What does "negotiating in good faith" mean to you?

[hardlyyardley]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

[thirstyboots18]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

That is the kind of job I want, I am an excellent underproducer!  ha ha ha ha

[nickagneta]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

Pretty much the case for every employee in America, no?

Doesn't matter if you are a sales clerk, working on a manufacturing line, a customer service rep, an employee at a bank or a engineer. If you are an employee and you work you get paid. It doesn't mean your employer is guaranteed a profit.

[KGs Knee]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

You're looking at it wrong though.  Your salary is not guaranteed (unless you have a contract, but only then, for a specified length of time).  If you prove yourself to be an unproductive worker, you get fired.  That is the risk.

[Chris]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

Pretty much the case for every employee in America, no?

Doesn't matter if you are a sales clerk, working on a manufacturing line, a customer service rep, an employee at a bank or a engineer. If you are an employee and you work you get paid. It doesn't mean your employer is guaranteed a profit.

Agreed.  And owners are not trying to guarantee profits.  They are just exercising their rights to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that is favorable to them while still being fair to their employees.

[Roy H.]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

Pretty much the case for every employee in America, no?

Doesn't matter if you are a sales clerk, working on a manufacturing line, a customer service rep, an employee at a bank or a engineer. If you are an employee and you work you get paid. It doesn't mean your employer is guaranteed a profit.

At the same time, the employee can't perform terribly in his job, and still have a guarantee that he'll be employed (with annual 10.5% raises) in four years.  I think that's what yardley was getting at.

[Donoghus]

Never thought I'd see a basketball thread that debates the merits of GAAP in it.

Ughh...this lockout needs to end.

[KGs Knee]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

Pretty much the case for every employee in America, no?

Doesn't matter if you are a sales clerk, working on a manufacturing line, a customer service rep, an employee at a bank or a engineer. If you are an employee and you work you get paid. It doesn't mean your employer is guaranteed a profit.

At the same time, the employee can't perform terribly in his job, and still have a guarantee that he'll be employed (with annual 10.5% raises) in four years.  I think that's what yardley was getting at.

I see what you're getting at, if a player does poorly, they should be able to be fired.  That's not how contracts work (generally) though, and you know this as well as anyone, I would assume.

It would seem then, "yardley" and maybe yourself, would be advocating for non-guaranteed contracts.  On the surface that seems reasonable, until you consider the owners would probably not be willing to allow those players who exceed the value of their contract to terminate their contract (fire their employer essentially).  As a result, this isn't really a viable solution, its too one-sided.  Unless, of coarse, you're the NFL-which seems to just have a really weak union.


Or, if this is being applied to the general working populace, this is what we call at-will-employment.  You're only guaranteed to be paid for time actually worked, theres is no guarantee for tomorrow.  No sports league wants this-too many ramifications that would be bad for the game.

[Roy H.]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

Pretty much the case for every employee in America, no?

Doesn't matter if you are a sales clerk, working on a manufacturing line, a customer service rep, an employee at a bank or a engineer. If you are an employee and you work you get paid. It doesn't mean your employer is guaranteed a profit.

At the same time, the employee can't perform terribly in his job, and still have a guarantee that he'll be employed (with annual 10.5% raises) in four years.  I think that's what yardley was getting at.

I see what you're getting at, if a player does poorly, they should be able to be fired.  That's not how contracts work (generally) though, and you know this as well as anyone, I would assume.

It would seem then, "yardley" and maybe yourself, would be advocating for non-guaranteed contracts.  On the surface that seems reasonable, until you consider the owners would probably not be willing to allow those players who exceed the value of their contract to terminate their contract (fire their employer essentially).  As a result, this isn't really a viable solution, its too one-sided.  Unless, of coarse, you're the NFL-which seems to just have a really weak union.


Or, if this is being applied to the general working populace, this is what we call at-will-employment.  You're only guaranteed to be paid for time actually worked, theres is no guarantee for tomorrow.  No sports league wants this-too many ramifications that would be bad for the game.

For me, I was just pointing out that the average worker ("a sales clerk, working on a manufacturing line, a customer service rep, an employee at a bank or a engineer") isn't really an apt analogy here.  Almost all of those professionals -- with the exception of some engineers and bank employees -- have non-guaranteed salaries.  They get paid if they work, and if they don't work, they're likely to not get paid anymore.

I do think that some level of lesser-guaranteed contracts would be a good thing in the NBA, but if that happens, it should be via market forces, rather than by a specific rule.

[BballTim]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

Pretty much the case for every employee in America, no?

Doesn't matter if you are a sales clerk, working on a manufacturing line, a customer service rep, an employee at a bank or a engineer. If you are an employee and you work you get paid. It doesn't mean your employer is guaranteed a profit.

At the same time, the employee can't perform terribly in his job, and still have a guarantee that he'll be employed (with annual 10.5% raises) in four years.  I think that's what yardley was getting at.

  True, but the employee that doesn't have guaranteed employment can get a better paying job with a competitor whenever he chooses, or even negotiate for higher (or earlier) than offered raises.

[nickagneta]

No guaranteed profits only guaranteed salaries regardless of production?

Pretty much the case for every employee in America, no?

Doesn't matter if you are a sales clerk, working on a manufacturing line, a customer service rep, an employee at a bank or a engineer. If you are an employee and you work you get paid. It doesn't mean your employer is guaranteed a profit.

At the same time, the employee can't perform terribly in his job, and still have a guarantee that he'll be employed (with annual 10.5% raises) in four years.  I think that's what yardley was getting at.

I see what you're getting at, if a player does poorly, they should be able to be fired.  That's not how contracts work (generally) though, and you know this as well as anyone, I would assume.

It would seem then, "yardley" and maybe yourself, would be advocating for non-guaranteed contracts.  On the surface that seems reasonable, until you consider the owners would probably not be willing to allow those players who exceed the value of their contract to terminate their contract (fire their employer essentially).  As a result, this isn't really a viable solution, its too one-sided.  Unless, of coarse, you're the NFL-which seems to just have a really weak union.


Or, if this is being applied to the general working populace, this is what we call at-will-employment.  You're only guaranteed to be paid for time actually worked, theres is no guarantee for tomorrow.  No sports league wants this-too many ramifications that would be bad for the game.

For me, I was just pointing out that the average worker ("a sales clerk, working on a manufacturing line, a customer service rep, an employee at a bank or a engineer") isn't really an apt analogy here.  Almost all of those professionals -- with the exception of some engineers and bank employees -- have non-guaranteed salaries.  They get paid if they work, and if they don't work, they're likely to not get paid anymore.

I do think that some level of lesser-guaranteed contracts would be a good thing in the NBA, but if that happens, it should be via market forces, rather than by a specific rule.

I think it a very apt analogy. The owners want guaranteed profits for all teams. HY seemed to be saying that it was unfair for the owners to not be guaranteed a profit but the players were guaranteed pay regardless of performance. If I am misinterpreting HY, my apologies but thats how I was reading it.

But, in essence, that is the employer/employee relationship no matter where you go. Sure some have contracts and some don't but employees get paid and employers take on the risk of not making a profit based on their ability to manage.

Sure in non-contract situations you stand the chance of getting fired for not performing well but on the flip side in contract situations an employer can reap huge benefits and profits for locking in an overachieving employee for many years. So there are risks and benefits in both situations but the essence of who gets paid and who assumes the risk of making or losing money is still the same. Employees get paid and employers are not guaranteed profits, they must make them.

[cman88]

imo the whole concept of a 'contract year' just sums up why guaranteed contracts need to be limited or done away with...shouldnt said player be playing that hard anyways for their team to win? no, its about playing hard for a year to get your $$ and then dog it.

guys like arenas, lewis can say all they want how 'hey the owner paid me" but at the same time, they need to admit that they are giving 0% effort out there..they just dont care.

its nice and all to say they want to have a 'secure job" but doesnt everyone? thats not how the regular world works...if you dog it at work and neglect to do your job you are going to be fired. the boss isnt just going to continue to pay you the same amount.

thats why the nfl imo is so successful in teams being able to turn around so quickly...sure its a different game iwth more team-mates...but you can cut anyone easily if you feel they arent playing up to their contract. that way you arent stuck with under-performing guys year after year