|
Well,
My view about the original contract is that:
1) The most important thing was to establish the union as a viable organization to collectivly pull individuals into a bargining unit.
2) Because the most important part was to form the union the orignal demands were kept to a minimum. Why antagonize the owners to a point that they would fight the union before it was even recognized?
3) The original wages and fringe benefits were establish by the common council of umpires/owners. The umpire representatives were smart enough to understand that for the future of having the union it was important to take a non-antagonistic position. They did that.
4) The original contract was accepted without much rancor. The umpires received small increases -- but more importantly -- the union was sanctioned and became part of the future of MiLB. That was the critical issue that was accomplished in the original deal.
5) Let's face one thing: MiLB umpires have NEVER been "over paid." The stories are documented about sleeping in cars, getting free meals from fans, and even selling "game used" baseballs to get enough money to even buy gas to get to the next game site.
So this is the "first" real postioning by the "union" to influence AMLU salaries.
We know the umpires need and deserve more money. The real question is how long will it take for them to get to a "workable and livable" wage that allows them the comfort they deserve.
I doubt if they can get there in one contract . . . and in these times, I doubt if any type of a job action will be affective.
But that is why they have people that fight for their rights.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
[Edited by Tim C on Feb 6th, 2006 at 11:07 AM]
|