NLRB ready to rule on Union's claim against NBA

[mysticbb]

meanwhile the players weren't willing to discuss system issues until they knew what the BRI split was going to be. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what Derreck Fisher and Billy Hunter said.

Actually, it was the exact opposite. It was said that the owners refused to talk about the system unless the players agree to a 50-50 split.
Why in hell should the players refuse to talk about the system? It makes no sense at all.

PS - What would make the NLRB issue a "complaint" against the NBA, would be if they found (or thought they found) evidence that the NBA really doesn't want a deal made.

You are wrong. The union updated the charge the last time in July. It is about the PAST, the complaint by the union was that the owners "making harsh, inflexible and grossly regressive ‘takeaway’ demands … not supported by objective or reasonable factors or balanced by appropriate trade-offs." in May. And that's what the NLRB will be ruling about, not whether the owners would make a deal now. Basically, any action from July to now has no influence on the outcome of the ruling.

The question is whether the owners came down from the forced 50-50, because the NLRB is ready to rule in that case. Meaning, because there is a chance that the NLRB is ruling in favor of the players, the owners going back to the negotiations, because they want to make a deal as soon as possible to avoid further complications for them due to the possible consequences.

[The Rebel]

meanwhile the players weren't willing to discuss system issues until they knew what the BRI split was going to be. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what Derreck Fisher and Billy Hunter said.

Actually, it was the exact opposite. It was said that the owners refused to talk about the system unless the players agree to a 50-50 split.
Why in hell should the players refuse to talk about the system? It makes no sense at all.

PS - What would make the NLRB issue a "complaint" against the NBA, would be if they found (or thought they found) evidence that the NBA really doesn't want a deal made.

You are wrong. The union updated the charge the last time in July. It is about the PAST, the complaint by the union was that the owners "making harsh, inflexible and grossly regressive ‘takeaway’ demands … not supported by objective or reasonable factors or balanced by appropriate trade-offs." in May. And that's what the NLRB will be ruling about, not whether the owners would make a deal now. Basically, any action from July to now has no influence on the outcome of the ruling.

The question is whether the owners came down from the forced 50-50, because the NLRB is ready to rule in that case. Meaning, because there is a chance that the NLRB is ruling in favor of the players, the owners going back to the negotiations, because they want to make a deal as soon as possible to avoid further complications for them due to the possible consequences.

where in the rules does it say that the owners cannot make demands that the players union does not like? There is nothing in the NLRB rules that one side must make concesions to the other, just that they must be willing to make a deal at the stance they take, that they are sharing all pertinent information, that they are not making deals and then backing out, that they are not imposing new rules, that they are willing and do attend meetings. If you have something saying that one side has to give up something, or only propose things the other sides likes, by all means please post it.

By the way how can there be takeaways when there is no current agreement? The players are entitled to nothing as of July 1st.

[DBoys]

PS - What would make the NLRB issue a "complaint" against the NBA, would be if they found (or thought they found) evidence that the NBA really doesn't want a deal made.

You are wrong. The union updated the charge the last time in July. It is about the PAST, the complaint by the union was that the owners "making harsh, inflexible and grossly regressive ‘takeaway’ demands … not supported by objective or reasonable factors or balanced by appropriate trade-offs." in May. And that's what the NLRB will be ruling about, not whether the owners would make a deal now. Basically, any action from July to now has no influence on the outcome of the ruling.

The question is whether the owners came down from the forced 50-50, because the NLRB is ready to rule in that case. Meaning, because there is a chance that the NLRB is ruling in favor of the players, the owners going back to the negotiations, because they want to make a deal as soon as possible to avoid further complications for them due to the possible consequences.

1 So you agree that the NBA's willingness to talk without 50-50 being offered isn't being used to somehow sway the NLRB at the last minute [the question being posed], right?

2 If I had worded it as "didn't want a deal made (earlier in the year)" rather than "doesn't", do you still want to quibble?

3 Would you really want to assert, and do you really believe the NLRB would rule, that the NBA didn't want any of the various deals they offered earlier in the year?

[turk3d]

It's about whether or not the Owners were willing to enter into real negotiations or not. That's what the complaint is all about. The implication was that there was no willingness to discuss the issues with the union. It was a "take it or leave' offer and we're locking you out to prove we mean business when they could have started the season while negotiating during the season if need be (which they can still do).

If they reach a settlement, then the union can drop their complaint (and you can bet they will as part of whatever agreement is reached). The more I think about it the more I believe that the union is using this as leverage. Not leverage to necessarily improve their deal (they've had no deal so far) but just to get the owners to come to the table and really negotiate.

http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/HUMANRE ... RelBd.html

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency created in 1935 by Congress to administer the National Labor Relations Act, the basic law governing relations between labor unions and the employers whose operations influence interstate commerce.

In its statutory assignment, the NLRB has two principal functions: (1) to find out, through secret ballot elections, the free democratic choice by employees about whether or not they wish to be represented by a union in dealing with their employers and, if so, by which union; (2) to prevent and remedy unlawful acts, called unfair labor practices, by either employers or unions.

The Act's election provisions provide the authority for conducting representation elections, which determine the views of the employees regarding representation by a labor union. Its unfair labor practice provisions place certain restrictions on actions of both employers and labor organizations in their relations with employees, and with each other.

The agency does not act on its own initiative in either function. It processes only those charges of unfair labor practices and petitions for employee elections which are filed with the NLRB in one of its Regional, Subregional, or Resident Offices.

The staff in each office is available to help the public with inquiries concerning the Act and to provide appropriate forms and other technical assistance to those who wish to file charges or petitions.

What Is the NLRB s Structure?

The agency has two separate components. The Board itself has five members and primarily acts as a quasi-judicial body in deciding cases based on formal records in administrative proceedings. Board members are appointed by the President to five-year terms, with Senate consent, the term of one member expiring each year. The general counsel, appointed by the President to a four-year term with Senate consent, is independent from the Board and is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice cases and for the general supervision of the NLRB field offices in the processing of unfair labor practice and representation cases.

Each Regional Office is run by a Regional Director who is responsible for making the initial determination in unfair labor practice and representation cases arising within the geographical area served by the Region (including any Resident or Subregional Offices within the Region).

What Are the NLRB's Procedures?

Representation Cases

.
.
.
.

When an unfair labor practice charge is filed, the appropriate field office investigates to decide whether there is reasonable cause to believe the Act has been violated. If the Regional Director decides that the charge lacks merit, it will be dismissed, unless the charging party decides to withdraw the charge. A dismissal may be appealed to the General Counsel's office in Washington, D.C.
[b]If the Regional Director finds reasonable cause to believe a violation the law has been committed, the Region seeks a voluntary settlement to remedy the alleged violations. If these settlement efforts fail, a formal complaint is issued, and the case goes to a hearing before an NLRB administrative law judge.

The judge issues a written decision which may be appealed to the Board for a final Agency determination That final determination is subject to review in the federal courts. More than 90 percent of the unfair labor practice cases filed with the NLRB are disposed of in an average of 45 days without the necessity of formal litigation before the Board. Only about 4 percent of the cases go on to Board decision.
[/b]
Since its establishment, the NLRB has processed more than 90O,000 unfair labor practice charges and conducted in excess of 36O,000 secret ballot elections. The Agency handles approximately 4O,000 cases each year, including more than 7,000 representation petitions.

Busy little buggers it seems. It seems that some of you want to trivialize the potential impact of the NLRB. The owners either better settle or hope they don't have an unfavorable ruling. I think they're going to settle which would be the wise thing to do here. There's going to be an investigation (unless the union withdraws their complaint) and when you consider that the leagues antitrust status could be at stake, there's lot more to lose for the owners than may appear to be on the surface.

[mysticbb]

where in the rules does it say that the owners cannot make demands that the players union does not like?

Actually, I'm not a member of the NLRB and neither are you. We both have neither the informations nor the necessary power to rule. Thus, your question is highly irrelevant to the issue I pointed out.

Now, we can just wait what the board has to say or we will never know, because the owners and players have reached an agreement before the ruling (which is something I suspect and floppymoose basically implied).

1 So you agree that the NBA's willingness to talk without 50-50 being offered isn't being used to somehow sway the NLRB at the last minute [the question being posed], right?

2 If I had worded it as "didn't want a deal made (earlier in the year)" rather than "doesn't", do you still want to quibble?

3 Would you really want to assert, and do you really believe the NLRB would rule, that the NBA didn't want any of the various deals they offered earlier in the year?

1. Well, let us see:

Do you think the NLRB situation had anything to do with the owners dropping the 50/50 BRI split pre-condition to negotiations? The timing seems a little suggestive.

Nope, nothing in there which would imply that floppymoose would think the dropping of the 50-50 split would have any influence on the ruling of the NLRB. It is the other way around. Basically, floppymoose asked whether he is the only one thinking that the upcoming ruling of the NLRB in the union's case has made the owners drop the unwillingness to negotiate, if the players don't agree to a 50-50 split.

2. If you had worded that part differently, the rest of your post would have not made any sense. The matter of fact is that you had no idea that the action after July basically has no effect, otherwise the whole context of your post would be different. And I'm pretty sure that I would have reacted differently to a different post. Thus, your question is completely obsolet.

3. I can imagine that the NLRB is indeed deciding that the owners didn't negotiate in good faith in May/June/July. It was always said that the owner's position becomes stronger when the players are missing paychecks. Thus, it is not unlikely that the owners indeed didn't negotiate in good faith at that time. But that is speculation based up on hearsay from various sources and as I pointed out before I'm neither a member of the NLRB nor do I possess all necessary informations in order to make a ruling on this.

[The Rebel]

It's about whether or not the Owners were willing to enter into real negotiations or not. That's what the complaint is all about. The implication was that there was no willingness to discuss the issues with the union. It was a "take it or leave' offer and we're locking you out to prove we mean business when they could have started the season while negotiating during the season if need be (which they can still do).

If they reach a settlement, then the union can drop their complaint (and you can bet they will as part of whatever agreement is reached). The more I think about it the more I believe that the union is using this as leverage. Not leverage to necessarily improve their deal (they've had no deal so far) but just to get the owners to come to the table and really negotiate.

http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/HUMANRE ... RelBd.html

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency created in 1935 by Congress to administer the National Labor Relations Act, the basic law governing relations between labor unions and the employers whose operations influence interstate commerce.

In its statutory assignment, the NLRB has two principal functions: (1) to find out, through secret ballot elections, the free democratic choice by employees about whether or not they wish to be represented by a union in dealing with their employers and, if so, by which union; (2) to prevent and remedy unlawful acts, called unfair labor practices, by either employers or unions.

The Act's election provisions provide the authority for conducting representation elections, which determine the views of the employees regarding representation by a labor union. Its unfair labor practice provisions place certain restrictions on actions of both employers and labor organizations in their relations with employees, and with each other.

The agency does not act on its own initiative in either function. It processes only those charges of unfair labor practices and petitions for employee elections which are filed with the NLRB in one of its Regional, Subregional, or Resident Offices.

The staff in each office is available to help the public with inquiries concerning the Act and to provide appropriate forms and other technical assistance to those who wish to file charges or petitions.

What Is the NLRB s Structure?

The agency has two separate components. The Board itself has five members and primarily acts as a quasi-judicial body in deciding cases based on formal records in administrative proceedings. Board members are appointed by the President to five-year terms, with Senate consent, the term of one member expiring each year. The general counsel, appointed by the President to a four-year term with Senate consent, is independent from the Board and is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice cases and for the general supervision of the NLRB field offices in the processing of unfair labor practice and representation cases.

Each Regional Office is run by a Regional Director who is responsible for making the initial determination in unfair labor practice and representation cases arising within the geographical area served by the Region (including any Resident or Subregional Offices within the Region).

What Are the NLRB's Procedures?

Representation Cases

.
.
.
.

When an unfair labor practice charge is filed, the appropriate field office investigates to decide whether there is reasonable cause to believe the Act has been violated. If the Regional Director decides that the charge lacks merit, it will be dismissed, unless the charging party decides to withdraw the charge. A dismissal may be appealed to the General Counsel's office in Washington, D.C.
[b]If the Regional Director finds reasonable cause to believe a violation the law has been committed, the Region seeks a voluntary settlement to remedy the alleged violations. If these settlement efforts fail, a formal complaint is issued, and the case goes to a hearing before an NLRB administrative law judge.

The judge issues a written decision which may be appealed to the Board for a final Agency determination That final determination is subject to review in the federal courts. More than 90 percent of the unfair labor practice cases filed with the NLRB are disposed of in an average of 45 days without the necessity of formal litigation before the Board. Only about 4 percent of the cases go on to Board decision.
[/b]
Since its establishment, the NLRB has processed more than 90O,000 unfair labor practice charges and conducted in excess of 36O,000 secret ballot elections. The Agency handles approximately 4O,000 cases each year, including more than 7,000 representation petitions.

Busy little buggers it seems. It seems that some of you want to trivialize the potential impact of the NLRB. The owners either better settle or hope they don't have an unfavorable ruling. I think they're going to settle which would be the wise thing to do here. There's going to be an investigation (unless the union withdraws their complaint) and when you consider that the leagues antitrust status could be at stake, there's lot more to lose for the owners than may appear to be on the surface.

So were the owners unwilling to approve all the offers they have made the players union? Did the players accept any of them? I see a few quotes on the NLRB, but I think most of us understand exactly what and who they are, but I have yet to see any examples of what the owners did that was illegal.

Telling the other side to take or leave a deal is not unfair labor negotiations, go back and reread the NLRB website, listen to the podcast earlier in this thread, and then come back and tell us what the owners did showing bad faith. please provide something, an article or anything showing the owners broke any of the labor laws in the United States.

As for an investigation, there has already been an investigation, and the NLRB ruling means little other then they will file a charge in the court system and then we miss a couple of years while they battle it out in court.

[nugzin2040]

I think it's more likely that the players are pushing for a deal due to the NLRB not siding with them. I just don't see the odds of them picking the players in this case to be particularly likely. This isn't baseball, where the owners withheld pensions and broke a number of other rules in their CBA.

The players would have a very difficult time proving that the owners acted out of bad faith to get a deal done.

[DBoys]

Mystic, I knew when the charge was filed and what it was originally about.

But as I understood it (and as I re-read it, I still take it the same way), floppy was asking whether the new talks were an attempt to keep from running afoul of the NLRB - ie he was asking if we thought the NBA backed off its 50-50 demand out of fear that the NLRB would be mad about such a stance.

Whether that was what he was asking, is going to be known by him. But that's how it read to me...to which I replied no.

If you're saying that nothing they can do now has any bearing on the outcome of whether they issue a complaint or not, I'll take your word for it ...and then the answer would still be no, of course.

Ultimately, I don't see the NLRB as anything more than an attempted PR tool by both sides, in this situation.

[The Rebel]

where in the rules does it say that the owners cannot make demands that the players union does not like?

Actually, I'm not a member of the NLRB and neither are you. We both have neither the informations nor the necessary power to rule. Thus, your question is highly irrelevant to the issue I pointed out.

Now, we can just wait what the board has to say or we will never know, because the owners and players have reached an agreement before the ruling (which is something I suspect and floppymoose basically implied).

So because we are not members of the NLRB means we cannot look up what constitutes bad faith negotiating and make our own judgements? Does that mean since we are not in the negotiations for the CBA we shouldn't make comments? If that is how you feel I guess you will no longer be making comments in those threads?

1 So you agree that the NBA's willingness to talk without 50-50 being offered isn't being used to somehow sway the NLRB at the last minute [the question being posed], right?

2 If I had worded it as "didn't want a deal made (earlier in the year)" rather than "doesn't", do you still want to quibble?

3 Would you really want to assert, and do you really believe the NLRB would rule, that the NBA didn't want any of the various deals they offered earlier in the year?

1. Well, let us see:

Do you think the NLRB situation had anything to do with the owners dropping the 50/50 BRI split pre-condition to negotiations? The timing seems a little suggestive.

Nope, nothing in there which would imply that floppymoose would think the dropping of the 50-50 split would have any influence on the ruling of the NLRB. It is the other way around. Basically, floppymoose asked whether he is the only one thinking that the upcoming ruling of the NLRB in the union's case has made the owners drop the unwillingness to negotiate, if the players don't agree to a 50-50 split.

2. If you had worded that part differently, the rest of your post would have not made any sense. The matter of fact is that you had no idea that the action after July basically has no effect, otherwise the whole context of your post would be different. And I'm pretty sure that I would have reacted differently to a different post. Thus, your question is completely obsolet.

3. I can imagine that the NLRB is indeed deciding that the owners didn't negotiate in good faith in May/June/July. It was always said that the owner's position becomes stronger when the players are missing paychecks. Thus, it is not unlikely that the owners indeed didn't negotiate in good faith at that time. But that is speculation based up on hearsay from various sources and as I pointed out before I'm neither a member of the NLRB nor do I possess all necessary informations in order to make a ruling on this.

I love these types of arguments, the owners said this so that constitutes bad faith, but since it is hearsay and I don't work for the NLRB I don't really know so no one can argue with me.

So let me start off this way. In your opinion what about the owners saying the players would be more willing to make a deal when they start missing paychecks is in bad faith? Does that show that the owners are not willing to make a deal, or that the owners feel the players are not looking to make a deal? personally I think it is the owners saying that the players have no interest in making a deal unless it is exactly what they want, but that may change when they figure out they need those paychecks.

If anything I could see the owners saying that the players have not moved off anything substantial, made an offer of 50-50 then refused to discuss it when the owners brought it up, and have walked out of meetings while in progress refusing to continue to discussions. 2 of those are examples of bad faith, one isn't.


I'll give you a hint, it is making an offer then not accepting it when agreed or offered by the other side, and refusing to talk and meet when scheduled, if the owners have proof of both (which I would assume these discussions are recorded, but you never know) the ruling could be coming down, and hard against the players. neither side has to move off their positions, they can stay at their positions for the rest of time if they wish, there is nothing illegal about it.

[turk3d]

Unfair labor practices such as not locking the players out and not coming to the negotiating table. Take it or leave it is not negotiating and you seem to be forgetting, some of those players are still under contract. Open the doors tomorrow and I bet the players come to work without a CBA (many of them are playing overseas, barnstorming and doing charity basketball events) so you know they'd come to work on their existing contracts.

I almost think that this could be a slam dunk for the players if it gets to court it's so blatant. I'm beginning to think that some of you might be on the owners payroll, lol. They have not been negotiating this entire process (in particular on the BRI) and now they say they're willing to go higher than 50-50, ha, ha. Somethings up or somethings different if what they're saying is true.

And what the heck do you mean by this? Who made an offer that the other side accepted that was agreed on? Sounds like a bit of double-talk to me.

I'll give you a hint, it is making an offer then not accepting it when agreed or offered by the other side, and refusing to talk and meet when scheduled. neither side has to move off their positions, they can stay at their positions for the rest of time if they wish, there is nothing illegal about it.

[nugzin2040]

What is so blatant about it? That they locked them out when they had a legal option in their current agreement, one that they chose to take? Was it not agreeing to what the players union deemed fair?

The players said they weren't willing to go lower then 53%? They obviously are going to, so what's the point? Compromising later on an issue is NOT BAD FAITH negotiations.

[The Rebel]

Unfair labor practices such as not locking the players out and not coming to the negotiating table. Take it or leave it is not negotiating and you seem to be forgetting, some of those players are still under contract. Open the doors tomorrow and I bet the players come to work without a CBA (many of them are playing overseas, barnstorming and doing charity basketball events) so you know they'd come to work on their existing contracts.

it is not illegal to lockout a union once the CBA has expired. if it was every lockout in the country would be illegal, a lockout is within the owners rights.

Take it or leave it negotiating, where have the owners refused to discuss matters? Have the owners refused to meet? have they walked out of meetings? It is not illegal for the owners to stick to their positions, it is well within their rights.

I almost think that this could be a slam dunk for the players if it gets to court it's so blatant. I'm beginning to think that some of you might be on the owners payroll, lol. They have not been negotiating this entire process (in particular on the BRI) and now they say they're willing to go higher than 50-50, ha, ha. Somethings up or somethings different if what they're saying is true.

Funny there are links to podcasts and articles with NLRB experts saying that the players really have no chance of the NLRB filing a charge, yet it is a walk in court? there is nothing in the rules that say the owners have to move off their positions, if there is please find a link proving it. As there are several in this very thread with quotes from experts saying the exact opposite.

As for being on someones payroll, i would be a little careful of throwing that stuff around, especially when you consider that you continue to throw charges around with no proof, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary, while refuses to provide anything to back your argument.

And what the heck do you mean by this? Who made an offer that the other side accepted that was agreed on? Sounds like a bit of double-talk to me.

I cleared up my post, but let me explain it to you.

According to the owners, kessler the lead negotiator for the Union, offered them a 50/50 split, the owners refused at the time. 2 weeks later the owners asked the union to consider a 50/50 split and the KG and company stormed into the room saying it was 53% or nothing before walking out of the meeting. now if the league has proof the ones who should be worried are the players, as that is one of the definitions of bad faith negotiating.

[turk3d]

What is so blatant about it? That they locked them out when they had a legal option in their current agreement, one that they chose to take? Was it not agreeing to what the players union deemed fair?

The players said they weren't willing to go lower then 53%? They obviously are going to, so what's the point? Compromising later on an issue is NOT BAD FAITH negotiations.

So you are saying that they had a lockout clause in their agreement? So it's a legal issue I take it. Alright, well I thought the CBA expired. I'm not familar with the contract, and I haven't heard anything about a lockout clause in any of the NBA contracts (other than perhaps with the TV networks).

Here's a very good article I just came across written back in August by an attorney for ESPN. Take a look at what he has to say about it. And I don't do podcasts so that's why I haven't listened to the one you linked. If you have the text somewhere I'll be happy to read it. It did direct me to a link to an article that read which pretty much supports most of my thoughts.

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/stor ... t-location

[turk3d]

That article I linked is from an attorney and he seems to have a different take than you do.

I cleared up my post, but let me explain it to you.

According to the owners, kessler the lead negotiator for the Union, offered them a 50/50 split, the owners refused at the time. 2 weeks later the owners asked the union to consider a 50/50 split and the KG and company stormed into the room saying it was 53% or nothing before walking out of the meeting. now if the league has proof the ones who should be worried are the players, as that is one of the definitions of bad faith negotiating.

KG had no business even being in that meeting and I doubt he speaks for the union (that's Hunter and Fishers jobs) and therefore that was no official union position (everything that Stern and Silver does is, however). And your comment on the 50/50 was never an official offer and if it was, it was detracted so I'm not sure what significance that has other than maybe the owners never really did have an offer on the table. It's just funny now how the tune seems to be changing by the owners all of a sudden.

[The Rebel]

What is so blatant about it? That they locked them out when they had a legal option in their current agreement, one that they chose to take? Was it not agreeing to what the players union deemed fair?

The players said they weren't willing to go lower then 53%? They obviously are going to, so what's the point? Compromising later on an issue is NOT BAD FAITH negotiations.

So you are saying that they had a lockout clause in their agreement? So it's a legal issue I take it. Alright, well I thought the CBA expired. I'm not familar with the contract, and I haven't heard anything about a lockout clause in any of the NBA contracts (other than perhaps with the TV networks).

Here's a very good article I just came across written back in August by an attorney for ESPN. Take a look at what he has to say about it. And I don't do podcasts so that's why I haven't listened to the one you linked. If you have the text somewhere I'll be happy to read it. It did direct me to a link to an article that read which pretty much supports most of my thoughts.

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/stor ... t-location

I am sorry buy your link is a guy just trying to explain the differences between the NFL and NBA lockout, without any kind of actual analysis on the players filing, just that he thinks they have a strong case.

Here is a quote from page 11, while not as in depth as the podcast it is 3 different experts on their thoughts on the players chances.

Here is an article with 3 legal experts saying that they don't think the NLRB will side with the players.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsjazzn ... a.html.csp

""The [NBPA's] unfair labor practice complaint is extremely weak and lacks legal basis. … Labor law is absolutely 100-percent clear that strikes and lockouts are allowed without [an] impasse being reached. Players could have struck the day the [collective bargaining agreement] expired and the league exercised its right to lock out the players. And the union's argument that the owners somehow failed to bargain in good faith because they made extreme demands also flies in the face of clear labor law."

[The Rebel]

That article I linked is from an attorney and he seems to have a different take than you do.

I cleared up my post, but let me explain it to you.

According to the owners, kessler the lead negotiator for the Union, offered them a 50/50 split, the owners refused at the time. 2 weeks later the owners asked the union to consider a 50/50 split and the KG and company stormed into the room saying it was 53% or nothing before walking out of the meeting. now if the league has proof the ones who should be worried are the players, as that is one of the definitions of bad faith negotiating.

KG had no business even being in that meeting and I doubt he speaks for the union (that's Hunter and Fishers jobs) and therefore that was no official union position (everything that Stern and Silver does is, however). And your comment on the 50/50 was never an official offer and if it was, it was detracted so I'm not sure what significance that has other than maybe the owners never really did have an offer on the table. It's just funny now how the tune seems to be changing by the owners all of a sudden.

I posted my thoughts on that article above, it is a guy who is not an expert on the NLRB, and even states that "if the players can prove" they have a case. But I have yet to see him, you, or the union actually present proof or even specific claims.

As for whether KG should be negotiating for the union, I would agree it was a bad idea, but if he is in the meetings and representing the union as seems to be his role considering he along with a couple of other players meet separately with the owners to counter their offer, then I would say the case could easily be made that he was representing the owners. My guess is that Kessler knew damn well that what they were doing was against the good faith rules, and that is why he refused to go back in with them to counter (but that is speculation on my part)

As for the owners never having put that on the table, regardless of what was said in the media, the NBA was at 50% at the next meeting, so how was it a takeaway from the owners? No where does it say in the NLRB or federal rules that each side gets to decide what is an official offer and what is not, all I have seen is that if either side makes an offer, and then refuses to accept that offer then they are negotiating in bad faith.

[DBoys]

It's about whether or not the Owners were willing to enter into real negotiations or not. That's what the complaint is all about. The implication was that there was no willingness to discuss the issues with the union. It was a "take it or leave' offer and we're locking you out to prove we mean business when they could have started the season while negotiating during the season if need be (which they can still do).

The owners have absolutely no obligation to alter their demands, ever (although they reportedly have many times, including pre-lockout). Nor do they have any requirement to continue operating under the terms of an expired CBA that they find unacceptable. In fact the NLRA (the act that the NLRB enforces) recognizes lockouts and strikes as legit hardball tools for one side or the other to use to get what they want. They didn't try to avoid a lockout? Well duh, that's part of the process to force the other side to squirm and get what you want.

When an unfair labor practice charge is filed.....Since its establishment, the NLRB has processed more than 90O,000 unfair labor practice charges ......If the Regional Director decides that the charge lacks merit, it will be dismissed, unless the charging party decides to withdraw the charge. A dismissal may be appealed to the General Counsel's office in Washington, D.C. If the Regional Director finds reasonable cause to believe a violation the law has been committed, the Region seeks a voluntary settlement to remedy the alleged violations.

************

It seems that some of you want to trivialize the potential impact of the NLRB. The owners either better settle or hope they don't have an unfavorable ruling. I think they're going to settle which would be the wise thing to do here. There's going to be an investigation (unless the union withdraws their complaint) and when you consider that the leagues antitrust status could be at stake, there's lot more to lose for the owners than may appear to be on the surface.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. If you'll read what they aim for in what you cited above, it is to remedy the situation. In other words, in bad faith bargaining, they would want to get the parties to negotiate in good faith. That is their primary and typical remedy, straight from their rulebook, not the extreme penalties you've imagined.

They have more specific remedies for a failure to bargain in good faith in their rules, such as "mandatory meetings" and so on - but they are all things that simply force the parties to come to the table with the details of the deal they want.

There is only one actual "penalty" that might bother the NBA, and I've seen no legal experts who expect this. But in theory, since the NBAPA requested it and the NBA bluntly refused, the NLRB could rule that the NBA owners had the obligation to turn over personal financials on whatever side ventures they owned, to allow the players to dig through those and see what they can find. The remedy on that, as on the other claims, would simply be compliance ...but to actually get an order for that (or anything else) to happen, it would take about a year of chasing down the courtroom trail by the players, and probably longer if the owners appealed. There's no way.

Talking about the league's "antitrust status could be at stake" over something like this, is absurd overkill.

[turk3d]

What is so blatant about it? That they locked them out when they had a legal option in their current agreement, one that they chose to take? Was it not agreeing to what the players union deemed fair?

The players said they weren't willing to go lower then 53%? They obviously are going to, so what's the point? Compromising later on an issue is NOT BAD FAITH negotiations.

So you are saying that they had a lockout clause in their agreement? So it's a legal issue I take it. Alright, well I thought the CBA expired. I'm not familar with the contract, and I haven't heard anything about a lockout clause in any of the NBA contracts (other than perhaps with the TV networks).

Here's a very good article I just came across written back in August by an attorney for ESPN. Take a look at what he has to say about it. And I don't do podcasts so that's why I haven't listened to the one you linked. If you have the text somewhere I'll be happy to read it. It did direct me to a link to an article that read which pretty much supports most of my thoughts.

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/stor ... t-location

I am sorry buy your link is a guy just trying to explain the differences between the NFL and NBA lockout, without any kind of actual analysis on the players filing, just that he thinks they have a strong case.

Here is a quote from page 11, while not as in depth as the podcast it is 3 different experts on their thoughts on the players chances.

Here is an article with 3 legal experts saying that they don't think the NLRB will side with the players.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsjazzn ... a.html.csp

""The [NBPA's] unfair labor practice complaint is extremely weak and lacks legal basis. … Labor law is absolutely 100-percent clear that strikes and lockouts are allowed without [an] impasse being reached. Players could have struck the day the [collective bargaining agreement] expired and the league exercised its right to lock out the players. And the union's argument that the owners somehow failed to bargain in good faith because they made extreme demands also flies in the face of clear labor law."

Well, you've brought something substantive here. The next step (if an agreement isn't reached) for the union would to be to de-certify. Maybe they're banking on the NLRB giving them a favorable ruling so they wouldn't have to which they still could in order to perhaps force an agreement. Interestingly, they ruled against the NFL (in spite of what these attorneys said in your link).

A quote from the article by Munson who's speaking specifically towards the NBA here:

Even though the collective bargaining agreement expired June 30, the National Basketball Players Association has not decertified as a union and has not filed any litigation against the owners. Players and union officials have been meeting and bargaining with the team owners and NBA commissioner David Stern about an agreement that would save the coming season -- unsuccessfully, so far. Both sides offer the usual claims that the other side is not bargaining in good faith. But the players have focused only on bargaining. They have not attempted to open new fronts in the disputes. Instead of filing the antitrust lawsuit that all owners in all sports detest (an antitrust suit raises the possibility of triple damages, and the certainty of huge legal fees), the players have worked only on the bargaining process that has gone on for two years. In his response to the owners' legal actions, union chief Billy Hunter urged NBA owners "to engage with us at the bargaining table and to use more productively the short time we have left before the 2011-12 season is seriously jeopardized."

Two different groups, two different points of view:

The owners' charge at the NLRB is based on their belief that the players will decertify, which the players have not yet done, and might not do. Even if the players do decertify, it is not a move the NLRB has taken seriously in the past. The more important of the two complaints to the NLRB is the one filed by the players. Based on the facts and the applicable law, the players could easily prevail at the NLRB and obtain a finding from the board that the owners are guilty of unfair labor practices. The players claim that the owners are making "harsh, inflexible and grossly regressive 'takeaway' demands that the NBA knows are not acceptable to the union." If the players can prove the charge, they are well on their way to success.
The talks haven't been fruitful, but Derek Fisher, right, NBA union chief Billy Hunter, left, and the LA Lakers' Theo Ratliff at least claim they're trying to negotiate.

The NLRB, under President Barack Obama, has been offering more and more support to unions in its decisions. But even though the players appear to have a strong case in the NLRB, the board's decision-making process is so slow that, for example, it never ruled on the NFL owners' complaint about decertification. It was still investigating the charge when the players and the owners reached an agreement to end that lockout. Any victory for NBA players would come at a time when it would be meaningless. The only time an NLRB decision ever made a difference in a sports dispute came in the 1994 baseball work stoppage, which continued into spring training in 1995, allowing the board to complete its work at its usual glacial pace. Its ruling for the baseball players' union was critical in getting the 1995 MLB season started.

Apparently the players have the right guy to do this:

The owners are convinced that the union will decertify and follow the path of the NFL players. In their lawsuit, the NBA owners mention attorney Jeffrey Kessler -- a nationally recognized antitrust expert who has represented the football and basketball unions for more than 20 years -- no less than four times. They describe what they see as a "pattern" in Kessler's representation of player unions, and the pattern is decertification and litigation. There is no doubt that Kessler and James Quinn used the pattern in NFL litigation in the early '90s and produced a series of historic triumphs. It is obviously the belief of the owners that if Kessler is in the picture, the picture will include decertification and litigation. But the governing law has grown murkier in recent years, and the path is not as clear. And the owners might be underestimating Kessler. He is a creative and brilliant advocate, and he is not limited to a one-trick pattern. Kessler and the players could have some surprises for the owners. My guess is that there will be no decertification and no litigation from the players. But that does not mean we will see a complete NBA season. It means that negotiation will replace litigation as the centerpiece of the lockout.

This makes sense imo. All the players at this point are trying to do is to get the league to negotiate which may be working to an extent. The NLRB is probably the best and the safest way for them to do that. They just want to get back to playing again and getting a new agreement which is at least reasonable. Agreeing to something that you have essentially no say in is just not the kind of thing that makes sense for them and having it ramrodded down their throats makes it even less palatable. I just hope that this is the impetus that was needed and they can get this thing done so we can get to arguing about basketball again, not this mess.

[turk3d]

It's about whether or not the Owners were willing to enter into real negotiations or not. That's what the complaint is all about. The implication was that there was no willingness to discuss the issues with the union. It was a "take it or leave' offer and we're locking you out to prove we mean business when they could have started the season while negotiating during the season if need be (which they can still do).

The owners have absolutely no obligation to alter their demands, ever (although they reportedly have many times, including pre-lockout). Nor do they have any requirement to continue operating under the terms of an expired CBA that they find unacceptable. In fact the NLRA (the act that the NLRB enforces) recognizes lockouts and strikes as legit hardball tools for one side or the other to use to get what they want. They didn't try to avoid a lockout? Well duh, that's part of the process to force the other side to squirm and get what you want.

When an unfair labor practice charge is filed.....Since its establishment, the NLRB has processed more than 90O,000 unfair labor practice charges ......If the Regional Director decides that the charge lacks merit, it will be dismissed, unless the charging party decides to withdraw the charge. A dismissal may be appealed to the General Counsel's office in Washington, D.C. If the Regional Director finds reasonable cause to believe a violation the law has been committed, the Region seeks a voluntary settlement to remedy the alleged violations.

************

It seems that some of you want to trivialize the potential impact of the NLRB. The owners either better settle or hope they don't have an unfavorable ruling. I think they're going to settle which would be the wise thing to do here. There's going to be an investigation (unless the union withdraws their complaint) and when you consider that the leagues antitrust status could be at stake, there's lot more to lose for the owners than may appear to be on the surface.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. If you'll read what they aim for in what you cited above, it is to remedy the situation. In other words, in bad faith bargaining, they would want to get the parties to negotiate in good faith. That is their primary and typical remedy, straight from their rulebook, not the extreme penalties you've imagined.

They have more specific remedies for a failure to bargain in good faith in their rules, such as "mandatory meetings" and so on - but they are all things that simply force the parties to come to the table with the details of the deal they want.

There is only one actual "penalty" that might bother the NBA, and I've seen no legal experts who expect this. But in theory, since the NBAPA requested it and the NBA bluntly refused, the NLRB could rule that the NBA owners had the obligation to turn over personal financials on whatever side ventures they owned, to allow the players to dig through those and see what they can find. The remedy on that, as on the other claims, would simply be compliance ...but to actually get an order for that (or anything else) to happen, it would take about a year of chasing down the courtroom trail by the players, and probably longer if the owners appealed. There's no way.

Talking about the league's "antitrust status could be at stake" over something like this, is absurd overkill.

Absolutely, get them to the table, that's all I'm asking (and I think that's what the players are asking). And as for the antitrust aspect, it really could be an issue, especially if the union decertifies. That all but would insure they'd have a good chance to lose it or at least bring it into question (with no union to kick around). And as for the records, you're right, it would take time, but eventually they'd be forced to disclose. This can all be avoided and it appears they are taking measures to do just that. At least I hope that's the case.

[DBoys]

No where does it say in the NLRB or federal rules that each side gets to decide what is an official offer and what is not, all I have seen is that if either side makes an offer, and then refuses to accept that offer then they are negotiating in bad faith.

It is true that if one side puts an offer on the table, and the other accepts, then it's bad faith negotiating to not agree to what you originally offered.

However ....

There is indeed a difference between an actual "offer" and a side discussion of this issue or that. Unless Kessler or someone else formally made 50-50 as a proposal to the owners, they aren't obligated. That allows each side to say, "If we'd do this will you do that" and create the back and forth movement needed to come to a deal.

In addition, if the owners ever decide to declare an impasse and unilaterally impose a system, they are obligated to implement the best offer they made.

That's why you have heard Stern repeatedly saying that the owners are officially offering 47 rather than the 50 they've discussed as a compromise. It's not semantics. It is what they are obligated to give, if the players accept, and it is what they must use if an impasse is declared and the doors are re-opened.