Lockout Definition

[Parataxis]

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.

Under labour rules, at the expiry of a CBA, work can continue under the old CBA until a new one is agreed upon - so probably the old CBA. During the negotiations, they can choose to make the new CBA retroactive to the expiry of the old one, if they so agree.

Just because the owners didn't WANT to play under the old CBA, doesn't mean they COULDN'T have. There is absolutely nothing (other than the owners' wishes) stopping the NBA from operating without a current CBA.

[BadMofoPimp]

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?

They have given up profits. Now, most teams are losing money. With the increase in the costs of maintaining teams and if the league is going to move forward, there needs to be major restructuring of the CBA.

[Parataxis]

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 correct. Under labour law, that's perfectly permissible.

You didn't claim that the lockout was a good idea, you claimed that the NBA COULD NOT operate without a new one. That claim is untrue.

[_Game7_]

Action to a reaction.

[Wizenheimer]

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"

You didn't claim that the lockout was a good idea, you claimed that the NBA COULD NOT operate without a new one. That claim is untrue.

you have me confused with someone else. I did not make that claim

[DuckIII]

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.

It is a fact. But it is a fact of no consequence. Both sides have specific terms that they are demanding the other side agree to before the season will commence. It is a "lockout" merely because the parties are in between CBAs. But the better characterization of the situation is descriptive: Two parties negotiating the terms of a mutual contract.

What have the owners given up that they had in the last deal?

Nothing, to my knowledge. Not that it matters. The last deal was finite and is now over. Its terms have no bearing on the whatever the new terms will be, other than to perhaps provide context for the League's losses under the prior deal so as to assist in figuring out what to change so that doesn't continue to happen.

My employer felt the pain of the economy a few years ago. As a consequence, we employees were presented with 5-10% salary rollbacks. I didn't get anything in return for that. I just got less money. Sometimes when you are the employee, that is how it works.

[Parataxis]

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"

You didn't claim that the lockout was a good idea, you claimed that the NBA COULD NOT operate without a new one. That claim is untrue.

you have me confused with someone else. I did not make that claim

Sorry, you're correct. It was Ivan Shumpert who made that claim.

It was the claim that I was responding to though, when I pointed out that they absolutely could keep going without a CBA. (And likewise, striking workers could choose to work rather than strike while negotiations continue).
\
But yes, it wasn't you who said otherwise. My bad.

[SO_MONEY]

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?

Why would we need to use the last deal as a point to base our conclusions? There is no deal, there is no contract, there is nothing... it starts over. If the players don't like the proposals they don't have to agree, but if roles were reversed and owners have had a favorable deal and backed off of some issues I wouldn't come up with the nonsense that the players hadn't given anything from what they wanted in an attempt to fix the system to their benefit.

By the way the biggest fact in this is there is nothing present, so neither side can claim anything beyond that, and to base anything on previous negotiations is pointless as the same set of circumstances on any given issue may or may not have been present at any given time in relation to current talks.

To answer the question you say no one will answer, in the most simple sense both sides have given a great deal, in a broader sense the owners have given up more from their initial offer and from an irrational sense the players have given more.

[transplant]

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.

Yes, the owners locked out the players. I'm not sure I get your point though. Are workers who go on strike for better pay and working conditions always wrong?

When a labor agreement expires, one of 3 things can happen:

- mutually agree to continue to work under the old agreement until a new agreement can be hammered out.

- if workers do not want to continue to work under the old agreement, they can choose not to do so which puts economic pressure on management...aka economic strike.

- if management doesn't want work to continue under the old agreement, they can choose not to allow work to continue which puts economic pressure on workers/union...aka lockout.

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?

Neither side has to "give up" anything. I negotiated several labor contracts in the lovely economic times of the '70s and '80s where we didn't ask the union to give up a damn thing. We were happy with the old contract (much like the NBPA is now). We simply spent the meetings fending off what we thought were unreasonable union demands for higher raises, more paid time off, etc. A couple times the union threatened to strike and we said, "go for it." They never did strike and we eventually came away with something that neither side was all that happy with...aka a good contract.

[Iman Shumpert]

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.

BS. Every single one of your posts has been emphatically pro-player.

[Iman Shumpert]

Sorry, you're correct. It was Ivan Shumpert who made that claim.

It was the claim that I was responding to though, when I pointed out that they absolutely could keep going without a CBA. (And likewise, striking workers could choose to work rather than strike while negotiations continue).
\
But yes, it wasn't you who said otherwise. My bad.

I didn't say they couldn't operate without a new one. I said they couldn't operate without any CBA in place. Why would they operate under the old toxic deal? That's like if the old deal paid the players nothing and it came time to renegotiate it, do you think they'd say.."hey let's play for nothing while we renegotiate a new deal"? The CBA dictates the terms.

[SO_MONEY]

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 correct. Under labour law, that's perfectly permissible.

You didn't claim that the lockout was a good idea, you claimed that the NBA COULD NOT operate without a new one. That claim is untrue.

It is true and untrue in the same breath, the provision you reference to best of my memory is to permit business to continue after the expiration of a CBA/union contract, allowing time to negotiate and vote on the new agreement.

This is not in the event of an opt out clause where by result there is no longer any agreement.

So, it is true the NBA could have played one more year let the CBA expire and continue from your timeline where they could have continued to play under the old agreement (unlikely).

However, once a contract is voided and no longer binding as with an opt out there is no ability of the employer to go back and agree to play under a past agreement, that ship has sailed and a new agreement must be reached whether it is temporary or long-term.

So in this case you are wrong...

[dacher]

The lockout is the owners strike. I guess in theory owners could break rank, open their stadiums and "scab", or the players start a league or find other leagues to play in (overseas), just like if factory workers strike, ownership might look to hire scabs or open a factory elsewhere.

And there didn't have to be a stoppage just because a contract is ending. There is always the option of extending the current CBA contract another year. Just like if you rent a place, when the lease is up, you can usually keep living there month-to-month on the old contract + surcharge, if the landlord isn't looking to replace you.

[Superiorblogman]

For those of you claiming that the players have not given up anything, I don't understand where you are coming from or going with that. The players have reportedly offered to go from 57 to 53 or 52.5 in sharing with the owners that is very substantial. The owners have not given up anything, and you know why because they don't have anything to give up. Only thing they can do is withhold salary which they are doing until they get there way. If the players holdout atleast a year I will gain more respect for them because they will prove that they are not greedy desperate athletes. Greedy athletes would never leave money on the table they are and I hope they do it for a year until the owners realize they have nothing to offer and the only thing they can do is withhold checks.

[killbuckner]

However, once a contract is voided and no longer binding as with an opt out there is no ability of the employer to go back and agree to play under a past agreement, that ship has sailed and a new agreement must be reached whether it is temporary or long-term.

Actually- at some point the NFL would be allowed to declare a bargaining impasse and institute the terms of their last, best offer. The players could go on strike if they didn't want the terms. The NFL players originally tried this but the courts held that the NFL would still be protected by the nonstatutory labor exemption. the COURTS were the ones that suggested if the players wanted to challenge the rules that they should decertify their union. So thats what the players did and they won in court.

[SO_MONEY]

For those of you claiming that the players have not given up anything, I don't understand where you are coming from or going with that. The players have reportedly offered to go from 57 to 53 or 52.5 in sharing with the owners that is very substantial. The owners have not given up anything, and you know why because they don't have anything to give up. Only thing they can do is withhold salary which they are doing until they get there way. If the players holdout atleast a year I will gain more respect for them because they will prove that they are not greedy desperate athletes. Greedy athletes would never leave money on the table they are and I hope they do it for a year until the owners realize they have nothing to offer and the only thing they can do is withhold checks.

Owners can give up demands, which they have done throughout the bargaining process. The players have as well, but to say one side has given up things and the other hasn't is flat out wrong. It is all or nothing, either both sides have given up what they have been demanding or haven't given up anything as there is no contract in place so there is nothing to give up.

Ask yourself what percentage of BRI the players make currently, if you answer 57%, you are wrong they get 0%, so any give or take they engage in can only be looked upon as either favorable or unfavorable compared to the past agreements, not as having given up more than its opposing side who has made movement themselves and perhaps to a larger degree.

The only thing one can claim (wrongly), is based off the last CBA players have made more movement compared to the owners, but by believing this you then cannot espouse the belief that negotiations can ever really exists as they are only to be conditioned upon things in the past, regardless of current climates. This nonsense of denying negotiations or the ability to do so, works only to limit the amount of progress any side can make at any given time by claiming one side has a right to make demands, but these demands can only go so far in relation to a past agreement.

Anyone would be at a severe disadvantage negotiating under the above, if they were to have the unfortunate consequence of entering into a bad deal. It is all about leverage and outcomes, and they can very witnessed by the ebbs and flows of contracts agreed upon.

[Superiorblogman]

For those of you claiming that the players have not given up anything, I don't understand where you are coming from or going with that. The players have reportedly offered to go from 57 to 53 or 52.5 in sharing with the owners that is very substantial. The owners have not given up anything, and you know why because they don't have anything to give up. Only thing they can do is withhold salary which they are doing until they get there way. If the players holdout atleast a year I will gain more respect for them because they will prove that they are not greedy desperate athletes. Greedy athletes would never leave money on the table they are and I hope they do it for a year until the owners realize they have nothing to offer and the only thing they can do is withhold checks.

Owners can give up demands, which they have done throughout the bargaining process. The players have as well, but to say one side has given up things and the other hasn't is flat out wrong. It is all or nothing, either both sides have given up what they have been demanding or haven't given up anything as there is no contract in place so there is nothing to give up.

Ask yourself what percentage of BRI the players make currently, if you answer 57%, you are wrong they get 0%, so any give or take they engage in can only be looked upon as either favorable or unfavorable compared to the past agreements, not as having given up more than its opposing side who has made movement themselves and perhaps to a larger degree.

The only thing one can claim (wrongly), is based off the last CBA players have made more movement compared to the owners, but by believing this you then cannot espouse the belief that negotiations can ever really exists as they are only to be conditioned upon things in the past, regardless of current climates. This nonsense of denying negotiations or the ability to do so, works only to limit the amount of progress any side can make at any given time by claiming one side has a right to make demands, but these demands can only go so far in relation to a past agreement.

Anyone would be at a severe disadvantage negotiating under the above, if they were to have the unfortunate consequence of entering into a bad deal. It is all about leverage and outcomes, and they can very witnessed by the ebbs and flows of contracts agreed upon.

No,you are flat out wrong.The owners have not given up a single thing that is tangible; and have not even offered to do such, they have offered to give up things in which they do not have to start with which is so bush-league when it comes to negotiating at this level. They did not have a hard cap to start with. Who cares about people making unrealistic demands. I want a million dollars from you right now Mr. Money, oh, I take that back I will drop that demand. Who cares about someone making demands that aren't going to happen? To say that the owners have given up anything or even offered is once again skewing facts. That was always there intentions to demand crazy things then back away from that. That is not good faith bargaining or even a legitimate means of bargaining unless you are dealing with amateurs, obviously the players are unionized with lawyers and such so they don't fall prey to such amateur tactics.

[Thugger HBC]

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.

BS. Every single one of your posts has been emphatically pro-player.

Yet, I continue to say both sides are greedy, players need to take the 50-50, and the owners are dumbasses.

Also on numerous post I wonder why anyone would take a side.

They are both preventing you from the game you enjoy.

[Iman Shumpert]

Yet, I continue to say both sides are greedy, players need to take the 50-50, and the owners are dumbasses.

Also on numerous post I wonder why anyone would take a side.

They are both preventing you from the game you enjoy.

Which is why I said BS. You start off with an anti-owner, pro-player rant, then.......

"I have no side here"

You're not fooling anyone. I post on the Knick forums you know. And your position has been very clearly pro-player.

[Thugger HBC]

Yet, I continue to say both sides are greedy, players need to take the 50-50, and the owners are dumbasses.

Also on numerous post I wonder why anyone would take a side.

They are both preventing you from the game you enjoy.

Which is why I said BS. You start off with an anti-owner, pro-player rant, then.......

"I have no side here"

You're not fooling anyone. I post on the Knick forums you know. And your position has been very clearly pro-player.

Go for it, bring 'em out, I'm sure you're good at that.