or you can Eat this Pile of Bigger Sh-t."
You have to eat eventually, so if I just keep offering the exact same thing, you should eventually relent. Yes?

I'd probably go on a bit of a Hunger Strike before accepting either option.

One thing in the NBA owner's favor is all other employment options are worse for the vast, vast majority of the NBA players.

If player A expects he will play 3 more years in the NBA before he is no longer good enough, how long can he strike before the strike hurts his lifetime earnings? What about players who need to play another year before their rookie (or bargain value) contract runs out?

The financial pressure to accept any agreement will be huge on these players when the union money runs out. Although they can always decide to go in hunger strike on principle like you suggest, a spouse, family member, or advisor may persuade them that losing their hourse and lifestyle is a hefty price to pay for principles.

[mcHAPPY]

An ultimaturm like that indicates not bargaining in good faith.

I could say to you "Eat this Pile of Sh-t, or you can Eat this Pile of Bigger Sh-t."
You have to eat eventually, so if I just keep offering the exact same thing, you should eventually relent. Yes?

I'd probably go on a bit of a Hunger Strike before accepting either option.

It has been 2 years of staring one another down with owners looking for radical and players seeking the same - both positions were unrealistic starting points.

Real negotiations started about a month ago when the pressure to get a deal before preseason was cancelled and both sides have relented.

The owners have given an ultimatum of two choices. Not taking less than 52/52.5% of BRI or else we decertify sounds like an ultimatum as well. Also the players have refused to budge on 'blood' issues - that does not sound like negotiations being done in 'good faith'.

The example of eating sh!t versus having to make a choice between making $5M in LA, Chicago, NY, or Miami versus making the same money or more in Utah, Indiana, Sacramento, or Portland is a bit much. The system issues remain as much of a source of conflict as BRI and the system issues show the greed of the players, in my opinion.

[planetmars]

I'm curious - for the guys rooting for the players in the player vs owner argument, can I ask you how you think that can help the Raptors out? Wouldn't you want to see a set of rules in a new CBA that gives the Raptors a better chance of winning? Isn't this what it should be about?

I personally couldn't care less how much the players make or how much the owners make - that really is irrelevant to me as a fan. I just want the Raptors to have a better chance at winning. We've seen the Raptors for the past 15 years. We've only been to the second round once, and that was when our best player was under a rookie contract. If there were more options for free agents, with less money to go around to help teams maximize their talent pool, isn't that a good thing?

I think a lot of the owners are greedy bastards, who probably lied about their losses, and are trying to squeeze the players out of their earnings when they probably don't need to.. but, if they get what they want, then I believe the Raptors will have a better chance of competing. If the players 'win' then we are back to status-quo which would mean seeing the Lakers and Heat in the finals for the next several years.

Are the guys who are on the players side secretly Heat fans?

[mcHAPPY]

From SLAM:



Source

In this link the author states 30 players need to sign a petition when in fact it is 30% of players which would be around 135.

NBA players need 30 percent of their membership to sign a petition saying they no longer wish to be represented by a union, which would be submitted for approval to the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB then would conduct a vote, which would require 226 players to approve the decertification.

Even if players do go forward with decertification, their chances of success in the courtroom could be harmed by the NFLPA's experience there this summer. A federal judge in St. Paul, Minn., initially ruled that the NFL union's antitrust case had merit and issued an injunction that forced the league to lift the lockout.

But that ruling was overturned on appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court in St. Louis, and the two sides came to agreement on a new deal in July after losing only one preseason game.

The NBA already has filed a lawsuit seeking to retain their antitrust exemption even if the players dissolve the union. Federal Judge Paul Gardephe did not immediately issue a ruling when the two sides met in court this week.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/71...ks-sources-say

Let me be clear that I hope the threat of decertification gets a deal done. However a rule of parenting is never make a threat you won't follow through with. Decertification is a threat that if followed through could hurt the players more than any deal the owners are offering - it could also be to their advantage. This is the unknown risk the players are pursuing.