NLRB ready to rule on Union's claim against NBA

[ATLTimekeeper]

If Obama has influence on the NLRB, wouldn't they rule against the players? A decision in favour of the players would just be appealed by the league, which would lengthen the lockout. A decision against the players would take a major bargaining chip off their plate.

[Hunter103]

dont the players have some leverage if the NLRB rules in their favour? and when the owners file that appeal dont the players have some leverage???

Yes they do. They would have the ruling itself (depending on how it is worded), and I believe that the owners would then be on the hook for all the players' missed paychecks + fines.

Not positive on this, but if the Owners lose the players might be eligible for up to 3x their lost wages.

Whoever wins, the ruling should have a major effect on someone's position, at least.

[Pimpwerx]

I hope the NLRB rules in favor of the players. Owners like Sarver, Gilbert, Taylor, Allen and Sterling have added little (if any) value to their franchises or the league.

This. I will never feel bad for the people who ran their businesses poorly. How are the players the ones to blame when they're just the employees and made big concessions that last CBA? When do the business owners take the blame for their failure? PEACE.

[Pimpwerx]

If Obama has influence on the NLRB, wouldn't they rule against the players? A decision in favour of the players would just be appealed by the league, which would lengthen the lockout. A decision against the players would take a major bargaining chip off their plate.

Because unions are a big part of the democratic base, and Obama would just continue sabotaging his standing with the liberal base if his admin undercuts a union in a public case like this. Just my opinion. He did not do himself any favors with HCR, DADT or those stupid tax cuts. PEACE.

[SacKingZZZ]

Hopefully they rule for the players and speed this thing up.

Or if they rule against the players and that forces them to give in and bend over.

Either option that ends this thing is my preferred choice at this point.

Don't care who "wins" just get it over with

Pretty much where I'm at. It's come to the point where I'm practically embarrassed to call myself and NBA fan.

As for the appeal, I'm pretty sure if the owners appealed it would be business as usual and they couldn't continue the lockout in the meantime.

[SacKingZZZ]

dont the players have some leverage if the NLRB rules in their favour? and when the owners file that appeal dont the players have some leverage???

Yes they do. They would have the ruling itself (depending on how it is worded), and I believe that the owners would then be on the hook for all the players' missed paychecks + fines.

Not positive on this, but if the Owners lose the players might be eligible for up to 3x their lost wages.

Whoever wins, the ruling should have a major effect on someone's position, at least.

I don't know, but I think seeking damages would be a different case altogether. This is just to lift the lockout I think. If the owners are indeed telling the truth and their figures hold up, there is no way any judge wouldn't uphold a lockout in which owners are trying to basically save themselves from a bankrupt system.

Just have to hope that whatever happens the other side realizes that going any further in this direction is only risking everything and the end result in only going to be even worse for the losing side.

[Ditchweed]

dont the players have some leverage if the NLRB rules in their favour? and when the owners file that appeal dont the players have some leverage???

Yes they do. They would have the ruling itself (depending on how it is worded), and I believe that the owners would then be on the hook for all the players' missed paychecks + fines.

Not positive on this, but if the Owners lose the players might be eligible for up to 3x their lost wages.

Whoever wins, the ruling should have a major effect on someone's position, at least.

After this ruling, the appeal has to be waited for, then ... and there are many "legal ruling" steps and a long time before the players (individually) could even attempt to try and get triple wages.

Read the NLRB (and union lawyer answers) latest statements on this. Check out the 12th posting on page 1 of RealGM thread "What if there is no NBA for 2 years?" ... it is quite large and I don't want to repost it here.

[Pimpwerx]

Random, stupid idea. Just alternate the player and owner demands every other year. One year, 53%, blah blah blah. The next year, 50/50 blah blah blah. At the end of 10 years, you compare each plan and see which one was better for the league, and that's what the next CBA ends up being. If both plans still lose the league money then the next CBA is another alternating mashup again. PEACE.

[turk3d]

What's going to happen (if the players win, which I think they will) is that the owners can appeal and if so, the players can then accept whatever offer the owners have on the table (presuming they have one) and go back to work. In the meantime (if they haven't already) the players (and their lawyers/agents) will initiate a massive lawsuit which the owners will eventually lose (which could take years). Similar to what happened to Major League Baseball back in the Curt Flood days and the days of collusion. Either way, I think government pressure at this point is a good thing in order to get things moving in the right direction.

[The Rebel]

What's going to happen (if the players win, which I think they will) is that the owners can appeal and if so, the players can then accept whatever offer the owners have on the table (presuming they have one) and go back to work. In the meantime (if they haven't already) the players (and their lawyers/agents) will initiate a massive lawsuit which the owners will eventually lose (which could take years). Similar to what happened to Major League Baseball back in the Curt Flood days and the days of collusion. Either way, I think government pressure at this point is a good thing in order to get things moving in the right direction.

On what basis do the owners automatically lose? Case law seems to be split right down the middle on most of this.

[turk3d]

What's going to happen (if the players win, which I think they will) is that the owners can appeal and if so, the players can then accept whatever offer the owners have on the table (presuming they have one) and go back to work. In the meantime (if they haven't already) the players (and their lawyers/agents) will initiate a massive lawsuit which the owners will eventually lose (which could take years). Similar to what happened to Major League Baseball back in the Curt Flood days and the days of collusion. Either way, I think government pressure at this point is a good thing in order to get things moving in the right direction.

On what basis do the owners automatically lose? Case law seems to be split right down the middle on most of this.

Just read what was in the link posted (you may not believe it). It boils down to a good faith issue. Were both sides negotiating in good faith throughout the entire negotiation process?

There's a great deal of evidence that the league (Stern) has planned to break the union as far back as several years ago and if this can be proven, they'll lose their antitrust status which is huge (players might not even have to decertify) in a government which is very pro-labor conscious, and anti-big business, especially when they feel that they are trying to push around the little guy (which in this case would be the players).

It's not automatic, but I'd bet my money on the players.

[highness]

Is this good or bad? lol.

[old rem]

If you want games without having to rely on the players coming to grips with reality, this is the only way!

Reality is that there's money thrown about foolishly by a SEGMENT of the owners. Meanwhile...a second rate backup G makes $ like a top surgeon?To maintain SOME parity,I would put in a hard cap at $75 mill with the soft cap at $4O-45 mill,and Lux Tax at $65 mill. Since there has to be an "amnesty" of sorts to get a few teams under $75 mill,I go with the 75% proposal where 5% stays on the books. As an offset to players, I ADD an other LLE to the every other year LLE so EACH year you have one,and alternate years you have two. This accomodates teams adding some of those players bought out and gives teams a bit more chance to fill rosters. It also provides several players some options better than minimum. That's some concession to the players offsetting the loss imposed by a hard cap forcing the deep pocket teams to have a max budget.

i'd consider also a provision that the hard cap line drops $1 mill per year till it hits $72 mill, but owners would in return guarantee no lockout for 8 years. Another provision, One Game a year, ALL team profit from concessions and parking goes into a pool from which the players on the team select 5 local charities or causes.

I do NOT favor the owners screwing the PLAYERS as the PLAYERS who are we pay to watch. That said, I think there's something very wrong if we fire teachers and firemen but some third string G makes as much $ as the President of the USA. Ultimately.............Eddy Curry cost the citizens of NY about as much as 4000 schoolteachers. How is that not DIRTY ? The MONEY, is from the FANS.

[The Rebel]

What's going to happen (if the players win, which I think they will) is that the owners can appeal and if so, the players can then accept whatever offer the owners have on the table (presuming they have one) and go back to work. In the meantime (if they haven't already) the players (and their lawyers/agents) will initiate a massive lawsuit which the owners will eventually lose (which could take years). Similar to what happened to Major League Baseball back in the Curt Flood days and the days of collusion. Either way, I think government pressure at this point is a good thing in order to get things moving in the right direction.

On what basis do the owners automatically lose? Case law seems to be split right down the middle on most of this.

Just read what was in the link posted (you may not believe it). It boils down to a good faith issue. Were both sides negotiating in good faith throughout the entire negotiation process?

There's a great deal of evidence that the league (Stern) has planned to break the union as far back as several years ago and if this can be proven, they'll lose their antitrust status which is huge (players might not even have to decertify) in a government which is very pro-labor conscious, and anti-big business, especially when they feel that they are trying to push around the little guy (which in this case would be the players).

It's not automatic, but I'd bet my money on the players.

I have read plenty about the NLRB and about what is considered not negotiating in good faith. The union is going to have a hard time proving that the owners have been using less good faith then they are. The NBA has moved off most of their positions in the last several weeks, the players are running around saying they will not negotiate hard caps and larger paycuts. The owners have agreed to every meeting requested and stayed through the end, the players have stomped out more then once. The owners said the only stance that is close to none negotiable is the 50% split, which is where they feel they need to be to remain financially solvent, the unions only defense is that they do not feel it is fair.

Nowhere is it in the rules that companies must overpay their employees while going bankrupt. Each party must prove that they are meeting when called, are trying to work out a deal, are clear about their demands, and can explain their positions. I have yet to see any kind of proof that the owners are not doing that.

the players can complain that the owners have been preparing for a lockout for years, or that the owners are saying that the players have not hurt enough, but they have moved off many of their original demands, have met with the players when requested, and have never refused to talk. The players on the other hand could have a major problem if the NLRB looks into their tactics.

While the NLRB is decidedly pro-union their stance will have to hold up in court and I am not so sure the players are going to win this one.

[UGA Hayes]

Interesting news about ESPN and TNT being possibly promised a 82 game season by Stern. More circumstantial evidence that a shortened season was always in the book.

[nugzin2040]

Good post Rebel. Still blows my mind that there are people that think the players win the ruling. How is pushing for a league that is more profitable, negotiating not out of good faith? So what? The owners have to agree to everything the players want or they're not acting out of good faith? Ridiculous.

This isn't like MLB where the owners withheld pensions, among other things.

[Wizenheimer]

Interesting news about ESPN and TNT being possibly promised a 82 game season by Stern. More circumstantial evidence that a shortened season was always in the book.

that's not evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, at least not at this point. What the union "believes" is not evidence. If there is some wink-&-nod deal between the NBA and the networks, that would be some evidence

what there is evidence for is that the union is leaking to their friendly sources like a sieve in a hurricane

[LakerLegend]

From the language in the article itself it seems like they will rule for the players

Officials of the National Labor Relations Board, sources say, appear to be ready to act on a players' union claim that NBA owners are guilty of unfair labor practices in their demands for "draconian demands and changes" and the declaration of a lockout when there was "no impasse in bargaining."

[Wizenheimer]

From the language in the article itself it seems like they will rule for the players

Officials of the National Labor Relations Board, sources say, appear to be ready to act on a players' union claim that NBA owners are guilty of unfair labor practices in their demands for "draconian demands and changes" and the declaration of a lockout when there was "no impasse in bargaining."

how the hell do you reach that conclusion??

all that quote does is repeat the allegations the union filed. There's no language there from the NLRB...those are just quotes from the union's press release

maybe the NLRB will rule for the players, and maybe they won't. The only thing we know is that "sources" say the board may be ready to rule

[turk3d]

I have read plenty about the NLRB and about what is considered not negotiating in good faith. The union is going to have a hard time proving that the owners have been using less good faith then they are. The NBA has moved off most of their positions in the last several weeks, the players are running around saying they will not negotiate hard caps and larger paycuts. The owners have agreed to every meeting requested and stayed through the end, the players have stomped out more then once. The owners said the only stance that is close to none negotiable is the 50% split, which is where they feel they need to be to remain financially solvent, the unions only defense is that they do not feel it is fair.

Everything you said above is just the "official" posture coming from both sides. What's actually truth is TBD. This is where if it goes to court, the judge and the lawyers will sort things out and once it gets there, you don't want to be caught lying and the real truth will surface.

The one thing that you (and others who seem to favor the owners side) seem to want to sweep under the rug is the owner's and league's antiitrust status which gives them huge tax breaks as well as benefits that your average corporation large just doesn't enjoy which is actually a "privileged" status.

We've seen this before, in situations where we didn't even have a pro-labor government in place in other pro sport shutdowns. A big problem for the owners is that the government has a much wider jurisdictional authority in this case (due to the league's antitrust status) and is probably willing to exercise it more readily (as we've seen the way they've treat huge sports conglomerates in recent years). Keep in mind that the antitrust laws have been put in place to protect labor (such as unions) from being steamrollered by big businesses and taken advantage of in situations just like this one.

I think that the league has been bluffing all along and the players are calling it to an extent. As to how much longer the players hold out, it's unknown but I think that is what the owners have been counting on, the players throwing in towel and folding. May be one big game of "chicken" we're seeing and it's getting dangerously close.

Nowhere is it in the rules that companies must overpay their employees while going bankrupt. Each party must prove that they are meeting when called, are trying to work out a deal, are clear about their demands, and can explain their positions. I have yet to see any kind of proof that the owners are not doing that.

And nowhere in the rules is it saying that they do. People and businesses are going bankrupt left and right in this economy so why shouldn't businesses which are almost solely dependent on discretionary income be exempt? Aside from minimum pay (like any business which has a minimum wage) and I'm sure it is not the NBA minimum wage that is causing the owners to go bankrupt that they have to pay players any more than they decide to pay them. No one forces their hand in signing those contracts. No different from a major corporation hiring an executive and giving him a multi-year 8 figure salary and then letting him go after they find out they made a mistake.

They still have to pay him unless there's some sort of an opt out clause or they agree to a buyout. It's not the players faults that the owners agreed to signing bad contract. I agree they need to change things in that regard, but truly, what has that got to do with the BRI which is pretty much all that's been talked about until just recently?

As for meetings and such, all pf that will come out in the wash if it gets into court. We'll see who's ok with going to court and who isn't. It's the players who brought this to the NLRB, not the owners am I correct? And it's the owners who have locked the playersout (the players didn't go out on strike did they) am I right? I believe that the players would come to work tomorrow if the owners were to just open their doors. They could then use the rest of the season to negotiate (this time hopefully in good faith on both sides).

In the meantime, the owners are shooting themselves in the foot by keeping their doors closed while some players are still receiving paychecks and others are signing on overseas and doing exhibitions.

the players can complain that the owners have been preparing for a lockout for years, or that the owners are saying that the players have not hurt enough, but they have moved off many of their original demands, have met with the players when requested, and have never refused to talk. The players on the other hand could have a major problem if the NLRB looks into their tactics.

I don't the owners have moved off any of their demands. A couple of times they said they came down in the BRI and then almost immediately denied it (as their initial demands was an 11% decrease for the players). And they waited a long time before coming to the table from what I've read.

While the NLRB is decidedly pro-union their stance will have to hold up in court and I am not so sure the players are going to win this one.

Well, based on everything I've read, I think they stand a much better chance although I think that once this thing gets moving, the owners will come down in their demands and they'll reach a settlement. I really can't see the owner going to court (not that I think the players want to but I see no alternative if the owners don't come off their high horse and start fairly negotiating).

The wild card in all this is the mediator. Given all the input from both sides, he should be able to figure out who's being honest and who's not, and if does go to NLRB you can be sure he'll be called as a witness which should make both sides a little nervous if they're hiding something.