Read on Twitter
First, please disregard the sports writers who are shilling for the owners by saying the players "need to do x for the good of the game." Let us explore this subject from a labor law perspective. MLB and the MLBPA agreed to pro-rated salaries as part of an agreement to 1/x
postpone the season. The agreement has the same weight as a term CBA. The subject is foreclosed from bargaining unless mutually reopened. Why would the players reopen? The shills have argued that in return the players would have the opportunity to opt not to play 2/x
if they have an underlying medical condition. But, if games were going on the pressure to participate would be extreme. And, they already have that right under the ADA - but that& #39;s a wholly different issue. What about the negotiation over the schedule changes & locations 3/x
of games. Those are already mandatory subjects of bargaining. The owners have to negotiate those. And, what about health & safety of players who do play & sequester from their families. Again, mandatory subjects. The owners have to negotiate over those things. On flip side 4/x
The bargaining obligation over pay has been completed. The players don& #39;t have to negotiate that again, absent mutual consent to reopen. There is no compelling reason to revisit the prorated contracts. Sure, the owners want more of the pie. They are engaging in shock doctrine 5/x
It& #39;s a crisis, lets try to implement the thing we& #39;ve always wanted under the guise of this crisis. But, revenue sharing like the NFL and NBA only benefits the owners. The answer should be no, it& #39;s covered in the CBA & MOU already. The owners want to mitigate potential losses. 6/x
