capwolf wrote:xx1c1cle wrote:so the union wants to put the teams in bankruptcy-prone positions? And because a lock-out strike is looming, the union wants to put the players is a position such that they have more savings and can be more aggressive with their strike negotiations?
ahh, I really don't care. the players, owners, and agents are rich. and then there are thousands and thousands of employees working minimum wage.
What pray tell is a lock out strike...And if you were the union head why wouldn't you want your players to be in the best bargaining position ?
the "best bargaining position" may not be the best position long term. I believe this is fairly obvious, and don't want to get in a long contract negotiation discussion with you. there are many unions in American history that demanded excessive terms, which in the end bankrupted the company years down the line. (which dissolves the union, and allows company to hire back the workers as temp employees without benefits and a union.) For instance, the players union may aggressively demand a higher minimum salary. Which is fine at first. But that puts more cost stresses on the teams, so the teams must increase ticket prices, which may reduce ticket sales (for small market teams) which may result is revenue loss or bankruptcy, or excessive budget strategies like "tanking".
By "lock out strike" I meant "lock out / strike", which I used as a general term for the possible temporary work stoppage of NBA players. I don't know if it will be initiated by the players (strike) or the team-companies (lock out). If I'm incorrect, then correct me instead of asking a question for an answer you already know. And, if you're going to be so formal with the "pray tell", you should know that asking two questions in one sentence is grammatically incorrect.
