Lockouts with owners reaping the spoils are hardly unique to sports. For example the ongoing American Crystal Sugar lockout of its workers finally settled in May on essentially the owners’ original take-it-or-leave-it offer. Steven Greenhouse’s excellent piece, published last year in the New York Times, discloses that the increasing
primacy of lockouts, reporting at least 17 owner
initiated shutdowns in 2012. Clark
University Professor Gary Chaison provides the elemental quote:
“This
is a sign of increased employer militancy. Lockouts were once so rare they were
almost unheard of. Now, not only are employers increasingly on the offensive
and trying to call the shots in bargaining, but they’re backing that up with
action — in the form of lockouts.”
I don’t see where the lockout as management's primary negotiation strategy ends
until unions are rendered completely ineffectual—at least not without a change
in the law and public policy. Ultimately that requires a political process, and
can happen only if the public perception of unions changes. What does this mean for sports leagues? No worries short-term as
none of the four CBAs expire until later this decade. And, MLB, up first in
2016, is the least susceptible to a lockout. However, as long as players are
collecting economic rents (earnings above their next best option) there is
ground to gain for owners. The equilibrium might just be at about the
reserve era split, with maybe 20% of revenues going to the players. Or before
they hit that bottom, players give up on their unions and revert to antitrust
relief.
Just or not depends on one’s perspective, but professional
sports’ economic importance is more about visibility than value of the product.
If the losses continue and the plight of sports unions becomes recognized as too one-sided, that could
benefit all union workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment