[Justme]

Originally Posted by lawump

Question #2 first:

I don't agree with your assumption that the strike hasn't worked too well. We live in such a (what I call) "instant" society. We want everything and we want it now. News is regularly broadcast "instantly" with minimal filtering by producers/editors. We eat "instant" meals, so that we can have more time at work. Etc.

I think this culture leads some to conclude that because the strike wasn't resolved in a week or two that it "hasn't worked too well."

I'll stand by what I have posted all along: (1) This strike would not be short (or if it was short, the AMLU would likely be on the short end of the stick). (2) And that AMLU would "win" significant concessions if the strike lasted long.

What did I base this on? (1) Many previous umpire strikes (MLB umpires) have not been short. (2) The MLB umpires "won" every strike they ever went on.

(And for the record: 1999 was not a strike. They were legally barred from striking...they signed their right to strike away in the CBA...so they "quit" instead. Why did they do this suicidal move? In my opinion, they did this because their lawyer had an ego the size of Texas. Why did he have a large ego? Because he had been kicking MLB around for two decades. Everyone remembers the 1999 disaster and many think the AMLU is following this same path. Few, however, remember that MLB umps went from making $10 to $30k in 1979 to where they are now ($100k to $350k) because of all those successful strikes).

I believe that this strike is much more similar to 1979 than 1999. That MLB strike lasted 6 full weeks. It involved picketing at stadiums, press releases and press conferences. In many ways, the umpires in 1979 were worse off than today's MiLB umpires. In 1979 many were on the verge of going on food stamps, etc. The MiLB umpires are younger and can easily get work paying more than what they make on the field. (Many have kept their off-season jobs).

So what happened in 1979? Eventually the umpiring product on the field caused others in baseball to put pressure on the Leagues to settle and get the "regular guys" back on the field. It took awhile for the press to start paying attention...but they did. Did some of the "replacements" do an adequate job on the field. Sure...many had (or are in the middle of) long MLB careers.

So what's going on in 2006? Are some "replacements" doing an adequate job? Sure. Are some over-their-heads at this level. Many are. Are more and more stories about the umpiring situation being reported? In my opinion, yes. (I use Yahoo every day to search for any news story containing the word "umpire"). Has the majority of editorials (and I admit their is not a ton) been pro-AMLU? I would say the vast majority that I have read have been. Does their appear to be more and more stories coming out about managers, GM's and minor league directors being upset about the replacement umps? Yes, (again based upon my Yahoo search), whether the criticism is justified or not.

Do I think incidents like the Young incident at Pawtucket and the Southern League forfeit have more and more minor league people talking about the situation? Yes. (For the record, IMHO, the Young incident would have happened with or without the AMLU guys working the game. However, I don't share the same opinion about the forfeit.)

I personally think the strike is going well, and the AMLU is just beginning to get some momentum. I personally thought it would take longer than the 6-week MLB strike because it would take the AMLU longer to get the media to pay attention because this involves MiLB rather than MLB.

So, to conclude, I disagree with your assessment of the current strike's success.

Of course, the final judgment as to the success of the strike will be when a CBA is signed.

As to your first question...My first job after leaving the minor leagues (and before going to law school) was as a Sports Information Director at an NCAA Division 2 school. I made $30k. I provided as much of a service to society as an MiLB umpire does. That salary (combined with my wife's slightly less salary at that time) allowed me to pay my bills and buy my first (albeit modest) house. In this position I had minimal duties from mid-may to mid-August (not quite as long of an "off-season" as AMLU members).

I think that salary (which is double a "AAA") salary is justifiable. For the record, that is what I think they should make...not what I'm predicting they will make after this strike. I don't want someone coming back and posting a month down the road that I claimed that a "AAA" ump would make $30k after the strike. I just think (1) that is what they should make IMHO (2) MiLB and MLB have both seen record growth over the last six years and as a result there is more than enough money to easily fund this salary level.

You have asked me what I think they should make, and that is my answer.

Okay, $30k for AAA sounds fair to me.....where do I vote?