Today's anti-union rant, cut 'n' pasted from Baseball Primer thread
(the pseudoanonymous post #20 is by me)
Do baseball players who are MLBPA members really get all the good things they get in life *because* they are MLBPA members?
Maybe the best answer is "yes and no" but the difference seems illuminating, at least to me.
Ballplayers who make the bigs do so because their the best on the planet at what they do. Nobody else has Barry Zito's curveball or Vlad Guerrero's quick hands at the plate. Not only are they the best at their craft, but the WAY they're the best at the craft is totally different from what it would mean to be the world's best welder or fry cook or plumber or any other trade where competence matters far more than uniqueness.
Free agency helps baseball's best become fabulously wealthy (because they really are "worth" that much to the franchises that have them); beyond that, the MLBPA really doesn't have much to do with it.
If you're a rank-and-file, replacement-level player then things like the video game and apparel revenue mean a lot to you. The MLBPA has succeeded fantastically well here, and until this year done REALLY well against baseball's ownership -- but maybe this is precisely why the MLBPA has (and by extension, players have) become so unpopular among ordinary people.
Tom Glavine is a star; he's certain not replacement-level. You couldn't just call up your Local 9999 and get someone remotely like him. Tom Glavine is also a human being who sees his teammates (like Ligtenberg) as teammates and as humans. Getting him a pension is the DECENT thing to do.
Getting your panties all in a bunch about scabs, beyond a certain point, is NOT the decent thing to do. And when you start talking about blackballing people (Harry V. I'm looking at you), once you cross a certain line you're not a union -- you're a bunch of thugs.
(Disclaimer: I am not a union member and so help me I hope I NEVER have to be one. At this point in our economic history, most of them seem to do far more harm than good.)
(the pseudoanonymous post #20 is by me)
Do baseball players who are MLBPA members really get all the good things they get in life *because* they are MLBPA members?
Maybe the best answer is "yes and no" but the difference seems illuminating, at least to me.
Ballplayers who make the bigs do so because their the best on the planet at what they do. Nobody else has Barry Zito's curveball or Vlad Guerrero's quick hands at the plate. Not only are they the best at their craft, but the WAY they're the best at the craft is totally different from what it would mean to be the world's best welder or fry cook or plumber or any other trade where competence matters far more than uniqueness.
Free agency helps baseball's best become fabulously wealthy (because they really are "worth" that much to the franchises that have them); beyond that, the MLBPA really doesn't have much to do with it.
If you're a rank-and-file, replacement-level player then things like the video game and apparel revenue mean a lot to you. The MLBPA has succeeded fantastically well here, and until this year done REALLY well against baseball's ownership -- but maybe this is precisely why the MLBPA has (and by extension, players have) become so unpopular among ordinary people.
Tom Glavine is a star; he's certain not replacement-level. You couldn't just call up your Local 9999 and get someone remotely like him. Tom Glavine is also a human being who sees his teammates (like Ligtenberg) as teammates and as humans. Getting him a pension is the DECENT thing to do.
Getting your panties all in a bunch about scabs, beyond a certain point, is NOT the decent thing to do. And when you start talking about blackballing people (Harry V. I'm looking at you), once you cross a certain line you're not a union -- you're a bunch of thugs.
(Disclaimer: I am not a union member and so help me I hope I NEVER have to be one. At this point in our economic history, most of them seem to do far more harm than good.)
posted by Matt Bruce at
3:08 PM
