Lester Munson believes NLRB ruling on lockout imminent

[KGs Knee]

According to Munson's most recent article on ESPN

Officials of the National Labor Relations Board, sources say, appear to be ready to act on a players' union claim that NBA owners are guilty of unfair labor practices in their demands for "draconian demands and changes" and the declaration of a lockout when there was "no impasse in bargaining."

Obviously there would seem to be an impasse in bargaining at this point in time, but, the argument is that there was no impasse when the lockout was instituted.  Will that matter, or is it a matter of semantics?

According to Munster, the players seem to have a strong case against the owners in so much as their bargaining tactics have been "unfair" and "unlawful".

It's a clever double-barreled argument from the players. They lay it out this way: The bargaining before the lockout was a sham and a violation of the law, or the bargaining was lawful and the owners declared a lockout when there was no impasse. The players win either way.

If the NLRB concludes that the players are correct in their descriptions of the owners' bargaining, the board will rule in favor of the players. The board would file an action against the NBA and demand that the league cease its bargaining tactics and its lockout. The legal action is called a "10(j)" in reference to the section of labor law that defines it. If you could somehow eavesdrop on a conversation among NBA players right now, it would not be a big surprise to hear them talking about their "10(j)." And it will not be a big surprise if the union's NLRB gambit is successful.

It seems part of the players strategy is to show that the owners were never interested in bargaining, the owners have only offered "take it or leave it terms", in regards to "system issues", without offering any concessions of their own. They have laid out that for the past 2 years, the owners have said there will be a lockout, and lo and behold, now there is.  Their claim is the owners strategy has been unlawful.

Apparently there is precedent for a NLRB ruling in the players favor.

An NLRB decision would be the first time the board has acted in a sports dispute since MLB owners locked out baseball players after a players strike eliminated the World Series in 1994. Responding to an NLRB request for an injunction then, then-federal district judge Sonia Sotomayor (now on the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled that the owners were guilty of bad faith bargaining and ended a work stoppage and re-established the primacy of the players' union.

With that precedent in mind, I think this may be the best chance that currently exists for the NBA to have games this season.

[hpantazo]

According to Munson's most recent article on ESPN

Officials of the National Labor Relations Board, sources say, appear to be ready to act on a players' union claim that NBA owners are guilty of unfair labor practices in their demands for "draconian demands and changes" and the declaration of a lockout when there was "no impasse in bargaining."

Obviously there would seem to be an impasse in bargaining at this point in time, but, the argument is that there was no impasse when the lockout was instituted.  Will that matter, or is it a matter of semantics?

According to Munster, the players seem to have a strong case against the owners in so much as their bargaining tactics have been "unfair" and "unlawful".

It's a clever double-barreled argument from the players. They lay it out this way: The bargaining before the lockout was a sham and a violation of the law, or the bargaining was lawful and the owners declared a lockout when there was no impasse. The players win either way.

If the NLRB concludes that the players are correct in their descriptions of the owners' bargaining, the board will rule in favor of the players. The board would file an action against the NBA and demand that the league cease its bargaining tactics and its lockout. The legal action is called a "10(j)" in reference to the section of labor law that defines it. If you could somehow eavesdrop on a conversation among NBA players right now, it would not be a big surprise to hear them talking about their "10(j)." And it will not be a big surprise if the union's NLRB gambit is successful.

It seems part of the players strategy is to show that the owners were never interested in bargaining, the owners have only offered "take it or leave it terms", in regards to "system issues", without offering any concessions of their own. They have laid out that for the past 2 years, the owners have said there will be a lockout, and lo and behold, now there is.  Their claim is the owners strategy has been unlawful.

Apparently there is precedent for a NLRB ruling in the players favor.

An NLRB decision would be the first time the board has acted in a sports dispute since MLB owners locked out baseball players after a players strike eliminated the World Series in 1994. Responding to an NLRB request for an injunction then, then-federal district judge Sonia Sotomayor (now on the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled that the owners were guilty of bad faith bargaining and ended a work stoppage and re-established the primacy of the players' union.

With that precedent in mind, I think this may be the best chance that currently exists for the NBA to have games this season.

This would be great news imo if the NLRB rules in favor of the players. The owners I guess are banking on the idea that the NLRB will rule in their side and then they can hold out much longer than the players union and get everything they want. This is really the union's only chance at preventing the owners from getting everything they have been seeking.

[nickagneta]

If the NLRB finds in favor of the players my guess is it will be less than a week before the owners find a sympathetic judge that puts an injunction on the NLRB ruling and then the lockout continues.

Then the Players will file an appeal of the injunction in the US Court of Appeals to overturn the injunction and that's when we will have a real ruling. That though is probably months away.

[Chris]

No matter who the NLRB rules for, I think this is the last thing that could save the season.  I think there is still a chance the players are just holding out with the hope of winning the NLRB case, so if they lose, they could give in...and if the owners lose, they would lose a lot of leverage, and might try to settle quickly.  It's still a longshot though.

[LB3533]

There are rumors Stern promised the big TV networks that there will still be an 82 game season, even if games have to start in December or whatever.

If that type of shady dealings are in place before the lockout....there is no doubt or question the NBA has not been negotiating in good faith.

[Chris]

There are rumors Stern promised the big TV networks that there will still be an 82 game season, even if games have to start in December or whatever.

If that type of shady dealings are in place before the lockout....there is no doubt or question the NBA has not been negotiating in good faith.

I don't think there is any truth to those rumors.  While they might be able to reschedule 10 or so games, beyond that, it would be too much of a logistical nightmare to make that happen.

[wdleehi]

There are rumors Stern promised the big TV networks that there will still be an 82 game season, even if games have to start in December or whatever.

If that type of shady dealings are in place before the lockout....there is no doubt or question the NBA has not been negotiating in good faith.

I don't think there is any truth to those rumors.  While they might be able to reschedule 10 or so games, beyond that, it would be too much of a logistical nightmare to make that happen.

The NBA could promise to get the national networks the same amount of games in a shorten season.

Which is a positive for both sides because it preserves more of the money being lost to the lockout.

[Chris]

There are rumors Stern promised the big TV networks that there will still be an 82 game season, even if games have to start in December or whatever.

If that type of shady dealings are in place before the lockout....there is no doubt or question the NBA has not been negotiating in good faith.

I don't think there is any truth to those rumors.  While they might be able to reschedule 10 or so games, beyond that, it would be too much of a logistical nightmare to make that happen.

The NBA could promise to get the national networks the same amount of games in a shorten season.

Which is a positive for both sides because it preserves more of the money being lost to the lockout.

Ah, that makes a little more sense.  So, still a 60 game season or so, but give the national networks a few extra games a week, to make up for the weeks they missed.

I still think its far-fetched that Stern is promising anyone anything at this point. 

[wdleehi]

There are rumors Stern promised the big TV networks that there will still be an 82 game season, even if games have to start in December or whatever.

If that type of shady dealings are in place before the lockout....there is no doubt or question the NBA has not been negotiating in good faith.

I don't think there is any truth to those rumors.  While they might be able to reschedule 10 or so games, beyond that, it would be too much of a logistical nightmare to make that happen.

The NBA could promise to get the national networks the same amount of games in a shorten season.

Which is a positive for both sides because it preserves more of the money being lost to the lockout.

Ah, that makes a little more sense.  So, still a 60 game season or so, but give the national networks a few extra games a week, to make up for the weeks they missed.

I still think its far-fetched that Stern is promising anyone anything at this point. 

Promise is probably a strong word.



And this is just a guess at something they could give the networks.