Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Oh, get over yourself...you sound like the other guy and both of you use noms de net that imply legal expertise. Yes, I attributed to the wrong barrister - there, mea culpa. I suggest you go back and read the post about 1979 again and then make your apology.
|
Here's what I said when I brought up 1979 for the first time in this thread (my post was a discussion of both 1979 and 1999, and how the AMLU strike (IMHO) is more like 1979 than 1999):
(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.
OK windy...please point out where I stated 1979 was not a strike?
I'll give you your props on one point, though:
I admit that you have mastered one lawyerly skill: Your ability to make loud boisterous arguments, full of puffery, in an attempt to obscure the fact that the facts themselves are not on your side in a particular case is almost without equal. Actually that's not a lawyerly skill, that's the skill of a carnival potion salesman.
"Semper ubi sub ubi" -- nah, I always keep my balls in a ball bag.
Contra veritatem lex nunquam aliquid permittit.