NLRB ready to rule on Union's claim against NBA

[DBoys]

Absolutely, get them to the table, that's all I'm asking (and I think that's what the players are asking).

But wait, they're already there, right? And they've been there over and over, wouldn't you agree?

That's why this has no threat to the NBA. What would the NLRB tell them, to double-attend and double-negotiate at each meeting they're already attending? The sole remedy is compliance, to bargain in good faith, and they're already doing that.

And as for the antitrust aspect , it really could be an issue, especially if the union decertifies.

There is no antitrust aspect to the NLRB processs, in any way.

And the union isn't going to go down the time consuming path of disbanding. That change takes forever to put into place.

And as for the records, you're right, it would take time, but eventually they'd be forced to disclose.

Time is the defense attorney's best friend. And here's the unpassable barrier. Would the players sit out more than a year, to take a longshot at getting a peek at the owners' side financials? Of course not. But that's the price they'd have to pay, along with attorney fees for a year, for that pointless quest. So, it simply won't happen.

[mysticbb]

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.

Ok.

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

Well, that explains your answer. If you think that this is merely a PR gag, your answer makes sense. And we can also take into account that a 82 games seasons seems to be possible, if an agreement is reached within this week. Thus, the reaction of the owners can very well be related to the time table regarding a full season and not to a possible outcome of the NLRB ruling.

As you might have seen already I don't think that it is just a PR tool, I think the players have a slight chance to get the NLRB to rule in their favor and to get in the end an injunction to stop the lockout. That would undermine the leverage of the owners in those negotiations and would put the players into a position to get a deal closer to their conception.

[mysticbb]

1. So because we are not members of the NLRB means we cannot look up what constitutes bad faith negotiating and make our own judgements? 2 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. Where did I say that? The points were brought up before. There are lengthy posts by turk3d on that matter. Why should I repeat that? Makes no sense at all.

2. No, that does not mean this. We can make comments, for sure, but we are not negotiating, thus it has no influence on the outcome of the negotiation whether we make a comment or not. The same goes for the ruling. I can't say how the NLRB will rule, because I don't have all the informations and I'm not a member of that board. That is a fact. How I feel regarding the NLRB was said by me multiple times. I don't see the need to repeat it.

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.

What do you want to argue about? I merely stated facts. You would be a fool, if you think you can win an argument against facts or just intellectual dishonest. Both of those things are very common on this board.

The rest of your post is highly irrational and irrelevant. I already made my point in this very post you cited. Asking those questions is completely obsolet. But it is rather interesting that you tend to make some stuff up while then commenting on those things. That is called a strawman. No idea what you think you can achieve with this. What is the purpose? Just to start a nonsensical discussion?

[mysticbb]

What would the NLRB tell them, to double-attend and double-negotiate at each meeting they're already attending? The sole remedy is compliance, to bargain in good faith, and they're already doing that.

Well, I think that has influence on the decisions made, if a deal within this week is not reached. If the informations are correct, it would mean that the league would be indeed not play out 82 games per team. That means missing paychecks for the players. If the boards rules in favor of the players and at one point a court grants an injunction, it would open up the way to get the guaranteed money even though the players might have to wait a long time before a decision upon that is made.

The union might argue that a deal could have been reached earlier, if the owners would have negotiated in good faith in May/June/July. There seems to be two possible reasons why the union haven't updated their complaint: 1. The date of the ruling would have been later and thus would be later than the supposed to be deadline for the 82 games season. 2. The owners started to negotiate in good faith in August.

Well, as of right now it seems both are eager to make a deal to get a full season done.

[DBoys]

I think the players have a slight chance to get the NLRB to rule in their favor and to get in the end an injunction to stop the lockout. That would undermine the leverage of the owners in those negotiations and would put the players into a position to get a deal closer to their conception.

While such an outcome (an injunction to end the lockout) would certainly change things, there are some reasons why that's virtually impossible to happen ...and it has no chance of happening anytime soon. No chance.

1 The response to a "complaint" for a failure to bargain in good faith (that would be the next step, in the players favor), is a hearing. We don't even have a complaint yet.

If we get as far as a hearing, and the NLRB admin judge rules for the union, the result would be a demand from the NLRB to the owners to sit down and bargain in good faith. An injunction is not possible from them. And if the NBA complied rather than contested it, it ends.

Aren't they already negotiating? There's really nothing to remedy.

2 In addition, to get to the point where an injunction is even asked for, the players' claim would have to survive the entire NLRB process, then be contested and move to a court, a trial be held, and a decision in their favor rendered there. All of that is a long drawn out affair that would take until next summer or so. How helpful is the idea that the players could try for an injunction next summer?

3 And the big problem is, labor law specifically forbids such an injunction to end a lockout or strike, since it removes the pressure that can be exerted to force a deal. I think there are some very narrow exceptions to this prohibition, but the (theoretical) violation would be so minor (they didn't bargain in May-June 2011), but that it's virtually certain not to happen.

4 The players will cave long before then. Or take a deal of some sort, is a better way to put it. There's simply not enough differences between the 2 sides to sit out for a year.

[killbuckner]

And the big problem is, labor law specifically forbids such an injunction to end a lockout or strike, since it removes the pressure that can be exerted to force a deal

Thats not the case when it comes to the NLRB. This is how the baseball Strike (then subsequent lockout) was ended by Judge Sotomayor. If you are curious in that situation it took 8 months from the intial strike to the judge lifting the lockout. I haven't been able to find when the NLRB started it investigation after the initial complaint from the players. I believe that the initial complaint from the Players was filed in late December or Early January but I can't find an exact date anywhere. And as far as I can tell after the NLRB filed the complaint it was only a couple days until the judge granted an injunction lifting the lockout.

That said I don't think the NLRB is going to do anything in this case unless though Obama appointments the board has tipped SERIOUSLY towards the union side of things.

[DBoys]

And the big problem is, labor law specifically forbids such an injunction to end a lockout or strike, since it removes the pressure that can be exerted to force a deal

Thats not the case when it comes to the NLRB. This is how the baseball Strike (then subsequent lockout) was ended by Judge Sotomayor..

Did you want to cite half a thought and ignore the rest of the paragraph? Why? I noted there are some very narrow excpetions (but this situation would clearly not be one of them imo).

The Clayton Act bars federal courts, "in any case between an employer and employees, or between employers and employees, or between employees, or between persons employed and persons seeking employment, involving, or growing out of, a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment," from issuing an injunction to prohibit "any person or persons" from "ceasing to perform any work or labor" or "terminating any relation of employment." In other words, it's mandate is for judges to butt out and let the situation play itself out with the pressure and pain from a work stoppage forcing a deal.

In the baseball case, the exception made was due to the peculiar and extreme circumstances of that particular situation, which included the fact that MLB had imposed unilateral changes to its CBA. The judge reversed the changes (which baseball had illegally imposed in violation of labor law, then had promised to reverse but hadn't) and then killed the accompanying strike in the same blow. That's a far cry from anything we see here.

Oh, and to be accurate, what she issued was an injunction to end a strike, not a lockout.

[killbuckner]

Really I was just responding to the timeline. It looks like it took about 3 months for the NLRB to file the complaint and then another couple days for the judge to grant the injunction. You have been making it sound like nothing could possibly happen until next summer which appears to be incorrect.

As I said- I don't think the NLRB route is anything more than a hailmary from the players but the best case scenario timeline that worked for baseball players in the past is just different than what you were saying in this thread.

[DBoys]

Really I was just responding to the timeline. It looks like it took about 3 months for the NLRB to file the complaint and then another couple days for the judge to grant the injunction. You have been making it sound like nothing could possibly happen until next summer which is incorrect.

As I said- I don't think the NLRB route is anything more than a hailmary from the players but the timeline that worked for baseball players in the past is just different than what you were saying in this thread.

That was not a "failure to bargain in good faith" issue as the basis for the action the judge took. It was quite a unique situation.

The owners had made an agreement with the NLRB to do one thing, then had not followed through, and after two months they took the owners to court to force compliance. The judge forced the owners to comply, and then took additional action against the players (not the owners) to end the strike.

If they had wanted, the owners actually were given the option of a lockout, but chose not to do so, opting to go back to baseball instead.

[BadMofoPimp]

I think it was stupid to let players get involved in the first place. They are not educated in the business world and are completely outclassed here. You are taking people of which most have a high school education and pitting them against men who have the best lawyers in the business while building empires. Owners have been through negotiations hundreds of times whereas players usually have agents and handlers do their all their work. I knew a while ago that the players are going to get their azzes handed to them. But, when this CBA ends in six to ten years, I bet that Hunter, Fisher and company will be long gone and replaced by professionals in the business. But, Hunter is not that bad, but is out of his league.

[DBoys]

This deal probably will land on a place that could have happened months ago if the pros had been left alone to make it. But the hard-liners (on both sides) are loudest when nothing is at risk, so they squawked for months about how much they had to have. They were still going as recently as a week or two ago.

The closer it gets to money-losing time, the easier to get them to shut their pie hole and beg for a deal.

We're probably pretty close to Garnett and Wade letting Hunter and Kessler make a smart deal. And Gilbert and Sarver have been slapped in place too. Even if those loudmouths on each side aren't quite there yet, there are now plenty who are who will slap them into place if they try to take control.

it just takes time to get those idiots to this place..

[BadMofoPimp]

This deal probably will land on a place that could have happened months ago if the pros had been left alone to make it. But the hard-liners (on both sides) are loudest when nothing is at risk, so they squawked for months about how much they had to have. They were still going as recently as a week or two ago.

The closer it gets to money-losing time, the easier to get them to shut their pie hole and beg for a deal.

We're probably pretty close to Garnett and Wade letting Hunter and Kessler make a smart deal. And Gilbert and Sarver have been slapped in place too. Even if those loudmouths on each side aren't quite there yet, there are now plenty who are who will slap them into place if they try to take control.

it just takes time to get those idiots to this place..

I think with many of the system changes and even if the owners went halfway at 51.5%, Sarver, Gilbert and the rest of the owners will be happy. Because, there will be opportunities to turn this around and everyone will be able to get a piece of the pie. The players will end up making their money back down the road as the NBA product continues to improve and grow on the global market. It is all good and I think both sides understand this in the long run.