Don’t Panic: The Union Did NOT Vote to Strike
March 12th, 2010 . 2:26 am . By: Buzz CarrickYou may have read stories reporting the players voted 350-2 to strike. I’ll tell you why that’s not really true. Let me state right out by that I am not a labor expert nor am I 100% in the know about the current MLS labor situation. But I can still shed some light on this vote. Here is scary sounding quote written by Mr. Goff, “MLS players have voted overwhelmingly in favor of a strike if a collective bargaining agreement with the league is not reached in time for the season openers in two weeks” There’s only one problem with that statement. That’s not what the union voted to do. People that know about these things tell me that any union strikes takes two steps. First, a union has to vote to engage the ability to strike and second they then hold a vote to actually strike. This 350-2 vote is the former one. The MLS Player Union had a vote to allow themselves the ability to hold a strike if the members so chose. To make an analogy, they voted to flip the cover back on the doomsday strike button. The union gave themselves the power to hold a strike if the union membership chooses to strike. So in order for there to be a strike, the players will have to hold another vote to actually go on a strike. This almost unanimous vote you are reading about was simply a procedural one that gives the union a tool. It’s a bureaucratic move and this kind of vote is almost always unanimous to show solidarity. Actual strike votes, which the MLAP has not yet held, are of much different margins. This is a move that is used by police or teachers unions, it lets the suits know there is a threat to strike. Technically a strike is possible. This is just another step in the typical posturing of union collective bargaining negotiations. To paint he picture further I can tell you that at an earlier date the MLS union had a vote to ratify the collective barging agreement proposed by the owners. This is when the union first rejected the initial MLS proposal. This was a proposal before there were any concessions by the owners. FC Dallas players votes roughly 2 to 1 to reject the vote. That still means a third of FCD’s players voted to accept the collective bargaining agreement at that time. Since then there have been some concessions by the owners, so things may go even more toward accepting the next time. (Interestingly the FCD player vote breakdown at that time was almost exactly on American versus foreign player lines with foreign players voting to approve the initial offer.) So while things aren’t looking great at the minute. It’s not true that the union voted to strike. 17 Comments Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI Leave a comment |
[...] The latest on the labor situation? Check out Buzz’s take. [...]
I fear there will be a work stoppage. And while the players are definitely the protagonists in this, there are no winners. MLS needs to give up this single-entity idea, and its draconian stance on players out of contract.
They probably need to modify the draconian stance on players out of contract, but “this single entity idea” isn’t going away like hula-hoops.
Disagree with you pretty wholeheartedly, Chad. Most of these American-born guys would not be playing soccer if not for MLS. All you’re doing by giving these guys free agency right now is creating a buyer’s market for players who simply aren’t worth it. The league needs at least 5-10 more years to increase the quality of US players and grow demand for soccer here. Allowing free agency now will create another NASL situation where a team like FCD might as well be in USL-1, or whatever it’s called today.
Well….maybe I agree a little bit. Hopefully they can keep some of these older guys out of limbo, but I’m not sure how you’d do it without opening a huge can of worms in other areas.
You’re right and you’re wrong. Yes, this is a procedural step, but isn’t just a matter of course. The players are serious about making the league negotiate in good faith, which they’ve not done to this point. While this move doesn’t make a strike inevitable, it isn’t a joke either. Dink.
http://www.24thminute.com/2010...te-of-full-membership-not.html
[...] problem is that according to Buzz Carrick, a further vote will be needed by the players to actually go on strike. This means that any strike [...]
Ehat does a strike vote do to the foreign -players work visas? That would be the one reason I could see them not wanting a strike.
How do we know that the league has yet to negotiate in good faith? They may not have caved to demands that their business model be redesigned, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t tried to work with the players.
I hope this vote gives the negotiating committee the power to get something done now… I understand many of the players concerns and actually hope they can make some progress. Until now I feel like they were a bunch of high school students signing a petition to get the principal to do something… I hope this may give them a little power and credibility now.
One problem I see is very little of the top tier players speaking out in support of this. Apparently they are supporting it, a 350-2 vote would seem to imply that. But I think having some of the top players speaking out as to the issues and problems may give them more credibility at least in the public eye…
what is the possibility of scabs?
You might be right, but the answer would be in the Union’s bylaws. Every Union is different. E.g., some say that a 2/3 rejection of a contract is automatically strike authorization. There’s no law requiring a 2-step vote process like you described. Get your hands on the MLSPU’s bylaws and you’d have your answer. Possibly they’re filed with the MD agency responsible for corporate filings.
Yes they did douche. How does it feel to be a Bill Archer shill. kumquat.
I say the “no need for a 2nd vote” is just to put pressure on the league.
And to think they can claim they have agreed to strike while still under mediation talks with the league is wrong.
I just don’t think they have the vote do actually call the strike.
shlebyg75
a vote to authorize a vote to strike is different than a vote to actually strike.
But as long as the players are continuing to talk under mediation with the league they can not strike.
Actually we might do pretty good in s Scab league. Bet we’d make the playoffs for a change.
I think if there is a strike it won’t last long. There will be enough MLS guys that cross the line because they can’t financially handle being out of work. The owners will get other players that would jump at a chance to play in a pro league, and they will field teams. The season might have a delayed start, but it would go on. The owners won’t be hurting because of a strike. And the general/casual fan won’t know there is a strike or the difference as to who is on the field since they just see uniforms. Ouside of a few big names (Donovan, Beckham, Keller, etc.) most wouldn’t recognize a player walking down the street. I really don’t think the players have enough leverage at this point. A few more years with a more established league, maybe, but not now.