Union makes big move without polling members

[SlyPokerDog]

The last time the NBA and the players association met, the meeting ended early Friday morning with an offer from the league. The NBA then sent that offer in writing to every player, and quietly prayed that the union would let the players vote on it, expecting it would pass and the NBA season would begin.

It never happened, however. Instead of putting the decision to 450 players, the union put the decision to 30 player representatives who, the union says, were unanimous in rejecting the deal and taking new legal action.

As soon as that decision was announced, I asked union spokesman Dan Wasserman, who was standing in the back of the room next to attorney Jeffrey Kessler, why the union was turning to the group of 30 representatives.

The union has three player bodies it can consult: The executive committee, the 30 elected representatives and the full membership. Why that middle body?

I was asking what I thought was a fairly boring question. I would have been satisfied with a response about by-laws or somesuch. But Wasserman and Kessler blew up. I couldn't even finish the question before both were loud, gruff and dismissive.

The gist of the response was that you cannot give your adversary direct access to the membership. "That's not how any union in America, that I'm aware of, operates," said Kessler. If the NBA is just going to send offers straight to the players, why even have a union? The idea is that the union is savvier, and knows a good deal when it sees one. And only when the union is sure that the deal is in players' best interests will they present it to the workers.

Rockets guard Kevin Martin, by text on Monday morning, said he didn't care to be represented that way: "I think it's fair for every player to have a vote, because we're all grown men and its time for the players to control their career decisions, and not one player per team. If it comes down to a final decision, you got to be fair."

He added that other players he had talked to may or may not have voted for the deal the NBA had on the table, but "most feel like we're entitled to a vote!"

To hear David Stern tell it, skipping that vote was a key misstep. Speaking to ESPN's "SportsCenter" he said: "The union decided in its infinite wisdom that the proposal would not be presented to membership. Obviously, Mr. Kessler got his way and we are about to go into the nuclear winter of the NBA."

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/33289/union-makes-big-move-without-polling-members

 

[BBert]

Yassuh Massuh Kessluh! Whatever you say, you da boss! Don't mind me, I'z jus' a dumb plantation workuh. I'll jus' keep pickin' my cotton and keep my mouth shut.

Too strong?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Yassuh Massuh Kessluh! Whatever you say, you da boss! Don't mind me, I'z jus' a dumb plantation workuh. I'll jus' keep pickin' my cotton and keep my mouth shut.

Too strong?

Too dumb. There's a reason the NBA is trying to talk directly to the players - it's easy to break them individually. There really is a reason that Unions exist. And a reason why employers hate them - it makes it so much harder to exploit workers.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Of course it'd be the role-players who'd be easiest to break, and ironically they're the ones who've benefited the most from the union.

 

[Ed O]

Fascinating.

The union knows what's best for its membership. That is not, on its face, a terrible assertion. Unions should add a layer of organization and expertise for their members (like agents do for individual players), and acting like a sieve generally won't do membership much good.

If the members don't like it, what is to be done? I'm no expert, but presumably it is to change union leadership, right? To throw out the bums that won't allow membership to have its say. A problem with that is that union leadership seems to generally be professional union leadership. Kessler played a similar role for the NFLPA, after all, and Hunter has been head of the NBAPA for about 15 years.

So if the players lack the expertise and focus to oust leadership, what can they do? Vote to end the union, of course. Decertify.

The union leadership seems like they could have done well to let membership vote except insofar as it might have shattered the illusion of solidarity and undermined the agents' attempts to move forward with decertification. It might also have been an emotional reaction on the part of leadership to the NBA going straight to players--it seems like that might be considered a bit of an "end run" around the proper process that ticked them off.

Ed O.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

To hear David Stern tell it, skipping that vote was a key misstep.

Doesn't that tell you all you need to know?

 

[Ed O]

Doesn't that tell you all you need to know?

Considering how he's built up the NBA into a revenue-generating machine that paid players insanely well over the last decade or two... yeah. Maybe it does.

Ed O.

 

[BBert]

Too dumb. There's a reason the NBA is trying to talk directly to the players - it's easy to break them individually. There really is a reason that Unions exist. And a reason why employers hate them - it makes it so much harder to exploit workers.

I know this may be hard to believe, but I am actually strongly pro union. Still, all this talk about the owners treating the players like plantation workers is just too much.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Considering how he's built up the NBA into a revenue-generating machine that paid players insanely well over the last decade or two... yeah. Maybe it does.

Ed O.

I guess the players had nothing to do with that, huh. I know I only watch the NBA because of David Stern.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I know this may be hard to believe, but I am actually strongly pro union. Still, all this talk about the owners treating the players like plantation workers is just too much.

I agree. Anything that reminds people of how absurdly overpaid NBA players are comparative to other jobs is never a good idea. We should be focusing instead on how many orders of magnitude the owners are wealthy than the players, and how they are much more replaceable than any half-decent player.

 

[Ed O]

I guess the players had nothing to do with that, huh. I know I only watch the NBA because of David Stern.

I watched the NBA before any of the current players were there, and I anticipated watching after any of the current players are still around. I don't really care about who the players are. More will emerge if the NBA is around and going strong.

Ed O.

 

[Spud147]

The last time the NBA and the players association met, the meeting ended early Friday morning with an offer from the league. The NBA then sent that offer in writing to every player, and quietly prayed that the union would let the players vote on it, expecting it would pass and the NBA season would begin.

It never happened, however. Instead of putting the decision to 450 players, the union put the decision to 30 player representatives who, the union says, were unanimous in rejecting the deal and taking new legal action.

As soon as that decision was announced, I asked union spokesman Dan Wasserman, who was standing in the back of the room next to attorney Jeffrey Kessler, why the union was turning to the group of 30 representatives.

The union has three player bodies it can consult: The executive committee, the 30 elected representatives and the full membership. Why that middle body?

I was asking what I thought was a fairly boring question. I would have been satisfied with a response about by-laws or somesuch. But Wasserman and Kessler blew up. I couldn't even finish the question before both were loud, gruff and dismissive.

The gist of the response was that you cannot give your adversary direct access to the membership. "That's not how any union in America, that I'm aware of, operates," said Kessler. If the NBA is just going to send offers straight to the players, why even have a union? The idea is that the union is savvier, and knows a good deal when it sees one. And only when the union is sure that the deal is in players' best interests will they present it to the workers.

Rockets guard Kevin Martin, by text on Monday morning, said he didn't care to be represented that way: "I think it's fair for every player to have a vote, because we're all grown men and its time for the players to control their career decisions, and not one player per team. If it comes down to a final decision, you got to be fair."

He added that other players he had talked to may or may not have voted for the deal the NBA had on the table, but "most feel like we're entitled to a vote!"

To hear David Stern tell it, skipping that vote was a key misstep. Speaking to ESPN's "SportsCenter" he said: "The union decided in its infinite wisdom that the proposal would not be presented to membership. Obviously, Mr. Kessler got his way and we are about to go into the nuclear winter of the NBA."

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/33289/union-makes-big-move-without-polling-members

Wait, did that guy just call the players too stupid to know what they need?

 

[Spud147]

I agree. Anything that reminds people of how absurdly overpaid NBA players are comparative to other jobs is never a good idea. We should be focusing instead on how many orders of magnitude the owners are wealthy than the players, and how they are much more replaceable than any half-decent player.

1 percenters all of them... let's go Occupy the Rose Garden!

 

[HailBlazers]

Wait, did that guy just call the players too stupid to know what they need?

Pretty Much, and he's in charge from here on out, at everyone's expense.

 

[Ed O]

Wait, did that guy just call the players too stupid to know what they need?

That part is not in quotes, which indicates it's Hollinger's opinion, not Kessler's. Or at least not his quote

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

I watched the NBA before any of the current players were there, and I anticipated watching after any of the current players are still around. I don't really care about who the players are. More will emerge if the NBA is around and going strong.

Ed O.

My take as well. I'm not a fan of any player more than I'm a fan of the Blazers. As I've posted earlier, many of us have attachments to our personal favorite Blazers, and perhaps a negative attitude toward others (yes, I just slammed myself re: Dre Miller), but the bottom line is that I don't really care to follow players once they leave the Blazers. The name on the front of the jersey has always meant more than the name on the back, to me at least.

I also want to add that although he gets crap, that I completely understand a poster like huevonkiller (or something like that), who freely admits that he is more a fan of certain players than the teams they play for, and why he can switch allegiances. I imagine that there are a lot fewer fans in the latter camp, though, than in the former.

 

[illmatic99]

Some player reps didn't even show up. If they didn't care enough to do that, what's to say that they actually polled their teammates and discussed the deal??

How the hell can Hunter use the word "unanimous?"

BTW, according to multiple people on twitter, Aldridge did not show up.

 

[HailBlazers]

Pretty Sad, even the players that did show up were wearing Jeans, un-tucked shirts, and Backpacks. How can you be taken seriously?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

BTW, according to multiple people on twitter, Aldridge did not show up.

Very disappointing if true. He always seemed like he had his shit together better than most players.

 

[PapaG]

Some player reps didn't even show up. If they didn't care enough to do that, what's to say that they actually polled their teammates and discussed the deal??

How the hell can Hunter use the word "unanimous?"

BTW, according to multiple people on twitter, Aldridge did not show up.

LMA, by not showing up, did show up. Clearly some player reps had more clout than others, and they got their way by not allowing the players to vote on the last-chance proposal.

 

[Spud147]

Glad I wasn't imagining things. I kept looking for LMA in the crowd but didn't see him. Then when Fischer said that the vote was unanimous and that all the teams were represented I looked for another player from the Blazers and didn't see any of them. Who represented Portland in the unanimous vote?!?

 

[THE HCP]

Utah was also not represented.

 

[julius]

As for showing up in jeans and backpacks, I think that's because they're doing it to look cool instead of actually looking like they know what they're doing.

Maybe by unanimous, they meant those who were actually in attendance?

 

[Sinobas]

I think they should have let everyone vote. Don't unions usually have people vote on a strike? Especially when you're only talking about a few hundred people. If you think they are nieve on the subject, lay your case out as to why you think the nba's deal is not good, and what the suggested course of action is.

 

[jlprk]

You guys didn't get your way, so now you pretend that the majority of players are on the owners' side, but the big bad union has tied gags over their mouths.

I watched the NBA before any of the current players were there, and I anticipated watching after any of the current players are still around. I don't really care about who the players are. More will emerge if the NBA is around and going strong.

I watched the NBA before any of the current owners were there, and I anticipate watching after the current owners are gone. I don't really care who the owners are. New owners will emerge if the NBA dies.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You guys didn't get your way, so now you pretend that the majority of players are on the owners' side, but the big bad union has tied gags over their mouths.

"My way" (if you choose to call it that) doesn't like that players could hold franchises hostage, force trades for pennies on the dollar, and be paid for non-effort. "My way" is still in play. What isn't in play anymore? A deal where the players will get anything close to 50/50, a deal where players get 5 year contracts, and a deal where they don't get their salaries rolled back.
Are you saying that the "big bad owners" are tying the gag over the players' mouths?

I watched the NBA before any of the current owners were there, and I anticipate watching after the current owners are gone. I don't really care who the owners are. New owners will emerge if the NBA dies.

couldn't you also say that about the players? That is, if you weren't being dramatic and over-the-top in an attempt to push an unpopular opinion?

Serious question....what sympathy do you have for the players in this? Which particular "issue" in the last, take-it-or-leave-it offer did you find objectionable to the point of blowing up the union? B/c I haven't heard it from the players, I haven't heard it from the executive committee of the NBPA, and I haven't heard it from the lawyers. Was it the 50/50? Was it the contract length? Was it the lack of rollbacks? Please, do tell.

 

[jlprk]

My rewording of the previous post shows that in many of the criticisms of the players on this board, the words "players" and "owners" can be interchanged. Here's an example.

Serious question....what sympathy do you have for the owners in this? Which particular "issue" in the last, take-it-or-leave-it offer did you find objectionable to the point of blowing up the union? B/c I haven't heard it from the owners, I haven't heard it from the executive committee of the owners, and I haven't heard it from their lawyers. Was it the 50/50? Was it the contract length? Was it the lack of rollbacks? Please, do tell.

 

[Ed O]

My rewording of the previous post shows that in many of the criticisms of the players on this board, the words "players" and "owners" can be interchanged. Here's an example.

You're arguing against a straw man.

You're attempting to twist my words into an attack on owners, when I was defending Stern (and the NBA system), rather than merely the owners.

I have more sympathy for the owners because I find it unreasonable that they would be losing at least $180m a year collectively when the NBA is so popular. I have more sympathy for the owners because of the low number of teams that have competed for an NBA championship over the last couple of decades.

I think that the owners are attempting to limit their downside while increasing parity in the NBA. I support both of those things much more than I do the players' right not to feel disrespected.

Ed O.

 

[jlprk]

You're attempting to twist my words into an attack on owners, when I was defending Stern (and the NBA system), rather than merely the owners. I have more sympathy for the owners

Duh. Every day on this board I see several posts in which I can interchange "owners" with "players" and the statement is just as true.

I will try to educate the pro-owners by doing so for about one post per day.

 

[BrianFromWA]

My rewording of the previous post shows that in many of the criticisms of the players on this board, the words "players" and "owners" can be interchanged. Here's an example.

Serious question....what sympathy do you have for the owners in this? Which particular "issue" in the last, take-it-or-leave-it offer did you find objectionable to the point of blowing up the union? B/c I haven't heard it from the owners, I haven't heard it from the executive committee of the owners, and I haven't heard it from their lawyers. Was it the 50/50? Was it the contract length? Was it the lack of rollbacks? Please, do tell.

Um, the owners laid out their proposal for the world to see. There seemed to be about 2 pages of points that were "take-it-or-leave-it." I heard it from Stern, I heard it from the owners, I actually heard from the media that some owners didn't like it, but wanted to get a deal done badly enough that they moved past their point of no-deal.

Question still stands.