Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:58:42 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/labor unions
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              4 Sep 1992 15:30:00 -0400 from <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU .WVNET.EDU>

On Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:30:00 -0400 Michael J. McCarthy said:
>From: SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
>>The need for vigilance has not been questioned, of course we must continue to
>>watch for abuses.  Let's compromise.  Why not skip the strikes, which benefit
>>no one, and go directly to binding arbitration?

>        Robert here touches on a strategic and philosophical dilemma of the
>labor movement.  Labor unions exist to secure benefits for their members.  If
>the union leaders can obtain greater benefits in contract negotiations by
>promising to forego strike tactics, should they do so?  By doing so, they
>relinquish labor's most (and in reality only) weapon.  Also, they undermine the
But consider the martyrism in the attitudes displayed by many unions:
management explains horrible economic conditions and requests a pay cut
to keep the firm running.  The union says "no -- we will not accept a pay cut
-- no matter the cost to the firm."  Both sides stand firm and the business
collapses.  Now before someone jumps in an complains about upper
management making several thousand times what those in the union do, etc.
I know all about that.  I'm not focusing on that:  I'm looking at the
winless philosophy demonsttrated by the union mentality.

On the issue of accepting binding arbitration, perhaps the unions should
do this.  They can place themselves in practially a no-lose situation if
they manage to implement something similar to that already in place:
Major League Baseball.  Please don't attempt to r|e|a|d|b|e|t|w|e|e|n|
t|h|e|l|i|n|e|s as I'm not going to look at outrageious salaries, but
how those came about:  the arbitration the Players' Union managed to
get the owners to agree to:

When the player/agent and the team/mgmt cannot come to terms, they
each submit a figure to the arbitrator.  This person then selects
one of the two values...no compromise, no other figures involved:
just the two submitted.  Also, a player's statistics can only be
used from the most current season.  So in essence (good or bad),
here's what happens:

Player A goes into arbitration and wants $1 million per year +
other performance bonuses after having earned $500'000 per year (this
season's "minimum wage", btw, was $190'000/season) and the team is
willing to pay $750'000.  Since Player A batted .285, etc. and
finds that Player B who earns significantly more than he is asking
fore only batted .235, had fewer home runs, fewer stolen bases,
more errors, etc. (basically, Player A was a "better player" than
Player B) this information is submitted along /c the bid.

Since the arbitrator can only make a decision based upon this information,
no real arbitration is needed as the player is guaranteed (almost always)
to get the requested figure.  The key is finding another player /c
poor stats in the current season coupled /c higher pay.

Can you imagine the same philosophy applied to union negotiations?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU