|
| |
NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION PLAYERS UNION.
Term Paper ID:23005
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Examines causes, league response, financial issues, comparison with baseball strike & outcome of 1995 players' fight to decertify union.... More...
|
5 Pages / 1125 Words
7 sources, 8 Citations,
TURABIAN Format
$20.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Examines causes, league response, financial issues, comparison with baseball strike & outcome of 1995 players' fight to decertify union.
Paper Introduction:
In the fall of 1995 the National Basketball Association was threatened by several of its own members who wanted to decertify the union just as the union was negotiating a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Decertification would mean the end of the union, and this drive was being spurred by several big-name p-layers who believed that the players would be better served by the protections under federal antitrust rules. Others point out, however, that the end of the union would also mean the end of certain benefits and even pensions for many players. The effort by these basketball players challenges the idea of sports unions in general and raises a number of questions concerning the supposed necessity for decertification, the relationship between the state of athletic bargaining agreements and other agreements, and the degree to which this area of work differs from others in
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
The central issue for the sport now was how best to divide up anever-growing profit pool. On the one side were the owners, who have veryprofitable franchises in the baseball clubs they own. [4]Walter Shapiro and Richard Zoglin, "Bummer of '94," Time (August22, 1994), 69. Evenif an injunction were granted in the case, antitrust litigation could takeyears, leaving the possibility that the league could impose any system itwished in the interim.[8] The NBA Players' Association clearly acts as a union and constitutesa union for its members. "Will They Break?." The Sporting News (September 26, 1994), 14-16."NBA Players Reject Attempt by 'Dissident' Players to Scrap Union, Approve Collective Bargaining Agreement." Jet (October 2, 1995), 51-52.Shapiro, Walter and Richard Zoglin. Therevenue-sharing deal negotiated by the union was the first time inprofessional sports that both management and labor had a tangible reason topush for growth. "A Three-Way Jump Ball in the NBA." Business Week (September 4, 1995), 58-6 .Labich, Ken. Ifdecertification had taken place, on the other hand, it is not certain thatthe players would have been able to get the injunction they sought. "Bummer of '94." Time (August 22, 1994), 68-74.Taylor, Phil. ," Sports Illustrated((September 4, 1995), 38-39.----------------------- 6 All were members of the NBA Retired PlayersAssociation, and they challenged the idea of decertification: They called the revolt the work of agents--eager for ever-larger signing fees--who will have their clients' interests at heart only so long as the players are active.[6]If the union had been decertified, the retired players would lose theirpension benefits as granted over the years under the collective bargainingprocess, at least until a new agreement extending those rights could bereached. The effort by thesebasketball players challenges the idea of sports unions in general andraises a number of questions concerning the supposed necessity fordecertification, the relationship between the state of athletic bargainingagreements and other agreements, and the degree to which this area of workdiffers from others in ways that might affect the relationship betweenmembers and the union. What was unusual in the baseball strike--and the samedynamic would have prevailed in a basketball strike--was the fact that bothsides were very wealthy, making this a case of one set of millionairesstriking against another. The reason this area ofwork emerges as different from others is the amount of money and benefitsinvolved, and as with the baseball players' union and the baseball owners,a conflict between the NBA players and owners is seen by the public as amatter of millionaires fighting millionaires. The clash involves base self-interest and primal greed: the owners want to put a cap on how much players can earn; the players want to defend and expand the right to negotiate salaries they believe they deserve.[4]The players in the baseball strike may have felt their job security wasthreatened, but at the same time it seemed that there was little chance ofthe players really being hurt by the strike. --The team salary cap is increased by more than $7 million from$15.964 million to $23 million in 1995-1996. [2]Aaron Bernstein, "A Three-Way Jump Ball in the NBA," Business Week(September 4, 1995), 58. Some of the leading players decided that this would harmthem and that the way to attack the issue was through decertification.They were not necessarily calling for a permanent end to the union but weretrying to clear the way for an antitrust suit, which would be possible forthe players only if no union existed. " Sports Illustrated (September 4, 1995), 38-39.Wolff, Alexander and Christian Stone. In the case of the players, losing simplymeans that players will work under conditions similar to most Americans.[5] The problem raised for the NBA would have affected retired players aswell as current players, and the retired players met in July 1995 todiscuss the matter. . The rebellion against the NBA began in earnest in the summer of 1995. BibliographyBernstein, Aaron. They argued that the unionexecutive had negotiated two bad deals--the first had been abandoned in theface of intense opposition and included a team luxury tax that it wasclaimed would have put a drag on salaries; the second was the agreementunder discussion. "Wanna Be Like Mike. In the fall of 1995 the National Basketball Association wasthreatened by several of its own members who wanted to decertify the unionjust as the union was negotiating a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.Decertification would mean the end of the union, and this drive was beingspurred by several big-name p-layers who believed that the players would bebetter served by the protections under federal antitrust rules. The leaders of the movement saidthat this would force the owners into a better deal, and they referred tothe success of an antitrust suit against football a few years before whichproduced a better deal from the owners. They claimed thatdecertifying was the only logical alternative. In August 1995, the NBA reached an agreementwith the players' union that offered a six-year deal which would alsoundercut the ability of players to sell their services to the highest-bidding team. Increments would raise thecap each year until it reached $32.5 million in 2 -2 1.[3] The potential basketball strike raised the specter of the baseballstrike in 1994. The owners were offering 5 percent of revenues, with a baseline share of $1 billion, and they wereoffering to raise minimum salaries above the $1 9, mark. The decertification ploy wasundertaken by many of the richest players in the union, and in truth theywould lose little either way. --Players will receive money from luxury box suites, concessions,parking, international television broadcasts, and advertising sighs inarenas. This raises the question ofhow the public perceives the matter, given that most American workers arelimited in mobility and advancement because openings for good jobs are rareand people are not fungible. [5]Steve Marantz, "Will They Break?," The Sporting News (September 26,1994), 14-16. . No one wascertain at the time what was in the new agreement, which had not yet beenvoted on, but the retired players knew they were receiving more than theyhad before.[7] The rationale of the dissidents was offered to uncertain players in avideotape appeal sent out before the vote was taken. . . [6]Alexander Wolff and Christian Stone, "The State of De-Union," SportsIllustrated (July 31, 1995), 18. The threat ofdecertification did cause the league to drop its luxury tax proposal. And while economics is as riveting as a two-hour rain delay, it is central to the stalled negotiations. Among theterms of the collective bargaining agreement were the following: --A salary cap is now placed on rookies' earnings based on theaverage rookie salary from the past seven years, and rookies will be freeto negotiate with any team after three years as unrestricted free agents. The move by Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing, and otherplayers, however, would not only challenge the union but undo certainagreements, including the revenue-sharing deal.[1] This effort came after more than a decade during which the NBA hadenjoyed relative peace compared to the other major sports unions forbaseball and football, each of which had moved from one labor problem toanother. The issue of decertification raises morequestions about the players who pushed for it than it does about the unionitself, especially given the vote that prevented decertification and thecollective bargaining agreement that was reached. The players, backedby the most successful union in history, were also very wealthy--more than1 players make over $3 million a season, and the average salary is justover $1 million: The strike, at its core, is over the simplest of economic issues: how to divide this growing pie. The NBA responded immediately bylocking the players out, which created a greater crisis than had existedbefore.[2] In the end, the players voted against decertification and approvedthe tentative collective bargaining agreement between the union and theNBA, which paved the way for the season to begin as scheduled in November.The vote was 236-134 against doing away with the union, and the contractwas approved by representatives of the union by a vote of 24-5. "The State of De-Union." Sports Illustrated (July 31, 1995), 18-19.----------------------- [1]Ken Labich, "NBA's David Stern: Still a Gamer," Fortune (October 3 ,1995), 28. [8]Phil Taylor, "Wanna Be Like Mike. For the players,losing primarily means the erosion of the principle of freedom, the freedomto rise or fall on an unfettered labor market. Most unions face economiclosses when they lose a strike, but baseball and basketball players alikeare so far removed from financial discomfort that it is likely no painwould be felt whether the union wins or the players win. The leaders said that the best way to get a fair dealwas to eliminate the union because under antitrust rules, the players wouldthen be able to seek an injunction against the owners and their two-month-old lockout. This startingpoint was already a good deal for the players. Otherspoint out, however, that the end of the union would also mean the end ofcertain benefits and even pensions for many players. This would force the teams to open their doors to theplayers, and without the leverage of a lockout, the league would the haveto negotiate a deal more favorable to the players. [7]Ibid., 18-19. "NBA's David Stern: Still a Gamer." Fortune (October 3 , 1995), 28.Marantz, Steve. [3]"NBA Players Reject Attempt by 'Dissident' Players to Scrap Union,Approve Collective Bargaining Agreement," Jet (October 2, 1995), 51-52. This came after a number of agreements had been made that seemed to givebasketball players a good deal and the chance to share in profits. Under the expired agreement, those players with at least sixyears of service who retired before 1965 would receive $1 per month forevery season they played; those with six years of service who retired after1965 would receive $2 per month per year in the league.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
