Donald Fehr Stepping Down

[Migrant Redbird]

... Multiple factors combined to harm Detroit. In order of negative impact, I think a complete analysis would rank them as:

• 1. Decades of bad management (not the recent guys, but the generations prior to them).

I think the worst of the bad management was an inability to cope with the damage being inflicted upon the industry by the union.

... So, yes, relations between the union and management is definitely on the list, but it's at the bottom.

I think that you have the rankings upside down.

... It is also a 2-way street that involves both labor and management.

Isn't everything?

... Back to baseball... it's not at all clear that the union has harmed the long term interests of it's members.

When it comes to PEDs, I would contend that it's extremely clear. The PA has protected individuals who were engaged in criminal behavior and damaging the sport at the expense of their fellow members.

... IMO, the main thing the union has done poorly is (a) PR and (b) expand its scope to include its incoming members (the MiL guys). I guess you could say its debatable whether they should do the 2nd one, but I don't think the first one (about PR) is debatable.

Again, you have it backwards. For the most part, the PA has done pretty well at maintaining a favorable public image, both for the organization and for its members individually. However, the CBA has a definite impact upon minor league players and I believe they are exploited to a degree so that the PA could negotiate more privileges for its senior members.

[RShack]

I think the worst of the bad management was an inability to cope with the damage being inflicted upon the industry by the union.

You can think that if you like, but it's a bogus conclusion. If you study what transpired in the industry over the last 40 years, including the impact of management decisions that had zip to do with labor/management relations, you would know that position is simply not defensible. It is nothing but an ideological talking point.

[RShack]

If you regard MLB as a single employer, which it is in effect, then players were -- and still are -- more or less fairly restricted in the terms under which they can be employed.

When the Reserve Clause was in effect, the idea that players were "fairly compensated" is absurd. They were told what salary they would take, and there was nothing they could do about it except risk or terminate their professional career. There was no such thing as labor-management relations, except for the 1-way street of the owners dictating everything, while keeping all the money for themselves. Using the convenient phrase, "if you regard MLB as a single employer" doesn't change that. The owners controlled the entire industry, and the guys who made money for them had about zero leverage. It's a perfect example of what's wrong with a monopoly that is granted special power by the government with no standards of reasonable fairness at any level. It was as if every school teacher, or engineer, or registered nurse, or whoever, could be hired by only one employer and could not take a job anywhere else in the nation. Saying that kind of arrangement is "fair" is one of the more ridiculous things I've seen written on this board, and that's saying a lot.

[geschinger]

When the Reserve Clause was in effect, the idea that players were "fairly compensated" is absurd. They were told what salary they would take, and there was nothing they could do about it except risk or terminate their professional career. There was no such thing as labor-management relations, except for the 1-way street of the owners dictating everything, while keeping all the money for themselves. Using the convenient phrase, "if you regard MLB as a single employer" doesn't change that. The owners controlled the entire industry, and the guys who made money for them had about zero leverage. It's a perfect example of what's wrong with a monopoly that is granted special power by the government with no standards of reasonable fairness at any level. It was as if every school teacher, or engineer, or registered nurse, or whoever, could be hired by only one employer and could not take a job anywhere else in the nation. Saying that kind of arrangement is "fair" is one of the more ridiculous things I've seen written on this board, and that's saying a lot.

There are choices for players who don't want to associate with MLB. There are at least half a dozen if not more options for players who want to play ball professionally.

[Migrant Redbird]

When the Reserve Clause was in effect, the idea that players were "fairly compensated" is absurd. They were told what salary they would take, and there was nothing they could do about it except risk or terminate their professional career. There was no such thing as labor-management relations, except for the 1-way street of the owners dictating everything, while keeping all the money for themselves. Using the convenient phrase, "if you regard MLB as a single employer" doesn't change that. The owners controlled the entire industry, and the guys who made money for them had about zero leverage. It's a perfect example of what's wrong with a monopoly that is granted special power by the government with no standards of reasonable fairness at any level. It was as if every school teacher, or engineer, or registered nurse, or whoever, could be hired by only one employer and could not take a job anywhere else in the nation. Saying that kind of arrangement is "fair" is one of the more ridiculous things I've seen written on this board, and that's saying a lot.

I guess that you've never served in the military then, have you?

In fact, most jobs that I've seen have afforded individual employees fairly little "leverage" when it comes to negotiating salary and working conditions. There are few of us whose talents are sufficiently unique that we can demand a certain salary and then walk away without some trepidation about finding another employer willing to pay a comparable wage.

Just because ballplayers prior to abolishment of the reserve clause and the advent of free agency didn't receive the kinds of "obscene" salaries that today's players do, doesn't mean that they were "mistreated" like galley slaves, although that seems to be the popular misconception. Ballplayers were still compensated well by comparison with the average fan who bought the tickets that helped pay their salaries, not to mention all the fringe benefits like adulation from adoring fans, compliant "Annies" everywhere they played, and commercial opportunities.

Baseball is not a "monopoly" in the context of the 19th century battles against the barons who controlled the supply of essential commodities and services. Just as fans don't have to buy tickets, players have many other opportunities to play, albeit at a lower level of competition and compensation. There is no "entitlement" to play for a major league team, regardless of ability.

[DrungoHazewood]

There are choices for players who don't want to associate with MLB. There are at least half a dozen if not more options for players who want to play ball professionally.

That's like saying that someone who doesn't want to go through the process of being elected President of the United States could instead get a similar experience by being elected president of their homeowners association.

If you're a top baseball player you can either:

a) Throw your lot in with MLB's monopoly.

b) Go halfway around the world to a radically different culture to play for a lot less money.

c) Play in an indy league for a few thousand dollars a year.

[DrungoHazewood]

I guess that you've never served in the military then, have you?

In fact, most jobs that I've seen have afforded individual employees fairly little "leverage" when it comes to negotiating salary and working conditions. There are few of us whose talents are sufficiently unique that we can demand a certain salary and then walk away without some trepidation about finding another employer willing to pay a comparable wage.

Baseball players have talents sufficiently unique that they can demand a certain salary and get it. Well, if they've satisfied the conditions the MLB monopoly places upon them with regards to service time.

Just because ballplayers prior to abolishment of the reserve clause and the advent of free agency didn't receive the kinds of "obscene" salaries that today's players do, doesn't mean that they were "mistreated" like galley slaves, although that seems to be the popular misconception. Ballplayers were still compensated well by comparison with the average fan who bought the tickets that helped pay their salaries, not to mention all the fringe benefits like adulation from adoring fans, compliant "Annies" everywhere they played, and commercial opportunities.

Baseball is not a "monopoly" in the context of the 19th century battles against the barons who controlled the supply of essential commodities and services. Just as fans don't have to buy tickets, players have many other opportunities to play, albeit at a lower level of competition and compensation. There is no "entitlement" to play for a major league team, regardless of ability.

Like I said in my previous post, the idea that playing in a foreign country or a tiny independent league is an option is laughable. That's like telling me, as an engineer, that I could work for IBM completely on their terms, move to Tokyo and work for Samsung, or work in my Uncle Fred's TV repair shop. And that's more than fair because I have options.

I've yet to hear anyone articulate why a practice (the draft) that would be struck down in a nanosecond in any other industry is thought to be the only possible way to operate in sports.

[scOtt]

A powerful, national union leader survives his whole career, retires, and doesn't end up in jail or the Giants Stadium endzone...

There's at least something good to say about baseball.

[geschinger]

I've yet to hear anyone articulate why a practice (the draft) that would be struck down in a nanosecond in any other industry is thought to be the only possible way to operate in sports.

In practice it isn't all that different other than context with other professions. A friend of mine is a teacher in SoFla. She wants to teach at the school that is closest to where she lives but until she reaches service time parameters set by the parent organization she can be assigned to any school that the district wants her to teach at at the salary determined also by service time. Seems to me to be a similar setup only instead of the individual schools getting to pick their teachers in a draft they are simply assigned by the parent org. I haven't heard about any challenges to that system being used.

[DrungoHazewood]

In practice it isn't all that different other than context with other professions. A friend of mine is a teacher in SoFla. She wants to teach at the school that is closest to where she lives but until she reaches service time parameters set by the parent organization she can be assigned to any school that the district wants her to teach at at the salary determined also by service time. Seems to me to be a similar setup only instead of the individual schools getting to pick their teachers in a draft they are simply assigned by the parent org. I haven't heard about any challenges to that system being used.

Is she free to shop her services to other school districts around the country, or the world? She's choosing to live in a district that operates this way because she thinks that the benefits of living there outweigh the professional negatives. Choosing.

It's not like she wants to work in Southern Florida, but the teaching monopoly is forcing her to work in Plattsburgh, NY for six years.

[geschinger]

Is she free to shop her services to other school districts around the country, or the world? She's choosing to live in a district that operates this way because she thinks that the benefits of living there outweigh the professional negatives. Choosing.

It's not like she wants to work in Southern Florida, but the teaching monopoly is forcing her to work in Plattsburgh, NY for six years.

The analogy with teaching is similar although geograhically there is a big difference... If a player wants to work for one of the 30 organizations that make up MLB they have to work within the structure and rules that MLB has setup. If a teacher wants to work for one of the 100 or so schools that make up the PBCSD they have to work within the structure and rules that the PBCSD has setup.

Choice... Like the teacher, a player who is unhappy with MLB is free to shop their services to other leagues. It may not be a good option but it is an option. While it is hard to fathom anyone concluding that the benefits of avoiding MLB outweighs the professional negatives it is still an option and I am unclear as to why you think it is not an option.

The situation with MLB is no different than the compromises people with very specialized skills have to make.

[DrungoHazewood]

The analogy with teaching is similar although geograhically there is a big difference... If a player wants to work for one of the 30 organizations that make up MLB they have to work within the structure and rules that MLB has setup. If a teacher wants to work for one of the 100 or so schools that make up the PBCSD they have to work within the structure and rules that the PBCSD has setup.

Choice... Like the teacher, a player who is unhappy with MLB is free to shop their services to other leagues. It may not be a good option but it is an option. While it is hard to fathom anyone concluding that the benefits of avoiding MLB outweighs the professional negatives it is still an option and I am unclear as to why you think it is not an option.

The situation with MLB is no different than the compromises people with very specialized skills have to make.

Sorry, I think that comparison is pretty ridiculous. There are hundreds or thousands of places in the United States where teachers can work. They have hundreds of different ways of allocating resources, of paying employees, of promoting people. There are public school systems, charter schools, private schools, religious schools. The pay varies greatly from bad to great. There's a world of choice there.

In baseball, if you want to be paid anything like the going rate for being a great player, you play wherever MLB sends you for whatever they want to pay you. That's it. The only other semi-quasi-sort-of-plausible solution that almost no one has ever even tried is to skip MLB altogether and go to Japan or Korea or Taiwan and play for a lot less money.

You analogy breaks down because a MLB-quality player moving to Japan or playing for $8000 a year is a bit (and by "a bit" I mean radically) different than teaching in Orlando instead of Ft. Lauderdale.

[Migrant Redbird]

... If you're a top baseball player you can either:

a) Throw your lot in with MLB's monopoly.

b) Go halfway around the world to a radically different culture to play for a lot less money.

c) Play in an indy league for a few thousand dollars a year.

So what? It's still a set of options which neither I nor most baseball fans ever had.

A top baseball player has always had considerable leverage. Even in the dark old days of the reserve clause, those bad old owners still had to pay their top players enough to keep them from holding out or switching careers. While the resulting compensation might not be "fair" in the context of today's bloated salaries, it was still pretty darned good when compared with all the alternatives, such as working on an automobile assembly line, itself a lot better than most menial occupations.

I've not been able to locate major league average or minimum salaries for the reserve clause days -- only for individual star players -- prior to 1970. Baseball Almanac has average and minimum salaries since 1970, and I've put together a table comparing those with the U.S. median household income (not individual salaries) for the same years.

         Avg HHD        Year    Income in       AL Min Salary             AL Avg Salary Year  2006 Dollars             2006 Dollars             2006 Dollars1970     $39,604     $12,000     $62,350      $29,303     $152,255 1971     $39,196     $12,750     $63,467      $31,543     $157,014 1972     $40,843     $13,500     $65,110      $34,092     $164,424 1973     $41,688     $15,000     $68,108      $36,566     $166,029 1974     $40,383     $15,000     $61,639      $40,839     $167,001 1975     $39,302     $16,000     $59,955      $44,676     $167,410 1976     $39,961     $19,000     $67,318      $51,501     $182,485 1977     $40,187     $19,000     $63,208      $76,066     $253,051 1978     $42,725     $21,000     $64,932      $99,876     $308,819 1979     $42,606     $21,000     $58,316     $113,588     $315,418 1980     $41,258     $30,000     $73,398     $143,756     $351,714 1981     $40,573     $32,500     $72,079     $185,651     $411,741 1982     $40,465     $33,500     $69,985     $241,497     $504,516 1983     $40,438     $35,000     $70,843     $289,194     $585,356 1984     $41,430     $40,000     $77,613     $329,408     $639,159 1985     $42,205     $60,000    $112,416     $371,571     $696,178 1986     $43,699     $60,000    $110,365     $412,520     $758,796 1987     $44,247     $62,500    $110,915     $412,454     $731,961 1988     $44,587     $62,500    $106,509     $438,729     $747,657 1989     $45,382     $68,000    $110,555     $512,084     $832,549 1990     $44,778    $100,000    $154,246     $578,930     $892,978 1991     $43,492    $100,000    $148,018     $891,188   $1,319,115 1992     $43,135    $109,000    $156,624   $1,084,408   $1,558,209 1993     $42,926    $109,000    $152,072   $1,120,254   $1,562,929 1994     $43,405    $109,000    $148,275   $1,188,679   $1,616,988 1995     $44,764    $109,000    $144,189   $1,071,029   $1,416,974 1996     $45,416    $109,000    $140,054   $1,176,967   $1,512,279 1997     $46,350    $150,000    $188,411   $1,383,578   $1,383,578 1998     $48,034    $170,000    $210,258   $1,441,406   $1,782,745 1999     $49,244    $200,000    $242,017   $1,720,050   $2,081,405 2000     $49,163    $200,000    $234,146   $1,998,034   $2,339,162 2001     $48,091    $200,000    $227,797   $2,654,403   $3,023,320 2002     $47,530    $200,000    $224,125   $2,383,235   $2,670,707 2003     $47,488    $300,000    $328,696   $2,555,476   $2,799,913 2004     $47,323    $300,000    $320,169   $2,486,609   $2,653,787 2005     $47,845    $316,000    $326,194   $2,632,655   $2,889,677 2006     $48,201    $327,000    $327,000   $2,866,544   $2,866,544 

What the table above shows is that even rookie major league players had an income about 50% higher than the average American household in the latter days of the reserve clause, while the average baseball player's income was quadruple that of the average household. For some strange reason, I find it difficult to feel all that sorry for those "wretchedly abused" baseball players.

[DrungoHazewood]

So what? It's still a set of options which neither I nor most baseball fans ever had.

...

Stuff...

...

For some strange reason, I find it difficult to feel all that sorry for those "wretchedly abused" baseball players.

I didn't think basic employer/employee rights were on a sliding scale based on salary. Maybe I skipped the "if you're rich, this stuff doesn't apply" parts of the law and the Constitution. Does one have to be wretchedly abused to expect the same treatment as eveyone else?

I guess it would be ok if Tom Criuse and Matt Damon got $100k for being in a movie that made $50M because, you know, $100k is a lot of money to an average person.

[Migrant Redbird]

I didn't think basic employer/employee rights were on a sliding scale based on salary. Maybe I skipped the "if you're rich, this stuff doesn't apply" parts of the law and the Constitution. Does one have to be wretchedly abused to expect the same treatment as eveyone else?

Where is it a "basic employee right" for an employee to dictate his salary employment terms to his employer? Employment terms are negotiated between the employer and employee, with each having the option to terminate the discussions and employment contract if they can't agree upon mutually acceptable terms. Baseball teams and players have always had the same option.

If I walked into my employer tomorrow morning and demanded a 50% salary increase or that I be transferred to the Hawaii office, I'd be offered the option to leave my job. If no other employer had the same kind of job available, and was willing to hire me, then I'd have to switch careers/line of work. Baseball players have always had that option too. No one has ever chained them to the dugout bench.

I guess it would be ok if Tom Criuse and Matt Damon got $100k for being in a movie that made $50M because, you know, $100k is a lot of money to an average person.

Yes, it would be completely OK. Tom Cruise and Matt Damon are perfectly capable of declining that opportunity to make a movie if they so choose.

Unlike a movie production company, a baseball team can not operate independently. While baseball teams compete on the field, they cooperate off the field to create the framework under which they operate. Thus, they're not really independent companies, but a kind of consortium.