carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....sounds like alot of if, and's and buts to me!
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
....sounds like alot of if, and's and buts to me!
Equalize, not limit. In an ecomony where the largest employer has less than 50 people, unions aren't needed. When employers gain the power through size to artificially depress wages, unions restore the balance.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
And or gouge the consumer or company they work for. Don't you just love the UAW?
I love the flagrant pro-business bias on this board. It keeps things interesting.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
I am a consumer and want a better car. That's why I will not buy GM for the time being. They have to cut corners in order to pay the Union salaries and they end producing an expensive POS. I would argue that I am being pro-consumer more than pro-business in this regard.
People want to blame the workers for the problems with GM and other American automakers. How about them not being able to compete with foreign automakers in making better cars? Plus they've pushed the SUVs and Hummers and other ridiculous vehicles that are higher priced and worse polluters. It's not all the workers' salaries that have contributed to their failure.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
One of the big reasons they can't compete and build a better car is that they have to pay so much to the UAW. As for SUVs etc... At one point they were very popular and big sellers. I never bought one myself. I will never buy another car GM makes after getting bent over on the one I most recently had. Talk about cheap parts and a plethora of problems. I would like to see the average UAW's hourly pay. Anyway, any loyalty I or my family may have shown them in the past is gone. They repaid that loyalty with a lousy product.
GVC
Well-Known Member
And we all know how willing American consumers of pro basketball are to switch to watching European basketball...
It's more than a little disingenuous to rail against unions in an industry that's controlled by a single producer. If not for the cartel power the NBA has, do you think there'd be teams in Memphis, Atlanta, New Orleans and Sacramento? Why should the players be forced to subsidize terrible decisions by the NBA and NBA owners?
It's more than a little disingenuous to rail against unions in an industry that's controlled by a single producer. If not for the cartel power the NBA has, do you think there'd be teams in Memphis, Atlanta, New Orleans and Sacramento? Why should the players be forced to subsidize terrible decisions by the NBA and NBA owners?
GVC
Well-Known Member
If those teams would be more profitable elsewhere...
The owners are demanding that enough concessions be made by the players alone to ensure that ALL teams in ALL markets, no matter how poorly they're run, can make a profit, even during the worst economic downturn since the depression. They're completely unwilling to discuss revenue sharing among owners to make this possible. Despite all the recent talk about owners assuming all the risk in running an NBA team, the truth is there is absolutely no risk.
The NBA obviously needs to move a team back to Seattle. I say take the least profitable team in the league, and move them to Seattle.
It's hitting me hard. I'm tired of regular season football, and extremely tired of hearing people talk about BCS drama.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
If the NBPA is really having Fisher back at the settlement/negotiating table, than that either means they're confident a deal will get done or they're giving up on their lawsuit as this would kind of confirm Stern's accusation that disclaiming was nothing more than a sham/negotiating tactic. I'd like to think the NBPA isn't that stupid, so I'm fairly optimistic that by Monday they should have a deal.
Of course it is a sham/negotiating tactic. No one expected otherwise, but it is one that must be respected. If someone has a gun in their hand, even if you know that person probably doesn't have the balls to pull the trigger, you still have to take the threat seriously.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Who's completely unwilling? ALL of the owners, or the rich ones who don't want to share? I'd be willing to bet that the majority of owners would jump on revenue sharing, but can't force LA and New York to do so.
I think I remember reading that the rich owners refuse to discuss it until there's a new CBA. If that's true, it kinda puts small market owners in a position where they have to look out for their best interests while they can.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
Everyone knows it is a sham, but if they thought that they might actually have to argue the contrary in court, then they'd keep Fisher away from negotiations.
When did Fisher rejoin? Has there been an article about it? Last one I read said he wasn't apart of it.
GVC
Well-Known Member
If the majority of owners want it, if it weren't for the leverage the owners have as a cartel, revenue sharing would be on the table. Because the NBA represents the only venue for professional basketball in America, and because the owners are far more insulated than the players, they can continue to play their game of chicken and demand that the players cave into all their demands. It makes perfect sense why the players would be threatening to decertify. Hopefully the owners realize that the players are serious, and a deal can get done in the next few days.