Read on Twitter
Let's talk a little about what a grievance is and what it is not. First, it is not a disaster. It is not the end of the world. It doesn't mean that the parties cannot function to perform the necessary function of the business. I once had a docket of half-a-million grievances 1/
and it did not at all affect the safety or efficiency of the National Airspace System. Yes, 500,000 grievances and air traffic controllers continued doing their jobs and so did the FAA's managers, although the managers did violate the CBA a lot.
A grievance is an orderly
A grievance is an orderly
process for resolving disputes under the parties' negotiated agreements without resorting to economic warfare (Strike or lockout) or court litigation. It is the preferred method under the National Labor Relations Act and the Supreme Court has endorsed it in the Steelworkers
Trilogy of cases.
In the current situation, the Commissioner, by meeting face-to-face last week, and prolonging bargaining (and by making the first true good faith offer in accordance with the March Agreement) likely reduced MLB's liability in a grievance should an arbitrator
In the current situation, the Commissioner, by meeting face-to-face last week, and prolonging bargaining (and by making the first true good faith offer in accordance with the March Agreement) likely reduced MLB's liability in a grievance should an arbitrator
find MLB to have breached the March Agreement's best efforts clause. That is because "best efforts" today is less than it was a week ago or two weeks before that. 60 games may be reasonable, best efforts to schedule the most games. If he imposes 48 games, then he may increase
liability to the difference between the amount imposed and the reasonable, best efforts of 60 games.
So, by short circuiting the grievance or liability under the grievance, he could consider the end-game effort to be a win for management. It could also be a win for the Union
So, by short circuiting the grievance or liability under the grievance, he could consider the end-game effort to be a win for management. It could also be a win for the Union
because they haven't given in to a shorter schedule. They can hold their members together in solidarity, but also they did not give up their right to pursue grievance. They also did not agree to a low playoff share for more work in October of this year and next. Implementation
lets the parties safely sidestep their dispute about how to distribute future playoff shares of increased TV revenue. There's no way they would have agreed to that now, no different than they could have agreed to a total revenue sharing deal. That's best reserved for term CBA
negotiations in 21-22 off-season when everything is on the table again.
Although this potential win-win is not the optimal scenario that could have been reached two months ago, it's not a lose-lose that will occur if Commissioner cancels the season. Win-win was always a deal
Although this potential win-win is not the optimal scenario that could have been reached two months ago, it's not a lose-lose that will occur if Commissioner cancels the season. Win-win was always a deal
that increased the regular season to increase player pay and expanded the playoffs to increase revenues. Owners refused to make such a deal, which is completely within their rights. It's just a deferred negotiation on the TV revenue. There's no value judgment in that. More later.
