OT: The NBPA and the Clippers situation

Submitted by Jon06 on

I'd suspected that at least some of the players on the Clippers had threatened to boycott their next playoff game if Donald Sterling wasn't swiftly punished. But according to the VP of the NBA's players' union, it was even more dramatic than that: many players spread across many teams were threatening to boycott.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10858191/nbpa-vice-president-roger-ma…

I think this is an important illustration of a role that a sports union can play, which I think is relevant to the distant future of current unionization efforts within the NCAA. But there will be plenty of people who disagree with me about that, including the Ghost of Section 1, PBUH, who we can all pretend has already posted below that the rush to judgment of Donald Sterling forced by the villiainously PC NBPA is representative of a great evil threatening civilization. YMMV.

I made a new topic here because I didn't see this discussed in the original Donald Sterling thread, and because I thought it might be interesting to discuss this in connection with NCAA unionization efforts. What are the red lines that might lead to boycott threats from players? Presumably documented racism by a coach/AD would qualify, but what about coaches who regularly oversign? What about preposterously punitive drug testing policies? Or are D1 NCAA football or basketball players too diverse a class to come to a consensus about a boycott over anything? 

TheDirtyD

April 29th, 2014 at 10:38 PM ^

A boycott could be accomplished without a union. Don't get me wrong I'm a huge union guy being in one myself but unions can't force companies to do things outside the CBA.

Jon06

April 29th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^

There are massive organizational challenges in the NCAA case, given the number of people and institutions involved. I can imagine individual teams refusing to play games--I have vague memories of rumors of a basketball team planning to refuse to play if they made it far enough in the tourney--but I'm not sure how large-scale boycotts would be organized without the kind of representative structure that a union provides. It would certainly make it easier.

Gucci Mane

April 30th, 2014 at 6:34 AM ^

I don't understand this photo. Silver comes off as feeble. Why put a puppet boy's head in these pictures ?

Jon06

April 29th, 2014 at 10:47 PM ^

Why are they using the word "boycott" instead of the word "strike"? I've been speaking that way, too, but I think they're just avoiding the word "strike" for political reasons. (It'd be nice if the professional journalist who wrote that article had addressed this point.)

BiSB

April 29th, 2014 at 11:13 PM ^

A boycott is the avoiding interaction with a certain entity for punitive reasons. A strike is the cessation of work to try to affect something about the employment situation for the workers. You could call it a "strike" if you want, and it wouldn't be a ridiculous term, but I think boycott is more accurate based on the aims of the protest.

The other reason it is more of a boycott is that they are continuing to perform many of the functions of their jobs. They just aren't going to play games (or, rather likely, they weren't going to play one game).

Besides, in the sports world, we almost always call these events "boycotts," such as the olympic boycotts.

Jon06

April 29th, 2014 at 11:21 PM ^

Isn't that because countries (which are not employees of anyone) and their Olympians (who are not employees of the Olympics) are the ones refusing to participate during Olympic boycotts? NBA players are employed by their franchises (or maybe by the NBA; I don't know the contractual details).

taistreetsmyhero

April 29th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^

it's a lot easier to face the potential consequences of a boycott with a union to fall back on than it is by just doing it of your own organization/volition. and considering modern athletics is not chalked full of examples of players taking bold stances, i think players would definitely have the consequences of their actions on the forefront of their minds...

ccdevi

April 29th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^

So you're happy that perhaps the threats of the players may have played a role in the punishment. Ok, what if you didn't agree with the punishment, what if the underlying offense wasn't so bad, and the players forced through a punishment that didn't fit the crime. How would you feel about that?

I'm not commenting on this situation, I just find your take on it to be a bit odd. I'd like to think the commish did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do, not because he was extorted. Just me.

Jon06

April 29th, 2014 at 11:09 PM ^

I didn't mean to say I was happy about that. I don't think I did say it, either, but I don't know. The fact is I am happy about it, but that's not supposed to be the point. I just think it's interesting. The actual point is that it's important to recognize that unions can play this role when thinking about the future of the NCAA. Sorry if I wasn't being clear.

I'm not sure I understand what would make it extortion if Silver did what he did only to ensure that the playoffs go on as scheduled. He's running a company, and the employees made a demand. I do think it's neat that the union allowed players to speak so effectively, but I don't think it's extortion. I mean, was it extortion when the NBA fined McRoberts for elbowing James? Was it extortion when Stern made players dress up on their way to games? (If you're going to call those things extortion, then I'm not sure it's bad for something that you call extortion to happen.)

ETA: Sorry, I don't think I actually answered your question so far. If I thought the punishment were too much or the offense not that bad, I'd probably still think that the outcome showed the power of the NBPA. I also don't think I'd be unhappy about it, though. I'm pretty much always happy when slumlords get fucked for political reasons we shouldn't get into here. Again, YMMV.

Muttley

April 29th, 2014 at 11:05 PM ^

Interesting thread, BTW.
 
  • Sterling strikes a deep emotional chord with shameful personal bigotry, and situational discrimination in his economic dealings (e.g. the housing lawsuit) based on the context.  But as the withdrawn NAACP lifetime achievement award shows, he knew when to spend money when it was in his interest.  NBA players get a large share of the NBA cashflow, if memory serves, 53%. 
  • The NCAA reigns as an all-powerful ivory tower institution that benefits those on the inside.  Coaches, ADs, bowl representatives, and administrators make millions. The players that fans idolize are prohibited from profiting from their popularity.

 

 

Jon06

April 29th, 2014 at 11:17 PM ^

I think the NCAA is substantially worse than Sterling qua Clippers owner. Qua slumlord, I suspect it's a close call, but I don't really know enough about his dealings. I've heard that he facilitated institutional discrimination by keeping minorities out of certain properties, a la longtime Dearborn mayor Orville Hubbard. The NCAA is an institution unto itself, though. So I'd think of Donald Sterling, slumlord, as akin to Alabama, exploitative NCAA program par excellence.

How's that for overthinking it?

sadeto

April 29th, 2014 at 11:08 PM ^

At this point in the season they have been fully paid aside from playoff bonuses, which are quite small, so nobody's putting a paycheck on the line by threatening to sit out. "Boycott" is probably the better term.

remdog

April 29th, 2014 at 11:08 PM ^

point out, the proper term would be strike, not boycott. And I also don't think you need a union to do that. Both the NBA and NCAA situations are unusual since both have essentially a monopoly on their product and both have developed unusual rules governing labor. So in the NBA you have bizarre situations where multimillionaires go on strike for prolonged periods. I certainly hope college athletics doesn't get to that point. I'm much less of a pro sports fan after enduring such insanity.

As for the Sterling situation, I'm glad the NBA came down hard on him. It was a private conversation but his words were reprehensible and intolerable for somebody who has power over others.

kyeblue

April 29th, 2014 at 11:23 PM ^

and how much money the coaches makes is irrelevant, vast majority of those players are trainees and are not ready to play professionally, and many will never play professionally. if they think that they have been mistreated, they need to look at medical residents who work 80 hours per week under very stressfu environments and make less than 50K a year and carries a 200K+ medical school loan, while the insurance companies, hospital executives make a lot of money. Why not let them unionize and call a strike?

 

 

 

 

Jon06

April 29th, 2014 at 11:45 PM ^

Well, for starters, I don't understand why medical residents aren't unionized. Are they legally barred from unionizing because they're medical professionals? Or have they just not done it? I also don't think medical residents put their longterm physical health in jeopardy by doing what they do [BiSB beat me to this point], but presumably you're in a better position to know that than I am. (I also think you shouldn't complain about making less than 50k. The median 2012 US income was $26,989, and the average was $40,563. But whatever.)

I don't understand what you mean when you say the players aren't ready to play professionally. Given the money in the system, players can be given full cost of attendance scholarships so that playing D1 football just is playing professionally, albeit at a low and modestly paid level. (This is part of why coaches' salaries are not, in fact, irrelevant.)

Jon06

April 30th, 2014 at 1:21 AM ^

it's kind of hard to tell. Wikipedia says the median for a woman 25 or older with a professional degree is $48,536, but that number's from 2003. (The median for a man is given as $88,530.) But the relevant number will be the median income for somebody in the first 3 (or whatever) years post-degree, and I guess you'll want to exclude medical residents from the dataset. Please post it when you find it.

remdog

April 30th, 2014 at 2:11 AM ^

Medical residents DO put their long term physical health in jeopardy due to their work. Their long hours and lack of sleep leads to physical injury - most notably from motor vehicle accidents. One resident died post-call from a motor vehicle accident and another had a bad car crash post-call during my residency. Then there's the physical toll from irregular sleep and poor diet. Then there's the severe mental/emotional stress from sleep deprivation while handling life and death situations. The rate of depression and suicide is high. Moreover, studies have shown that working long hours and sleep deprivation shortens lifespans and is correlated with a higher rate of heart attacks, etc. As for pay, it is paltry on a per hour basis. I was making about minimum wage on a per hour basis.

Why aren't residents unionized? I'm not certain. It is probably due to legal prohibitions since physicians as a rule are barred from unionizing. This prohibition makes no sense when you consider that other critical emergency personnel including nurses, police and firefighters are allowed to unionize. But laws are often neither sensible or fair.

As you can probably guess, I think the medical residency system is badly in need of reform - as is college athletics.

Mitch Cumstein

April 30th, 2014 at 6:03 AM ^

The whole medical field is a bit bizarre to me. It's like a reverse union. All med school grads go through the same organizational body and there is no free market for their services. They go through hell both during the match process and residency and are expected to take it (and by and large they do).

Its pretty odd to me that a group of intelligent people that probably fill their resumes with notions of leadership and independent accomplishment would just submit themselves to that process year after year like a bunch of sheep.

buddha

April 30th, 2014 at 12:49 AM ^

I always love the argument: "Others have it worse, so you shouldn't complain!" In my opinion, what happens to residents is totally irrelevant to what happens to NCAA athletes. When I try to convince my hedge fund manger bosses to do something differently, I don't compare my plight to that of a NASA scientist. It's apples and oranges.

chatster

April 30th, 2014 at 7:25 AM ^

Typos.  We all make them; and it's obvious that, but for the inability to make the post-posting edit, you would've changed it to hedge fund manager.  But this one conjured up an image of three kings bringing their gold to the "hedge fund manger."  . . . And then waiting for the "crash at the creche."

On a serious note, I agree with your message. There's never a good reason to endure abuse and irrational, demeaning treatment, just because someone else might have it worse. And that always reminds me of this:

Muttley

April 30th, 2014 at 2:23 AM ^

a fair shake, the select few that are idolized, are a big part of putting butts in seats, and sell jerseys in their likeness, they are prohibited from even doing a commercial.  Why?

Whether it's a union or just the lifting of the monopoly-guarding restrictions, those few that contribute to the mega cash flows should be able to participate in the fruits of their popularity.

 

ppToilet

April 30th, 2014 at 6:37 AM ^

at the University of Michigan are unionized. It's called the House Officer Association and has helped negotiate better working conditions and salary/benefits. It is very successful, which is why you haven't heard of it. Working conditions for medical residents nationally have also improved dramatically over the past decade, but not because of unions (more from public concern about inadequate care and the threat of liability).

Some equate unions with strikes and corruption. However, at its core, these are collective bargaining units that amplify the voice and impact of their otherwise ignorable individuals.

Jon06

April 30th, 2014 at 12:04 AM ^

Graduate student unions are university-specific, but the intercollegiate nature of athletics should militate in favor of a national union. That's what UCLA players were after when United Steelworkers first came on the scene in 2002 and what Ramogi Huma, who's apparently spearheaded the union push since the late 90s, seems to want. I don't know how things will actually get there, though. Presumably the earliest university-specific union(s) will join forces with subsequent ones as soon as possible: they can only pressure their universities into bargaining for things the NCAA will allow, and exercising decisive influence on NCAA regulations will require the involvement of lots of NCAA member schools.

SECcashnassadvantage

April 30th, 2014 at 1:21 AM ^

College football gets worse each year recently. It doesn't need strikes, and bullshit to cloud things.

UofM626

April 30th, 2014 at 2:11 AM ^

These players are soft, mind you I don't agree with what was said by Sterling, the dude was in his own home and being secretly taped. Freedom of Speech is gone people. These players say way worse thugs about the owners and GM's on a daily basis and about each other but it's on cause there oppressed and a minority. Seriously this shit is going to far when a owner gets a lifetime ban for comments but players can do drugs, beat women, kill innocent bystanders, steal, strangle a coach, go into the stands and beat up fans, say racist comments and nothing but a small suspension happens to them. Just another reason why the NBA is a fucking joke. Last I checked the Clipper players are paid a great deal of $$$ to play basketball, stop having RABBIT EARS as they say and get on. I would let anyone call me anything they want for $15Million a year for 5 years!!!!



Just stupid

MGO GSP

April 30th, 2014 at 7:06 AM ^

These conversations weren't public. The dude's private phone conversations were recorded. The dude's a sleaze and deserves what he gets, but there should be some outrage about the likely illegal phone recording.

I guess the best lesson to learn here is always assume there's a camera watching you and everything you say is being recorded. Better stay political correct the rest of your life or you might end up being outed the same way.

Mr. Yost

April 30th, 2014 at 8:09 AM ^

...he's a PUBLIC figure and a representative of the NBA. When he became an NBA owner, that became part of the deal. These are the consequences for someone who is a representative of the league.

No one said he should go to jail or be penalized by the law --- THAT is where people are getting this confused. He's not on trial for anything related to this and he won't be, there isn't a warrant out for his arrest. However, the NBA has an image and standards of its own and if you violate that...something like this may happen.

The Gay Rights Movement is huge in America right now, I'd imagine there would be a huge uproar if he made similar comments that went public about homosexuals. But here's the thing, I doubt the majority of the workforce in the NBA is gay, I also doubt that 100% of the workforce in the NBA would disagree with Sterling like 100% of the workforce disagreed about this. Is that right? No - but it's (gay rights) something that is being discussed and debated even today. So there are people on both sides. The race issue is still discussed today, of course, but it was a movement 50 years ago...it's been widely accepted publicly that racism and discrimination due to race is bad --- and has been that way for a long time.

So when this happened, yes, EVERYONE was going to jump on it...in all leagues, but ESPECIALLY in the NBA.

I find it funny that Sterling talks about the "culture (he) lives in"...but THIS is the culture the rest of us live in. And when you make ignorant remarks - especially as a public figure, these are the consequences. You don't get to yell free speech or whine that it was private. Sterling's NBA culture wasn't going to tolerate this for a second. America wasn't going to tolerate this for a second...publically. I know that and you know that. This story broke on TM fucking Z! THAT is the world we live in right now....ESPN isn't going to stop on this any more than they're going to stop giving us a weeks worth of press conferences when someone comes out of the closet.

This is the culture of ESPN/TMZ and popular America. He also has to understand the culture the NBA where LeBron James is the face in today's game and while everyone is going to be offended by the comments, there are a lot more people in the NBA that directly look like the group you're discriminating against than most any other league.

Undefined

April 30th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^

I don't think you can characterize not being a complete and total bigot as merely "being PC". The fact of the matter is, this wasn't a personal business of his, it is a franchise. And if he is causing publicity issues for the NBA, the expectation should be that he needs to go.



He should have the privacy to not be recorded in his home, and I believe that he does. That right does not erase or nullify what was said though. This is not a court of law. Whether the girlfriend will be prosecuted for illegally recording him, or if he has civil suit options available is another discussion.