MLB Lockout Thread

[Tony-OH]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So the owners are faultless here?

 

The MLBPA by turning down mediation takes on all blame now for any work stoppage. They MLBPA should be drained of their leadership. They are money hungry idiots who are clueless to the state of the MLB right now.

They have found a way in these "negotiations" make the owners look good, and you know how hard it is to make Billionaire owners look like the fair ones?

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

MLBPA doesn't want the fairness of mediator. They are all about winning at all costs. More money, less fairness. Less competition, but a few more dollars in their pockets to play in front of less people as fans continue to drop baseball in favor of other entertainment options. 

The MLBPA is the problem and will be the downfall of baseball as we know it unless the players wake up and get new leadership.

Please understand that a mediator doesn’t make any decisions.   He’s/she’s just an intermediary who helps the two sides get to yes.   The mediator might say to one side, “have you thought about offering X?”   Or, “have you considered conceding X in exchange for Y?”   Or, the mediator might say, “I think you might be wrong about the economic impact of Z, for the following reason…”.   Sometimes, he just shuttles back and forth between the two sides because they can’t stand to be in the same room together.   But the mediator has no power to force either side to agree to anything.   So, fairness isn’t really an issue.   

[wildcard]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Please understand that a mediator doesn’t make any decisions.   He’s/she’s just an intermediary who helps the two sides get to yes.   The mediator might say to one side, “have you thought about offering X?”   Or, “have you considered conceding X in exchange for Y?”   Or, the mediator might say, “I think you might be wrong about the economic impact of Z, for the following reason…”.   Sometimes, he just shuttles back and forth between the two sides because they can’t stand to be in the same room together.   But the mediator has no power to force either side to agree to anything.   So, fairness isn’t really an issue.   

Isn't that non binding mediation?

[forphase1]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Please understand that a mediator doesn’t make any decisions.   He’s/she’s just an intermediary who helps the two sides get to yes.   The mediator might say to one side, “have you thought about offering X?”   Or, “have you considered conceding X in exchange for Y?”   Or, the mediator might say, “I think you might be wrong about the economic impact of Z, for the following reason…”.   Sometimes, he just shuttles back and forth between the two sides because they can’t stand to be in the same room together.   But the mediator has no power to force either side to agree to anything.   So, fairness isn’t really an issue.   

It sometimes depends on the mediator too.  I was once part of a divorce case, and the judge ordered mediation as the parties were on vastly different sides as far as how they thought things like child visitation and the like should be handled.  During the mediations the mediator basically told one of the parties that they weren't being fair, and that the demands they were trying to force were unreasonable and that no judge was ever going to sign off on a plan like they were proposing.  Granted, divorce is vastly different than a collective bargaining agreement, but it is possible for the mediator to take things in hand a bit if he thinks one side is being unreasonable or unfair.  But as to the rest you are completely right.  They have no real power, just try to grease the workings between the parties and sometimes a 'neutral' perspective can be beneficial since both sides are very partial to their own wishes and desires.  As a fan I'd certainly rather see them discussing things with a mediator than not discussing things at all.  

[Frobby]

So why turn down a mediator?   My guess is the union wants to show the owners that they’re not afraid of a delay in the season if that’s what it takes to get a deal they think is fair.   

I’m not a labor lawyer, but I’ve used mediators to help resolve disputes many times.   The timing of when to suggest mediation is a tricky one.   I’m in a mediation now that hasn’t gone very well, and I think the problem is the parties should have negotiated directly for a longer period before going to mediation.   But most times, a mediator is able to help by allowing each side to hear from a neutral party what their risks might be.   The process is a little different for a labor dispute than a legal dispute, since in the latter, if the parties can’t agree, a judge or jury will impose a result.    
 

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Isn't that non binding mediation?

Right, which is all this would be.   

[forphase1]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Isn't that non binding mediation?

Most mediation is non-binding.  This isn't like an arbitration, where you go in front of a 'neutral' party who makes a ruling and basically can decide the issue.  Sometimes those situations are called mediations also, but they really aren't.  Unless the parties have agreed to let the mediator determine the outcome, all a mediator can do is bring a different perspective and work out negotiations between the parties, but nothing is finalized until the parties agree to whatever is decided.  

[Sports Guy]

 

[Pickles]

13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

If the owners were supposed to deliver a counter offer, and failed to do so, that changes the situation for me.

[wildcard]

I don't expect to see MLB baseball this season.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't expect to see MLB baseball this season.

You expect them to lockout the whole season?

I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.

[Ohfan67]

6 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't expect to see MLB baseball this season.

You went from "they will agree to disagree and restart baseball" to "no baseball all season in a month"???  Say it ain't so Wildcard! 

[wildcard]

53 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

You went from "they will agree to disagree and restart baseball" to "no baseball all season in a month"???  Say it ain't so Wildcard! 

I don't like where this is headed.  These two sides hate each other.  Its not about finding an agreement.  Its about one wants to beat the other.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't like where this is headed.  These two sides hate each other.  Its not about finding an agreement.  It about one wants to beat the other.

It's been like that for 50+ years.

We've never lost a whole season before.

And we won't this time either.

[Ohfan67]

25 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't like where this is headed.  These two sides hate each other.  Its not about finding an agreement.  Its about one wants to beat the other.

I agree that they don't like each other, but disagree about "one wants to beat the other." It's about money. It has always been about money and always will be about money. The players and owners have been headed for a nasty labor dispute for years. They can't agree on how much money there is to split, much less how to split it. I always thought this would be a "real" strike/lockout, not a late spring break kind of thing. Both sides will have to hurt a bit before they are in the mood to compromise. I'm not more pessimistic this week than I was a month ago because I have always been pessimistic.