Reply With Quote
It's even funnier now. So Google, Apple, and Microsoft can form a cartel because they're competing with development houses in India and Vietnam. Funny , man.
Unions bad!
It's even funnier now. So Google, Apple, and Microsoft can form a cartel because they're competing with development houses in India and Vietnam. Funny , man.
What's the other league in the US? The ing Harlem Globetrotters tour???
I don't agree. Unless you could show me some legal arguments to the contrary - either way, whether its with or without the NBPA the league is breaking these laws if you believe it's just like any other business. The difference is that the players are not filing the lawsuits because there is an agreement between the league and the NBPA the prevents them from doing so (plus of course when the players are happy they obviously have no incentive to do so). Why could the same agreement not exist between the league and each player on the individual basis, again assuming the sports leagues are considered equal to any other business out there which would still need to be properly analyzed, interpreted and decided by the judicial system.
jabol130, you're free to form your own league if you don't like it.
Oh boy. I'm talking about the existing international leagues. Think big picture. We are living in a day and age where i should not have to point out the existence of a global economy.
You're completely wrong.
The NBA is protected from an rust suits because it has entered into a collective bargaining arrangement with the NBPA. Absent that relationship, players would sue the NBA if the league tried to establish rules that would limit where players could work and how much money they could make.
Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. It's the law.
Here's a guide to some of the issues discussed in this thread. The writer is a law professor and the director of the Tulane Sports Law program:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabrie...b_1081107.html
Why would the NBA players decertify?
The NBA players may believe that the NBPA has not done a good job representing their interests in the CBA negotiations, or they may believe they are better off negotiating as individual employees without the benefit of a union, but the players would primarily be using decertification as a means to end. The end is the ability to bring an an rust lawsuit against the NBA challenging the lockout as an an rust violation. The players would argue that the lockout cons utes an illegal "group boycott" by the owners. The players would likely also challenge any of the rules that the league might put in place that restrict a player's ability to make money or otherwise impact the players working conditions. For example, the players could challenge the NBA's salary cap, the player draft, and other player and free agency restrictions.
Are you quoting FoxNews here?
One more chance. Here's where you say "I stand corrected".
Clayton An rust Act
Exemptions
An important difference between the Clayton Act and its predecessor, the Sherman act, is that the Clayton Act contained safe harbors for union activities.
Under the current law. But if that law creates a situation where the Union members demand to high of a reward for their services consequently driving their employer our of business maybe the law needs to be looked at and changed.
How does that invalidates my point? Strict free-market means supply-demand applies, and I think we can all agree that supply of highly skilled basketball players is rather small. Would scrubs be paid less? Sure. Would franchise guys be paid way, way more? No doubt about it.
The union can demand whatever it wants. And the owners can simply say no. It can work the other way too. That's how collective bargaining works.
The current law is the only one that matters to this discussion.
Sounds more like stoned Rush after his morning fix tbh.
I don't. To me the NBA itself is a business and for that business to stay successful it needs to be able to promote relative equality between it's teams. So if under the current law, the only way that business can stay successful is if the players are unionized and if if the share fact that the players are unionized "...creates a situation where the Union members demand to high of a reward for their services consequently driving their employer our of business maybe the law needs to be looked at and changed."
Sorry, I had to laugh. Your original position was that unions were a thing of the past and that the NBPA needs to get a clue. Now that you realize that the NBA absolutely needs the union in order to do business, you've moved on to wishing for a different reality where an rust laws are fundamentally changed.
Last chance. Here's where you say "I stand corrected".
But their employers are doing it for us citizens; they're too kindhearted to fold just because the big bad n!ggers take all their money just for throwing a leather ball around.
I'm getting the distinct impression jabol doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just pro-rich and that's the end of it.
Hey, trivia time for everyone:
A monopoly is when there is a single seller of a good or service.
But what is the term when there is a single buyer? (The NBA can be thought of in that way in terms of domestic professional basketball.)
Last edited by Mr. Body; 11-12-2011 at 08:56 PM.
Who's stopping the NBA from running the business the way they want? They're free to not do business with the current players and just get new ones, aren't they?
Actually, the NBA is only allowed to hire temp players for the duration of the lockout... then again, if players are dime a dozen, why isn't the league playing games with temp players?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
