My various thoughts:
1) I see in this thread a post from 9:00 a.m. this morning attributed to Chris Hubler. Chris and I started our pro careers in the same PBUC class and were in extended spring training together. This is not a quote I would expect him to make. So, I went to the AMLU website this afternoon and could not find this quote. I allow for the possibility that he did say this, and I just can't find the quote. Could you please post a link to the quote? (I'm not accusing a poster of making up a quote, I just want to see it on amlu.org, before I believe it. Or if they have taken it down on that website, can anyone else here say that they saw it on amlu.org earlier today?)
2) Strike vs. quit is not a matter of semantics, not in any legal sense. If you think its semantics ask Eric Gregg. That statement is way, way off-base. A person on strike has certain legal protections ("rights") etc. A person who quits, generally does not. Go do an internet search about the 1999 MLB umpire fiasco and you'll find a good Federal Court of Appeals opinion that will show you the difference between a person on strike and a person who quits.
3) There are a lot of posters on many different boards who keep making the assertion that these MiLB umpires are going down the same road as the MLB umpires in 1999...and that it is all going to blow up in the face of the MiLB umpires.
First, as I alluded to above, this is a completely different situation. MiLB has the legal right to strike. MLB umpires had contracted away their right to strike during the summer of 1999 and tried to get around it by "quitting".
But ask yourself why did the MLB umpires attempt this tactic when any lawyer (even a non-labor relations lawyer) could have seen that it was a seriously flawed tactic? The Answer: Because the MLB Umpires Union had beaten MLB around at the bargaining table for the previous 20 years. Richie Phillips had so many successes going up against MLB that his ego got so big (IMHO) that he thought he could never loose. He was wrong.
So, many posters are quick to remember the failure of the union in 1999...but very few have brought up ALL THE SUCCESSFUL STRIKES THEY HAD starting in 1979.
I mean, damn gentlemen, MLB umpires went from making less than $30,000 in 1978 with no vacation time and able to be fired at any time for any or no reason, to being paid more than a quarter of a million dollars (veterans), with tenure, with guaranteed playoff games after being in MLB for a certain number of years, and with in-season vacation.
I'd call that 20 years of pretty damn successful labor negotiations...including successful strikes. Yes, Richie blew it in 1999....but he was pretty damn good for 20 years.
So, ask yourself is this MiLB strike more like 1999 or 1979. Oh, back in 1979 they had to stay on strike for 8 weeks. And, yes, MLB issued edicts to the players and managers to "have patience". And, yes, umps had to picket at stadiums. And, yes, umps had to try to generate media interest when the media didn't care.
But after eight weeks, their strike was successful. The media starting paying attention. The media agreed that they were woefully underpaid. The media agreed that six-months without any vacation was a joke. And yes, the players and managers starting complaining about the replacements.
It was a slow process, but the umps eventually won. They got pay raises. They got vacation. The only thing they consented on was allowing some of the replacements to become permanent members of the staff...most of whom, except three (or so), were fired in 1981.
Today, the vast majority of media editorials have been pro-AMLU. (For example read the New York Times article from a day or two ago.) Slowly but surely, more and more complaints from players and managers are creeping into the media.
I say the historical evidence points that this strike is more like 1979 and not like 1999. It will take time, but eventually AMLU will be back on the field with some hard-earned consessions gained at the bargainning table.
That is just my opinion. Time, of course, could prove me wrong.
|