One Meeting, One Time: Lockout Looms

It’s come to this.  The NBA owners and players will meet later today to try one more time — not to get a deal — but to make significant progress in their negotiations on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

There is no rule or law that says there has to be a work stoppage.  Both sides could continue on under the old CBA while they work to forge a new one.  The players won’t strike, and won’t even take the owners to court so long as the two sides are talking.  And the owners don’t have to lock the doors.

The best hope right now is that the owners decide they’d rather keep talking than lock the doors after a fantastic NBA Finals that set TV ratings records (in the cable age, at least).

But it doesn’t sound good.  The Associated Press is reporting the following:

There was an informal vote taken in the players’ meeting last Thursday in New York, where an overwhelming majority of the room insisted they would go the distance with the union. The owners want rollbacks on existing contracts, a hard salary cap and provisions that make owning and operating a profitable franchise a paint-by-numbers enterprise. The NBA and union will meet one final time on Thursday before a lockout comes on July 1, and there are many on the players’ side who wonder why they’ll even bother.

“Just look at the proposal the owners have made: How do you expect anyone to respond to that in good faith?” agent Mark Bartelstein said. “It’s laughable. GMs around the league have acknowledged that to me. Every GM has acknowledged that there’s nowhere for the players to go with what’s been proposed by the owners.

“The system doesn’t work for the players now, because it’s so restrictive. It doesn’t work for the owners because they’ve made a lot of bad decisions. That’s the reality. This is a horrible system for the NBA player, incredibly restrictive in every way you look at it. If the NBA owners can’t be successful in this system, blame that on nothing but poor management.”

Maybe the agents should shut up and stay out of it.  But their bread is buttered by the continuation of business, so what well-minded agent would stay out of it?  They have a role and they certainly talk to more of the league’s GMs than I do.

But I can say with strong confidence that I’ve been involved in more collective bargaining negotiations than most sports agents.  These days, employees do not get locked out.   The workforce doesn’t walk out and set up a 24-hour picket.  While the two sides in almost every contract negotiations negotiate, business continues until the differences are sorted out.

Or until the company heads to the deep South or Mexico, where there are no labor unions and management can do what it pleases in the “right to screw your employees environment.”

The NBA, of course, is not going anywhere.

And its employees (the players) are not going to strike.

So our best hope is that the owners realize that their product is better now than it’s been in over a decade, that the American and worldwide audience has registered and verified its interest in the product, and that business should continue while progress is being made.

It’s the American way these days.  It works.  It works every time.  Now we just need to see enough progress today to ensure that the owners see the folly of shutting down the game, even for a little while.

3 thoughts on “One Meeting, One Time: Lockout Looms

  1. J.D. Mo. Post author

    The Bucks have done business under a self-imposed “hard cap” for years, refusing to exceed the luxury tax limit. Look what happened: They handed over more than 20 percent of their payroll to one guy, overpaid a few of the wrong guys, lost money and had to reform their business practices. There were ways to make things work under the CBA — but too many teams like the Bucks who ran into trouble.

    Institute a hard cap, establish new rules, and we’ll run into the same problem — some teams will manage well, others will run into the same problems they ran into under the old rules. I don’t know if an owner proof system is possible. It may be best to toughen up the cap, penalize big spenders more, share more revenue and get some concessions from the players. The $500 million giveback the players proposed last Thursday was a good start.

  2. Kevin

    David Stern is appropriately named, but small market teams like ours are his concern. I wouldn’t think that a hard cap would be a big deal, as many players end up getting too much money, as Michael Redd’s 18 mil a year. The big salaries have too come down so other players don’t end up with peanuts, but I don’t see that happening. Both sides need to act, but there is always the challenge of endurance and the owners are tired of losing money.

  3. J.D. Mo. Post author

    This just in: The players submitted a new proposal this afternoon but to no avail.

    The owners have just informed the players’ negotiating team that they are locking the players out.!/KBerg_CBS/statuses/86511902804545537

    This Stern playing hardball even as the two sides keep talking. It’s not necessary in my view, and is too much of a gamble. Labor peace — not hardball PR tactics — is the path to a mutually beneficial contract.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.