Polimom follows the NFL, not the NBA… but I still found this story interesting:
The players’ association filed two unfair labor practice charges Friday against the NBA over issues with the new ball and the league’s crackdown on player complaints.
A number of players publicly have complained about the change in the ball from leather to microfiber composite. But the crackdown on complaints after the whistle, often referred to as a “zero-tolerance policy,” might be the bigger problem.
Can somebody help me understand why people who earn salaries like these need union representation? This seems pretty ridiculous; I must be missing something…
Because otherwise they might have to work for a living?
I’ve always wondered the same thing about movie actors, who can make per picture what these guys make in a year… And, in addition, they (both groups) need to have agents, too…
~EdT.
I’ve always heard that it’s for the non-stars. The guys making the league minimum; the guys who have a career expectancy of 3 years. The guys like Mike Webster, who have destroyed their bodies and minds for their sport.
If that is truly the case, they don’t need a union: they need a shrink!
~EdT.
Hunh. You’re likely right, Ashley. But when I think labor movement and bargaining units, it’s not for these kinds of occupations that pay this kind of money, regardless of how long the players do it.
Obviously, that’s one of the reasons professional athletics should be underpinned by an education.
A union’s goal is more for fair compensation and work environment, not really a particular wage range. The higher your pay goes, the more likely you are getting a fair wage. But in the case of professional sports, there is a monopoly market on the jobs, so if you don’t play in the NBA/NFL/MLB, what equivalent do you go find a job in? As far as the union taking up a ball issue, that goes more along the lines of the union workers having enough money to demand the union do whatever they need.