Reply With Quote
Labor law intends to promote good faith bargaining. The league's arguing that disclaimer, and the use of litigation, are bad faith negotiation tactics. Regardless of the union's existence, a judge will have to consider this not-so-thin point.
This sucks. I get that Stern is an ass, and that to color this deal as anything other than the players taking it in the shorts is rediculous...but I could honestly give two s about principled objection from millionare players. I finally make it back to San Antonio after six years abroad and I've got no Spurs to go watch. Totally selfish...I know. But I can't help it.
Labor law intends to promote good faith bargaining. The league's arguing that disclaimer, and the use of litigation, are bad faith negotiation tactics. Regardless of the union's existence, a judge will have to consider this not-so-thin point.
Now the union also has ammo in the treats of "take this or we're rolling back to a tier proposal" and "you have until X day to accept this deal". I can't see how that can be considered good-faith bargaining either.
Such point was made by the NBA and the judge deemed it "thin" as far as a negotiating tactic. Obviously, you must know something the judge doesn't.
The happiest result for me will be David Stern thrown out on his expensive, pampered ass. He went from one of the best commissioners in all of sports to one of the foulest, most reprehensible.
Surprised I didn't hear Fish say "Owners haven't felt enough pain yet"...
Hey guys! What's happening around here? Anything good?
Why would that be bad faith negotiating?
lol Stern meltdown
Stern is a piece of work. The union has agreed to billions in givebacks and Stern can say with a straight face that the union isn't negotiating in good faith. Incredible.
At that time, the judge thought the threat of litigation was thin - hence him saying like "if there's a gun on the table, there probably aren't any bullets in it." In other words, the threat of litigation didn't have any teeth in it and therefore the League's argument that such a "bad faith" negotiating tactic was thin.
Now that nuclear button has been pushed, you can't see that threat is thin anymore.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...s-lawsuit.htmlNov. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The union representing National Basketball Association players asked a judge to dismiss a league lawsuit seeking to have a court declare that its player lockout doesn’t violate an rust law.
The NBA sued the National Basketball Players Association in August, claiming the union was threatening to use an rust litigation to extract better terms in contract talks.
At a hearing in Manhattan federal court today, a lawyer for the union asked a judge to throw the case out, claiming there’s no legal conflict for him to determine at this stage.
“They’re asking you to do something unprecedented and inappropriate, and you should respectfully decline,” Jeffrey Kessler told U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe.
The hearing came a day after the NBA season was scheduled to begin. NBA Commissioner David Stern last week announced that a breakdown in negotiations between the two sides had forced the league to cancel all of the games scheduled for November. The move means the NBA will have a shortened season for only the second time in its 66-year history.
The league and the players’ union started mediated talks on Oct. 18 to end the lockout.
Jeffrey Mishkin, a lawyer for the NBA, defended the league’s request for a declaration from the court.
‘Concrete Dispute’
“There is a real, live, concrete dispute here that’s not hypothetical,” he told Gardephe.
The judge called some of the league’s allegations “very thin.”
The NBA claims in its suit that the union has threatened on more than two dozen occasions to give up its role as the exclusive bargaining representative of league players.
A so-called decertification can pave the way for an rust claims against the league, such as those filed by National Football League players after their labor talks broke down in March.
“It’s like taking a loaded gun and putting it on the table,” Mishkin argued, referring to the union’s actions.
“If they’re putting a gun on the table, it’s not clear they have any bullets in it,” Gardephe answered.
The two sides are discussing how to split money from a league that had about $4.3 billion in revenue last season. Stern has said the league’s 30 teams collectively lost at least $300 million in each of the past three seasons.
The case is National Basketball Association v. National Basketball Players Association, 11-cv-05369, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
--Editors: Andrew Dunn, Fred Strasser
To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York at [email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at [email protected]
Ultimatums don't strike me as good-faith bargaining. There's nothing wrong with offering a deal. But treating to pull it if not accepted by X day doesn't sound like bargaining to me.
Then again, the union has a stronger case with anti-trust, so it might not matter.
Now that the season is done, I just hope they will get a deal for the next 15 years
It all comes down to how much everyone hates Stern.
Thanks for reminding me he said it was "very thin", not just "thin".
The point stands. As a negotiating tactic, it has no bullets.
The union is no more, the NBA has no longer any party to negotiate with, and as such, the claim of a negotiating tactic is moot at this stage.
That's just aggressive negotiating. It's not the same as blowing up the entire process by filing suit.
So what's next?
The owners started this. Gave the players an offer the players did not like and publicly have said that their next offer will be worse. I don't know how the courts will completely side with the owners.
Now that the league has disbanned what's next? I have read on here that the league and owners can continue talking but I have also read that even if the league and owners come to an agreement in the next 45 days it is too late. So then, what's next? Sorry if I missed this earlier.
Debatable. On the other hand, owners were well aware of "the nuclear option" going into the talks too. It's not like the union did something illegal.
They were arrogant and they thought players would take the money. Now they'll have to deal with this cluster .
Yep. He's had this comin' for quite awhile.
That's incorrect. For one, disclaimer means that the union no longer exclusively represents the players -- not that it no longer exists (which would happen with decertification).Thanks for reminding me he said it was "very thin", not just "thin".
The point stands. As a negotiating tactic, it has no bullets.
The union is no more, the NBA has no longer any party to negotiate with, and as such, the claim of a negotiating tactic is moot at this stage.
For two, the "very thin" threat of litigation has now become real - and everyone knows why this is happening: to give the players better negotiating leverage. Use of litigation as a bargaining ploy is bad faith negotiating which is the league's argument.
Interesting though that Stern made no mentions of voiding contracts (yet).
Meanwhile, Spurs fans might as well go ahead and say goodbye to Tim Duncan. Even if he comes back on a new contract in 2012-2013, he'll just be another year older and slower.
I'll give you debatable. But it's much closer to good-faith bargaining than saying it, we'll see you in court.
This.
Meanwhile, Spurs fans might as well go ahead and say goodbye to Tim Duncan. Even if he comes back on a new contract in 2012-2013, he'll just be another year older and slower.
Not true. The union is no more. They filed to change into a trade association. Exactly the same that happens after decertification.
You're skipping the "as a negotiation tactic". There's no longer a negotiation taking place, since there's no union to negotiate with. Stern already said that even if they were to have a better proposal, they have nobody to present it to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
