Tone Deaf MLBPA

[TimGuru]

This "union" just doesn't get it.

Union files grievance over Dodgers contributions

[JPhillips]

The Union will and should win. They should all give to charities, but their boss can't make charitable giving a condition of employment. None of us would be happy if our work did the same thing.

[TimGuru]

Read the article. 1. Boss is allowed to bargain provisions which are beneficial to player...charitable giving provides tax incentives, therefor it is beneficial. 2. Its a blank line, they can fill in zero if they want.

I'm amazed that the first response to this was "fight the man, man" and not "These overpaid, useless, cheating millionaires should just shut up so everyone has a chance to forget the role the union played in enabling many of their members to abuse steroids". Unless you are an overpaid millionaire contributing nothing of value to society as well, its logically falacious to compare this situation to a person living in the real world.

Its also classic that Manny is the test case. If Manny isn't forced to donate, he won't....his time, his money, anything. He's a POS.

[gstelmack]

Sorry, but they can't force you to do anything with that money. This is illegal.

[larrymcg421]

Tax incentives? That's a ridiculous way to claim "beneficial". The tax incentives aren't more beneficial than the money lost by donating.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by TimGuru

I'm amazed that the first response to this was "fight the man, man" and not "These overpaid, useless, cheating millionaires should just shut up so everyone has a chance to forget the role the union played in enabling many of their members to abuse steroids". Unless you are an overpaid millionaire contributing nothing of value to society as well, its logically falacious to compare this situation to a person living in the real world.

So you don't really want a discussion on the merits of the union's position? The players are greedy. They did this in the past. Let's not bother with whether or not it's legal? We could do that, but I think it'd make for a very boring discussion.

Its also classic that Manny is the test case. If Manny isn't forced to donate, he won't....his time, his money, anything. He's a POS.

You shouldn't donate just to prove to others that you aren't a POS. It's none of our business whether he donates or not. And he certainly shouldn't be forced by his employer to do it.

[Big Fo]

To hell with the Dodgers. If I were making millions I'd fill out one penny on that line in the contract and then donate to a different charity of my own choosing.

[JPhillips]

I think a team has every right to hire players they deem are beneficial to the community. If a player doesn't want to contribute to charity either in time or money then don't hire him. The terms of the contract, however, can't force a charitable contribution.

Manny may be a POS, but the Dodgers don't have to employ him.

[stevew]

I thought the whole thing sounded fishy when the original deal was signed. Would be interesting to see if the donation is to be made in 2009 cash, or if it's something like 200k per year over the 5 year dispersment the contract calls for.

[Crapshoot]

Its BS of the highest order from the Dodgers. I don't give a shit about being tone deaf - the players are right.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by stevew

I thought the whole thing sounded fishy when the original deal was signed. Would be interesting to see if the donation is to be made in 2009 cash, or if it's something like 200k per year over the 5 year dispersment the contract calls for.

Either way, its a hell of a lot more than most of us will give ever by Manny. As I recall, when he signed his Red Sox deal, he gave $1M as well. Pretty generous.

[Abe Sargent]

At my old job at EMU, every year they'd hand out envelopes with our names on them from the United Way of Ypsilanti. They took time out of a staff meeting to ask for donations, handed us our envelopes. Then they'd know exactly how much each person gave. It was pretty much open knowledge (my supervisor even said it a couple of times) that in higher ed, you have to openly give, or it is hard to get promoted or hired for higher jobs.

I objected to it then, refusing to participate, because I felt it was wrong. I have no problem giving, and do so on the side, but the company should not coerce you into giving, period. Plus, the point of giving should not be as a "Look at Me," thing, but because it is the right thing to do. This system removed the rightness of the act.

As such, I refused to participate and became a bit of a black sheep over it.

This intertwining of the workplace and giving is not new, and I think it's wrong for a supervisor to try and force employees through coercion or contract to give. It removes the rightness of the act and becomes a Look at Me action.

I fully support the MLBPA in this case, and any organization that stands up to this crap.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Its BS of the highest order from the Dodgers. I don't give a shit about being tone deaf - the players are right.

It's less BS by the Dodgers and more self-aggrandizement by McCourt. Bet you anything the $1 million is for McCourt's "ThinkCure" foundation.

I bet you anything that the reference he's making to all players having to fill out a line, that line has to do with a donation to ThinkCure.

It's not about charitable giving in general, it's about raising the profile of his foundation specifically.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Sorry, but they can't force you to do anything with that money. This is illegal.

Sure it's legal. They aren't "forcing" the players to do anything. Employers can require just about anything they want so long as it is a legal activity, whether it's a residency requirement, clothing restrictions, etc.

They aren't going to players already under contract and forcing them to do something that they didn't agree to do, they are requiring it for players signing new contracts. The players have an option -- don't sign the contract.

MLBPA just doesn't want any prerequisite put on players for signing a contract because god forbid the next thing owners will do is make Manny agree to a clause to agree not to be a douchebag.

I'm as pro-union as anyone, but the MLBPA has given unions a bad name for 35 years. Getting rid of the reserve clause that essentially bound a player to a team forever was the last good thing they did.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It's less BS by the Dodgers and more self-aggrandizement by McCourt. Bet you anything the $1 million is for McCourt's "ThinkCure" foundation.

I bet you anything that the reference he's making to all players having to fill out a line, that line has to do with a donation to ThinkCure.

It's not about charitable giving in general, it's about raising the profile of his foundation specifically.

That I didn't know - I mean, McCourt's a bastard (something both of us as Dodgers/Giants fans can agree on ), but I didn't realize it was that much fun. Is this related to the whole Jaime McCourt saga (her being CEO or something)?

[EagleFan]

lol, it's funny to see he knee JERK reactions to this. It's not something that is being sprung upon players with current contracts. It's something they are putting in future contracts. If the players don't want that as part of the contract they can sign with a team that doesn't have it... end of story.

For the idiots that say the Dodgers can't legally do this. They can put whatever they want in the fucking contract as long as it's there before you sign it. If you don't want it, you don't sign it. It's pretty basic logic.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

That I didn't know - I mean, McCourt's a bastard (something both of us as Dodgers/Giants fans can agree on ), but I didn't realize it was that much fun. Is this related to the whole Jaime McCourt saga (her being CEO or something)?

Naw. Doubt it.

Not directly, at least.

I think it's more community PR effort plus tax dodge for McCourt, but the more donors he can bring on, either through arm-twisting or other means, the more legitimacy the foundation gains.

The more legitimacy the foundation gains, the better it makes McCourt look, and the more useful it is as a means to reduce his tax bill.

The Jamie McCourt thing is just nepotism, plain and simple.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

They can put whatever they want in the fucking contract as long as it's there before you sign it.

Wouldn't that be "... unless it violates state or federal labor law"?

Not knowing Cali labor law I won't say this does, but frankly if it doesn't it probably should.

[JPhillips]

The bigger issue is if it violates the CBA. My guess is it pretty clearly does as the citation the Dodgers make is ridiculous.

Article II of baseball's labor agreement states contracts can include special covenants "which actually or potentially provide additional benefits to the player."

In rereading the article it seems to say that Manny could have a contract like this and it would be fine, but McCourt saying it will be in every Dodger contract is the real problem. This sort of item can't be required for every player on a team as a default.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

lol, it's funny to see he knee JERK reactions to this. It's not something that is being sprung upon players with current contracts. It's something they are putting in future contracts. If the players don't want that as part of the contract they can sign with a team that doesn't have it... end of story.

For the idiots that say the Dodgers can't legally do this. They can put whatever they want in the fucking contract as long as it's there before you sign it. If you don't want it, you don't sign it. It's pretty basic logic.

As always, the idiocy is on your end. Do you know anything about how contracts work - illegal clauses can't be put in there on the premise that "don't sign if you don't want to." Its pretty basic logic.

Edit: I see JIMGA has covered this more politely.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Sure it's legal. They aren't "forcing" the players to do anything. Employers can require just about anything they want so long as it is a legal activity, whether it's a residency requirement, clothing restrictions, etc.

They aren't going to players already under contract and forcing them to do something that they didn't agree to do, they are requiring it for players signing new contracts. The players have an option -- don't sign the contract.

MLBPA just doesn't want any prerequisite put on players for signing a contract because god forbid the next thing owners will do is make Manny agree to a clause to agree not to be a douchebag.

I'm as pro-union as anyone, but the MLBPA has given unions a bad name for 35 years. Getting rid of the reserve clause that essentially bound a player to a team forever was the last good thing they did.

exactly. if manny doesn't like it he has a choice - don't sign the contract. if enough players don't like it then nobody will sign new contracts and the clauses will go away. there's nothing illegal about it

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It's less BS by the Dodgers and more self-aggrandizement by McCourt. Bet you anything the $1 million is for McCourt's "ThinkCure" foundation.

I bet you anything that the reference he's making to all players having to fill out a line, that line has to do with a donation to ThinkCure.

It's not about charitable giving in general, it's about raising the profile of his foundation specifically.

what's your point? each time has their pet "charity" - with the red sox it's the jimmy fund - and they have players donating time and money to that - nothing wrong with that

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wouldn't that be "... unless it violates state or federal labor law"?

Not knowing Cali labor law I won't say this does, but frankly if it doesn't it probably should.

why? it's no different than a dress code clause. basic contract law. if you don't like it then you negotiate it out or you don't sign the contract.

[DaddyTorgo]

furthermore i'm not shedding a tear for millionaire athletes

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Either way, its a hell of a lot more than most of us will give ever by Manny. As I recall, when he signed his Red Sox deal, he gave $1M as well. Pretty generous.

I should add i wasn't trying to slight manny. Just Curious if the dodgers wanted him to pay in 09 dollars, when they apparently were all about the exotic structure on his deal. But anyways, I really have no opinion on Manny either way. Dude can hit the shit out of the baseball.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Sorry, but they can't force you to do anything with that money. This is illegal.

They aren't forcing them. It is part of an employment agreement, a player is free to sign with that team, another team, or no team at all. And the contract itself isn't binding employment to a certain donation. The Dogers are requiring it off paper. I don't see how you can call that illegal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

They aren't forcing them. It is part of an employment agreement, a player is free to sign with that team, another team, or no team at all. And the contract itself isn't binding employment to a certain donation. The Dogers are requiring it off paper. I don't see how you can call that illegal.

The same logic could be applied to contracts calling for an employee to work for less than minimum wage, nobody requires them to sign or work there after all.

As I said, I don't know if this is legal, illegal, or somewhere in the nebulous region in between. My point was that if it is illegal under state or federal law then it means pfft whether it's in the contract or not, it's unenforceable; i.e. the contract language can't trump labor law even if both parties agree to it (happens frequently with things like comp time, unpaid overtime that's to be made up on a future check, etc). Then I added my own opinion that if the oxymoronic "mandatory giving" isn't illegal, it should be.

[larrymcg421]

For those that say the players can sign the contract, renegotiate it, or refuse it, I'd argue a similar logic can apply to the owners. They can sign a collective bargaining agreement that allows clauses like this, or they can refuse to sign it and negotiate different terms. And this is assuming it doesn't violate state law in the first place. Trying to say that this fits the "beneficial" clause of the CBA is just ridiculous.

Now if people just want to start a thread and have a circle jerk bash against the greedy, selfish millionaire players (while amusingly exempting the billionaire owners from scorn), that's fine, but maybe you should put that in the original post so the rest of us can move on to more productive discussions.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

For those that say the players can sign the contract, renegotiate it, or refuse it, I'd argue a similar logic can apply to the owners. They can sign a collective bargaining agreement that allows clauses like this, or they can refuse to sign it and negotiate different terms. And this is assuming it doesn't violate state law in the first place. Trying to say that this fits the "beneficial" clause of the CBA is just ridiculous.

Now if people just want to start a thread and have a circle jerk bash against the greedy, selfish millionaire players (while amusingly exempting the billionaire owners from scorn), that's fine, but maybe you should put that in the original post so the rest of us can move on to more productive discussions.

but IN THIS CASE i don't think the owners deserve as much scorn - at least they're trying to get the players to do some good with their money (while hopefully supporting the charities themselves)

although i certainly recognize the hypocrisy in exempting the owners from scorn

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

trying to get the players to do some good with their money (while hopefully supporting the charities themselves)

C'mon DT, is there actually a player left in any major sport that doesn't have some sort of charity foundation with their own name on it/behind it? Players wives frequently have their own separate fund/foundation/organization/etc as well. Hell, there's pit crew guys in NASCAR that have their own charity for crying out loud.

As a group, regardless of their motivation -- p.r., tax benefits, saint-like altruism, whatever -- pro athletes likely do more than most of the owners for charity.

[Buccaneer]

Another bad PR move by the union, further degradating basebeall.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

C'mon DT, is there actually a player left in any major sport that doesn't have some sort of charity foundation with their own name on it/behind it? Players wives frequently have their own separate fund/foundation/organization/etc as well. Hell, there's pit crew guys in NASCAR that have their own charity for crying out loud.

As a group, regardless of their motivation -- p.r., tax benefits, saint-like altruism, whatever -- pro athletes likely do more than most of the owners for charity.

there are probably some. manny for instance - does he have another? i dont honestly know

take curt schilling when he came to boston - i know they wanted him to donate to the jimmy fund as a condition of signing - he had an issue with that and said "i'd rather donate to my own charity" or whatever and the team was okay with that eventually (note - i don't remember how the whole thing exactly went down and i think it was more contentious then i portrayed, but that was the end result of it)

but i do agree. then again, what's 100k out of manny's pocket? he prolly makes that much seeing 2-3 pitches in a season

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what's 100k out of manny's pocket? he prolly makes that much seeing 2-3 pitches in a season

Same as whatever X percentage of my income it'd be. And I'd be pissed beyond all reason and likely end up arrested after the display of displeasure I'd make if somebody dared to decide what charity I'd be making a donation to. I don't care if it's fifty cents, it's either my money or it isn't. And if it's mine then I'll damned well determine where it goes.

Look, I figure you can imagine as well as anybody that it's pretty odd for me to be on the employee side of an employee/employer rights argument. Good grief, I'm a guy who wouldn't bat an eye if the minimum wage was abolished tomorrow. But if this doesn't even pass a sniff test with me, how obviously fucked up must it have to be? It's either his money, in which case you have no say about its use, or it isn't his money, in which case you didn't pay it to him. There isn't much in between here, either it's his cash or it isn't.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but i do agree. then again, what's 100k out of manny's pocket? he prolly makes that much seeing 2-3 pitches in a season

I hate this attitude - if Manny gives a $100K and I give $1000, is he doing "less good" than me? No, and it would be idiotic to assume that. It doesn't matter if it means less to him; what does it matter to recipients? HE put himself in a position to make enough money where he could give $100K away without affecting him as much as say, it would affect me.



Edit: Christ, agreeing with JIMGA again.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by TimGuru

Its also classic that Manny is the test case. If Manny isn't forced to donate, he won't....his time, his money, anything. He's a POS.

Really you know him personally?

[DanGarion]

Know your facts. Many has been charitable many times before being forced to donate a portion of his contract.

"manny ramirez" charities - Google Search

Besides he didn't have to sign. I don't see why the union should care, it's the players choice to sign or not...

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by stevew

I should add i wasn't trying to slight manny. Just Curious if the dodgers wanted him to pay in 09 dollars, when they apparently were all about the exotic structure on his deal. But anyways, I really have no opinion on Manny either way. Dude can hit the shit out of the baseball.

Right sorry. Either way, its a hell of a lot of money.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what's your point? each time has their pet "charity" - with the red sox it's the jimmy fund - and they have players donating time and money to that - nothing wrong with that

Didn't say anything was wrong with it.

Only that it's disingenuous to point the finger at 'the Dodgers.'

I'm almost certain McCourt insisted on it once he had Ramirez over a barrel, figuratively speaking, on their contracts - for the reasons I've suggested - and that he's feeling his oats on it now. Got Ramirez to do it, precedent is established, so now he wants to do it with every contract.

It's about McCourt and his foundation much, much more than it is about the Dodgers. The Dodgers are just the vehicle for him to push the foundation.

Whether or not anything's wrong with that is another matter entirely. I'm just saying that, left to his own devices, I don't see Colletti or Ng or any of the other Dodger brass insisting on a clause like that. It's about McCourt, plain and simple.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Didn't say anything was wrong with it.

Only that it's disingenuous to point the finger at 'the Dodgers.'

I'm almost certain McCourt insisted on it once he had Ramirez over a barrel, figuratively speaking, on their contracts - for the reasons I've suggested - and that he's feeling his oats on it now. Got Ramirez to do it, precedent is established, so now he wants to do it with every contract.

It's about McCourt and his foundation much, much more than it is about the Dodgers. The Dodgers are just the vehicle for him to push the foundation.

Whether or not anything's wrong with that is another matter entirely. I'm just saying that, left to his own devices, I don't see Colletti or Ng or any of the other Dodger brass insisting on a clause like that. It's about McCourt, plain and simple.

And that's his prerogative as the owner of the Dodgers. He owns the team, picks the management, and they do what he wants him to do. If he tells them they all gotta wear pink dresses to work, they do it or they quit and find a new job. It's one of the things that is great about America.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Sorry, but they can't force you to do anything with that money. This is illegal.

He didn't have to sign the contract. Boras said a lot of teams were interested in Manny

[fantom1979]

My thought is that if the Dodgers are allowed to do this, there will be nothing stopping the other teams from doing it. Once 30 teams are doing it, it will be the players decision to sign a contract or be out of work. In my (completely non legal, as I am no lawyer) opinion, that is collusion.

I have no problem with a blank line in the contract... IE...... I promise to donate $________.____ per year, as long as the player has an option to put a zero on that line without MLB punishment or blacklisting.

I just hope this doesn't turn into an Army charity type of situation, where you aren't required to donate, but it is highly recommended from your superior that you do.

[Big Fo]

And what about players that aren't free agents but are in their first six years with the Dodgers? Are they forced to do something similar?

[ISiddiqui]

But that's ok. They can just decide not to play baseball.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by TimGuru

Read the article. 1. Boss is allowed to bargain provisions which are beneficial to player...charitable giving provides tax incentives, therefor it is beneficial. 2. Its a blank line, they can fill in zero if they want.

I'm amazed that the first response to this was "fight the man, man" and not "These overpaid, useless, cheating millionaires should just shut up so everyone has a chance to forget the role the union played in enabling many of their members to abuse steroids". Unless you are an overpaid millionaire contributing nothing of value to society as well, its logically falacious to compare this situation to a person living in the real world.

Its also classic that Manny is the test case. If Manny isn't forced to donate, he won't....his time, his money, anything. He's a POS.

And I'm honestly amazed at how quick so many people are to throw out the "lazy/ungrateful millionaires who get to play a game for a living" card, in matters pitting those millionaires who play a kid's game against billionaires who charge us to watch millionaires play a kid's game. It's like the owners are offensive linemen, and the public's reaction to their asshattery is, "But they're wearing helmets and I can't put a face on their side of the issue, so I'll just bitch about the guy I see on the cover of SI!"

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

He didn't have to sign the contract. Boras said a lot of teams were interested in Manny

There were so many interested teams that he had to sign a contract with the Dodgers that was pretty much what the Boston options were for that he worked so hard to get out of...

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But that's ok. They can just decide not to play baseball.

They're probably assholes anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There were so many interested teams that he had to sign a contract with the Dodgers that was pretty much what the Boston options were for that he worked so hard to get out of...

No doubt.

As far as I had previously understood, the contract that Manny and the Dodgers hammered out, included Manny donating the money. I'm pretty sure Manny could have negotiated it out if it was that big of a deal to him

[JPhillips]

Like I mentioned above, it sounds like the union's problem is that McCourt says it will now be standard in every Dodger contract. I think Manny's individual contract is just distracting from the real issue, including the clause for every player.

[gstelmack]

Doesn't this make Manny's contract even worse? Basically, Manny (and Boras) get to toot their $45mil / 2 year contract, while the Dodgers are actually closer to the $40mil they really wanted to pay. McCourt just took $2mil he would have put in his foundation anyway and funneled it through Manny so that Manny and Boras wouldn't lose as much face on this contract.