Lockout Definition

Superiorblogman · Post #1 » by **Superiorblogman** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:25 am

What is a lockout?

A lockout is a temporary withholding or denial of employment during a labor dispute in order to enforce terms of employment upon a group of employees. A lockout is initiated by the management of an establishment.

http://www.bls.gov/wsp/wspfaq.htm#Question_3

Hello, I think a lot of people are confused about a lockout vs a strike so I just dropped the definition of a lockout. The owners are trying to force the players to do what they want I remind you, strike is the other way around. I understand that both groups need to operate in good faith but I don't see how someone can say going from 57-43 to 53-47 is not good faith considering they have gotten zero concessions in return because there was no hard cap going into this battle. The owners are fully in the wrong here, they want more and are locking the players out until they not only get more which they already have but even more and even more. What is enough for the owners is the question? I don't see how anyone can side with the owners unless you have underlying issues with the players for reasons that really have nothing to do with bargaining in good faith.

Iman Shumpert · Post #2 » by **Iman Shumpert** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:36 am

Superiorblogman wrote:What is a lockout?

A lockout is a temporary withholding or denial of employment during a labor dispute in order to enforce terms of employment upon a group of employees. A lockout is initiated by the management of an establishment.

http://www.bls.gov/wsp/wspfaq.htm#Question_3

Hello, I think a lot of people are confused about a lockout vs a strike so I just dropped the definition of a lockout. The owners are trying to force the players to do what they want I remind you, strike is the other way around. I understand that both groups need to operate in good faith but I don't see how someone can say going from 57-43 to 53-47 is not good faith considering they have gotten zero concessions in return because there was no hard cap going into this battle. The owners are fully in the wrong here, they want more and are locking the players out until they not only get more which they already have but even more and even more. What is enough for the owners is the question?

This isn't a typical type of lockout like it is for other businesses. The NBA can't operate without a CBA in effect and they can't ratify a CBA without the players' approval. It's a "lockout". The NBA could easily start operating again if the players accept the deal that's on the table. Why would the owners give anything up from the last deal when they're the ones losing money? The system is broken and it's been broken. It's just finally reached its boiling point for the owners. There is no right or wrong. Both sides want to get as much as possible. The owners have taken almost all of their early demands off the table. Rollbacks, hard cap, non-guaranteed contracts, etc. So yes, they have moved from their position. If you're talking about movement from the previous deal, that makes no sense since the last deal favored the players.

I don't see how anyone can side with the owners unless you have underlying issues with the players for reasons that really have nothing to do with bargaining in good faith.

Just go ahead and play that special card you guys love so much.

In the end who the hell cares? I've asked it for months now and I've yet to see an answer to why an objective fan of the sport would care how much or how little a player makes.

Clangus · Post #3 » by **Clangus** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:00 am

Obvious player plant is obvious.

Post #4 » by **Thugger HBC** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:11 am

I'll side with the owners when my season ticket, parking, hot dog, and beer prices go down.

Otherwise I'm just a fan, and both sides are keeping me from enjoying the sport I love.

killbuckner · Post #5 » by **killbuckner** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:41 am

The NBA can't operate without a CBA in effect

Thats not true- the NFL operated without a CBA the first time the players decertified the union.

Post #6 » by **Thugger HBC** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:44 am

killbuckner wrote:
The NBA can't operate without a CBA in effect

Thats not true- the NFL operated without a CBA the first time the players decertified the union.

The players haven't decertified.

Parataxis · Post #7 » by **Parataxis** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:36 pm

Iman Shumpert wrote:This isn't a typical type of lockout like it is for other businesses. The NBA can't operate without a CBA in effect

Yes it can. There is absolutely nothing (other than the wishes of the owners) the NBA from continuing while the CBA is still being negotiated - to say otherwise is a lie.

Now, the owners don't WANT it to, but that's not the same thing, now is it?

Post #8 » by **Thugger HBC** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:41 pm

Parataxis wrote:
Iman Shumpert wrote:This isn't a typical type of lockout like it is for other businesses. The NBA can't operate without a CBA in effect

Yes it can. There is absolutely nothing (other than the wishes of the owners) the NBA from continuing while the CBA is still being negotiated - to say otherwise is a lie.

Now, the owners don't WANT it to, but that's not the same thing, now is it?

What would they operate then? What Rules and regulations would they use?

The owners had the option to pick up the 1 year extension, and they declined, because they said the agreement no longer worked for the business.

Wizenheimer · Post #9 » by **Wizenheimer** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:50 pm

Parataxis wrote:
Iman Shumpert wrote:This isn't a typical type of lockout like it is for other businesses. The NBA can't operate without a CBA in effect

Yes it can. There is absolutely nothing (other than the wishes of the owners) the NBA from continuing while the CBA is still being negotiated - to say otherwise is a lie.

Now, the owners don't WANT it to, but that's not the same thing, now is it?

you can just turn that logic around though for every union that goes out on strike:

"the union doesn't have to go on strike though, they could just keep working at the wages and under the conditions that would make them strike in the first place. Meanwhile a new deal is being negotiated" That's ludicrous of course because the negotiations would go nowhere without the union using the leverage of a strike

it's also ludicrous because the NBA was losing over 10 million a week. Why would they continue to pour money down the black hole of the previous CBA when that CBA had expired?

or, why don't the players just agree to play under the terms of the owner's first proposal, temporarily of course, until a new CBA is ratified?

infam0us · Post #10 » by **infam0us** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:50 pm

Technically they could run the league based off individual contracts without and actual system. It just wouldn't make sense because it would make matters worse. So they actually can but its not a feasible option.

Post #11 » by **DuckIII** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:52 pm

Superiorblogman wrote:What is a lockout?

A lockout is a temporary withholding or denial of employment during a labor dispute in order to enforce terms of employment upon a group of employees. A lockout is initiated by the management of an establishment.

http://www.bls.gov/wsp/wspfaq.htm#Question_3

Hello, I think a lot of people are confused about a lockout vs a strike so I just dropped the definition of a lockout. The owners are trying to force the players to do what they want I remind you, strike is the other way around. I understand that both groups need to operate in good faith but I don't see how someone can say going from 57-43 to 53-47 is not good faith considering they have gotten zero concessions in return because there was no hard cap going into this battle. The owners are fully in the wrong here, they want more and are locking the players out until they not only get more which they already have but even more and even more. What is enough for the owners is the question? I don't see how anyone can side with the owners unless you have underlying issues with the players for reasons that really have nothing to do with bargaining in good faith.

The players just want to play (for a specified amount of dollars and contractual terms that the PA demand be in place)! Why won't the owners just let the players play (for a specified amount of dollars and contractual terms that the PA demand be in place)?!?!?

Post #12 » by **DuckIII** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:54 pm

infam0us wrote:Technically they could run the league based off individual contracts without and actual system. It just wouldn't make sense because it would make matters worse. So they actually can but its not a feasible option.

How do they do free agency? Cap rules? Trade rules? And everything else the CBA governs?

killbuckner · Post #13 » by **killbuckner** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:02 pm

If the players and owners come to an impasse then at some point the owners could put in place their "last best" offer and play the season out while continuing to negotiate. The players would have to decide whether they were willing to accept that offer or not- their only option would be to go on strike and sue with the NLRB.

In reality the players would decertify the union if it came down to that. The owners could still put in the rules that they wanted to and at that point the players would have no option to go on strike because they didn't have a union. INstead what they would do is sue the NBA for any rules that they put in place that they think would be anti-competitive. SO the NBA could try and put in place a 6 million dollar maximum salary but its virtually certain that they would lose in court and then the owners would have to pay triple damages for any money they saved using the illegal rules.

Post #14 » by **DuckIII** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:24 pm

killbuckner wrote:If the players and owners come to an impasse then at some point the owners could put in place their "last best" offer and play the season out while continuing to negotiate.

How? I guess if you are under contract, you can play, but if you are a free agent you are left out in the cold. And there could be no trades.

killbuckner · Post #15 » by **killbuckner** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:42 pm

How? I guess if you are under contract, you can play, but if you are a free agent you are left out in the cold. And there could be no trades.

Thats not at all True- the owners would be able to put in the "last best" offer that they had in place. The only option would be to file a complaint with the NLRB or to go on Strike. (Or decertify the union...)

Post #16 » by **DuckIII** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:59 pm

killbuckner wrote:
How? I guess if you are under contract, you can play, but if you are a free agent you are left out in the cold. And there could be no trades.

Thats not at all True- the owners would be able to put in the "last best" offer that they had in place. The only option would be to file a complaint with the NLRB or to go on Strike. (Or decertify the union...)

It wasn't a statement. It was a question. I don't know how it works, but I'll take your word for it. Either way, I find the lockout/strike distinction, as a matter of PR, to be a silly and academic one.

Both sides demand that the system be a particular way. The "we just want to play!" sentiment is disingenous, transparent, and ridiculous.

Wizenheimer · Post #17 » by **Wizenheimer** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:12 pm

DuckIII wrote:
Both sides demand that the system be a particular way. The "we just want to play!" sentiment is disingenous, transparent, and ridiculous.

QFT

SO_MONEY · Post #18 » by **SO_MONEY** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:36 pm

infam0us wrote:Technically they could run the league based off individual contracts without and actual system. It just wouldn't make sense because it would make matters worse. So they actually can but its not a feasible option.

Sorry, technically, without a CBA, the contracts would be anti-competitive, as they would no longer be protected by non-statutory labor exceptions...so long story short, the NBA wouldn't engage in business that opens themselves up for anti-trust litigation.

BadMofoPimp · Post #19 » by **BadMofoPimp** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:54 pm

DuckIII wrote:
killbuckner wrote:
How? I guess if you are under contract, you can play, but if you are a free agent you are left out in the cold. And there could be no trades.

Thats not at all True- the owners would be able to put in the "last best" offer that they had in place. The only option would be to file a complaint with the NLRB or to go on Strike. (Or decertify the union...)

It wasn't a statement. It was a question. I don't know how it works, but I'll take your word for it. Either way, I find the lockout/strike distinction, as a matter of PR, to be a silly and academic one.

Both sides demand that the system be a particular way. The "we just want to play!" sentiment is disingenous, transparent, and ridiculous.

What those players meant, was "We just want to get paid!" sentiment.

Superiorblogman · Post #20 » by **Superiorblogman** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:12 pm

Once again, people trying to argue against facts are not worth the time it takes to have a conversation. It is a fact, that a lockout is caused by the owners or business operators trying to force a set of conditions onto the employees or players. I did not make that up, that is the definition; fact. Noone can answer the simple question what have the owners given up? And don't reply that they gave up there stance on a hard cap because there was never a hard cap in place. That is a perceived concession, not a real one. What have the owners given up that they had in the last deal?