The 49ers traded Dave Neuman to the Jets for saying:
 DN> But how much does the average person in an ordinary union make?
If you're going to play this game then you need to know that individuals in 
any company account for a greater percentage of revenues than players do. 
Sure, the money is larger companies is spread over many more individuals, 
however, since most companies in the US have fewer individuals employed than 
most sports franchises.
 DN> It all comes down to money.  I never said it didn't on the owner's side
 DN> also.. I'm just amused by your attempt to tell me that the players side
 DN> wasn't about money.. it was about "licensing", etc.
I'm amused that you try to make this into a SALARY issue but then turn it 
into a money issue. You've blasted the players for being greedy but most if 
it comes from your perceptions of salaries ("how much does the average person 
in an ordinary union make"). You overlook the freedom to move, the ability to 
get medical treatment, the right to representation, etc. These may have some 
connection to money but ONLY because the individual has the RIGHT to 
something.
 DN> So if a strike is a reaction.. therefore the managements fault.. and a
 DN> lockout is also the managements fault.. then I guess all strikes
 DN> throughout history have always been the fault of the management.
You damn right they are. Let me tell you this first off, Dave - I am NOT a 
member nor have I ever been a member of a union. I have family members who 
have been members and I've seen unions go on strike for a simple raise that 
management refused to give them even though management gave THEMSELVES raises 
that were well above any raises that they might eventually give the strikers. 
I've worked at non-union companies all my life and I've seen management give 
themselves Christmas bonuses that were more than what the average worker made 
in a year and NOT give the workers even a lousy Christmas turkey. Their 
excuse was that the company didn't exceed the year's goals (but that didn't 
apply to management) or they lost money (but management got to take their 
bonuses).
Why do unions have such a bad name these days? Not because of themselves but 
because management knows that by killing them off, they can lower salaries 
and benefits and increase THEIR take so they do everything they can to get 
them out of their companies. They either whisper sweet nothings into the 
workers' ears (Get rid of the union and we'll be able to afford to give you 
that benefits package that you want) or they threaten them (If you don't vote 
to get rid of the union, we'll move to ). By 
getting rid of the union, management is able to slowly erode workers' rights 
until they reach a point that allows them to take it all away. Since the 
workers are now afraid to reform as a union, management now takes away all 
the benefits that union workers fought hard to get (Like health insurance).
Unions were formed (Either in *real* life or sports) in response to 
management's unwillingness to improve working conditions. STRIKES are the 
workers' reactions to management's unwillingness to negotiate and LOCKOUTS 
are management's unwillingness to negotiate (Either in response to the 
workers' first offer or as a pre-emptive strike on their part).
Management is the blame for either lockouts or strikes. 9 times out of 10, 
management merely had to make a small concession and there'd be an agreement 
but they weren't willing to give an inch (In the recent negotiations with NBA 
players, management held firm and when the players did concede a point, they 
went back to get them to concede even more of what they had just given away). 
The NBA has been very proud about the fact that they've never had a strike 
but that's only because the players have alway had a weak head or management 
managed to get one of their own as the head -- like they did during the last 
negotiations. That record is about to fall because the guy that now heads the 
union, Patrick Ewing, is also represented by the most powerful and most 
PRO-PLAYER agent. Sterno and the boys laughed their butts off after they took 
the union to the cleaners and publicly gloated and now, the guys who wanted 
to decertify the union, ala the NFL, are now in charge and that could have 
serious consequences for whatever anti-trust protection that they still have. 
Most certainly they will wipe that grin off Sterno's face and embarrass him 
publicly like he did them.
 DN> Ridiculous.  The memory of the NHL players threatening to strike if
 DN> not given larger shares of various profits, right before playoff time
 DN> of
First off, BS is the only acceptable form of the word. Second, please don't 
use the NHL as an example. You might as well mention the CFL if you want as 
little credibility in this conversation. But, for the sake of argument, the 
NHL players did what they did because that was the only way that they could 
get management to agree to anything just like the MLB players striking before 
the playoffs (or the NBA players threatening to strike before the All-Star 
game). During the season and offseason management has all the leverage but 
before the playoffs, the players have the advantage. It wouldn't matter if it 
was for more money, benefits, meal money, etc., the playoffs are the best bet 
for the players but remember, if management responds like MLB did, they risk 
the wrath of the fans. Remember, the action that led to the cancellation of 
the MLB playoffs was more than 2 years in the making and the players finally 
got fed up with the owners not budging an inch on any issue.
 DN> Try and stay on topic Ed.  I believe we're talking about recent strikes
I did have modern examples but you chose to omit them from the conversation.
 DN> free agent system, especially in baseball, but to an extent in the other
 DN> leagues, is creating a system whereby I don't know who's playing for
The owners created the monster known as free agency. They created it by 
making players beg for $500 and trading them after they gave them $250. They 
created it by going to reporters and telling that player A was holding out 
for $1000 when he was actually holding out for $500 (and the reporters would 
only report management's lie). They created it by playing each player against 
each other during negotiations. They created it by trading away or dumping 
players that wanted to stay but had overstayed their welcome.
Dallas lost its depth on the offensive line NOT because the players were 
greedy but because Jerry Jones was so damn cheap. They were ALL willing to 
stay with Dallas for a lot less than they were offered but Jones never even 
made an offer to them. Dallas' payroll now is a lot higher than it should be 
because Jones got so damn greedy that now he's forced to pay for other 
people's players rather than keeping the ones that Jimmy Johnson had left 
him. Contrast this with San Francisco, whose players regularly take PAY CUTS 
to either stay with the team or help them land a free agent (Don't give me 
any crap about loyalty because the 49ers organization is an example of one 
that breeds it because they act like a first class organization and the 
players want to be there. The Boston Red Sox manager gave Steve Avery a start 
that he didn't deserve because it triggered an incentive. Management was 
content to go to arbitration over that but he wasn't because he wanted free 
agents to consider the Red Sox instead of having Boston listed as a team that 
they didn't want to be traded to like Cleveland's Dave Justice has in his 
contract. Don't tell me that it's Boston because the Celtics are considered a 
first class organization and a perfect example of a team that inspires 
loyalty in its players. Celtics - first rate. Red Sox - third rate). Paul 
Molitor was willing to take $750,000-$1,000,000 less from the Brewers but 
didn't get an offer so he jumped to Toronto. Most players would stay with 
their old organizations if they were given a reasonable offer but they end up 
leaving because the offer is either not enough or nonexistent.
For decades the owners enforced "loyalty" by keeping free agency from being 
part of their sports. Players costs were between 25-33% of revenue when the 
real world was using 60-70% for its workers. While the average player made 
more than most people in this country, they were getting a much smaller piece 
of the pie. If you don't like your favorite player leaving the team then 
remember that the owner is responsible NOT the player. You can blame the 
player for being greedy all you want but the fact is that the owner could 
have done something to keep him around.
 DN> All in pursuit of the allmighty buck.  Would it kill a player to turn
 DN> down an extra 500,000 just to stick with a team that's treated him well?
For crying out loud, Dave, most players will stay if the team even makes a 
decent offer to them. Moose Johnston wanted $1,000,000 per season but Jerry 
Jones was so damn cheap that his best offer was $750,000 for a one year deal 
(and that came up significantly from his initial offer). Well, Johnston 
became so popular as a free agent the next year, he was getting offers that 
started at $1.5 mil and topped off at $2.5 mil. He stayed with Dallas for 
$1.5 mil per year and his contract cost Jerry Jones $1.75 mil that could have 
been distributed to other players. Emmitt Smith's contract cost him $1.5 mil 
more PER YEAR because he wasn't willing to meet Smith's initial offer and 
then saw Reggie White raise the bar. Two players and nearly $2 mil a year 
overpayment because the OWNER didn't meet their initial demands. Dallas' 
*problems* began with Emmitt Smith and Jerry's greed added about $15-$20 mil 
to the payroll. Several players looked at what he did to Smith and they 
refused to sign extensions and eventually became free agents. If he had dealt 
with Smith at first, the rest of the team would have went along with the 
extensions and kept most of the team intact.
Also don't forget that several players that leave don't leave because of 
money but because of opportunity. Steve Beuerlein could have made quite a bit 
of money playing with Dallas as their backup (and would certainly be a better 
backup than Wilson) but he chose to leave for the chance to be a starter. The 
difference in money between staying and remaining a backup and being a 
starter in some cases has been less than $500,000. When the owners in the NFL 
refused free agency to all their players and they came up with Plan B, the 
only ones who could move were backups and it was OWNERS who escalated 
salaries by overpaying BACKUPS and elevating them to starting status. Don't 
blame ONE PENNY of overpayment on the players - that honor belongs solely to 
owners (One owner in MLB kept upping his offer to a player, despite the fact 
that the player neither got an offer from another team NOR did he even convey 
that thought to the owner. By the time that the player signed, he was making 
over twice as much as he was intially offered).
The new NBA agreement has also made it impossible for a lot of teams to keep 
their players (As Falk, Ewing, Jordan and the other dissidents predicted) so 
teams are forced to renounce the rights to their own free agents just to sign 
ONE free agent. The number of players set free because of the owners hard 
ball tactics skews the numbers. Boston, for example, wanted to keep most of 
their free agents but the NEW free salary cap made that impossible (They 
certainly wouldn't have signed Travis Knight because the Lakers wouldn't have 
let him go). Open your eyes up to what really happened and how things got to 
where they are now. Don't blame the players because it's not their fault. 
They were forced into grabbing for their freedom because of the owners and 
many of them signed for more than they could even possibly imagine because 
the owners offered them more than was in line with reality. Can you blame a 
guy who is willing to sign for $500,000-$1,000,000 less if asked but was 
never asked by his old team? You have some kind of prejudice against the 
players, despite the fact that most make less than TV/Movie personalities. If 
you can turn your TV to Friends without puking or calling them a bunch of 
greedy bloodsuckers then you should be able to do the same with players.
 DN> Quite a few??  Pffft..  a small minority, more like.
More than you think.
 DN> These should probably be quotes and not stars if you were trying to say
 DN> the word greed sarcastically.
It can be either, smart guy.
--- TrekEd 1.00
---------------