BP Comment Quick Links
February 12, 2016 Pebble HuntingI Read the Entire Collective Bargaining Agreement and Here's What I LearnedIt’s easy to underestimate how important baseball’s collective bargaining agreement is. I know how easy, because I’ve been doing it for years without even trying. The CBA has been mostly defined in my mind as “not a strike, yay.”
But not long ago, I was reading Sam Mann’s article in the William & Mary Law Review about baseball’s antitrust exemption, and specifically the irrelevance of it. Tucked into it is a paragraph that completely reframed this document that I occaaaaasionally think about:
When the National Labor Relations Board asserted jurisdiction over baseball in 1973, the MLB’s antitrust exemption faded in importance. The reason is that nearly all of MLB’s rules and policies are collectively bargained for with the Major League Baseball Players’ Association. An essential aspect of federal labor law is the nonstatutory labor exemption, which allows the league and its union to agree on governing rules in collective bargaining agreements. ... In the labor context, Congress has determined that collectively bargained-for practices are generally beyond the scope of judicial antitrust review.
In other words: The CBA is the law. It does what Congress and the Supreme Court have each opted not to do, defining in clear and unbreakable ways what is and isn’t legal in this $9 billion industry. It’s also, in practice, the rule book for the modern game; you want the strike zone raised an inch, you don’t go to some on-high rules committee. You go to the collective bargaining process. For that matter, did you know that a pitcher can’t change the color of his glove mid-game? He can’t. It’s in the CBA.
This spring, the MLBPA and the owners will begin negotiating the next CBA. We will mostly follow it to make sure it turns out to be “not a strike, yay.” But its text will actually be much more significant than that. It will define the game in ways we will take for granted, and in ways that affect players and teams a great deal whether we notice them or not. These will probably go right past most of us if we don’t read it, or if we read it the way I typically do: A few times a year, I’ll refer to the CBA for something. Open it up, control+F, search for a keyword in my query, read what I need, and get out of there like Indy with a Sankara stone. I’ve never read it all the way through, so, as the current CBA sets to expire, I decided to. I had no idea what surprises I was in store for, though my expectations were raised when my eye caught one line on the 10th page of the table of contents:
Yeaaah. Let’s rock and roll.
***
1. If you read the CBA in full, certain themes emerge that reveal the nature of players’ desires.
If we were building a hierarchy of needs based on what gets the most attention in these agreements,
we’d probably replace physiological with “get that paper.” Safety would still be on the pyramid--both in terms of protecting player health and providing secure environments for their family members--but most likely a tier or two up (meaning “less basic.”) I’m not sure Love/Belonging would be there at all, but something like self-sovereignty, or basic human agency, might be, around the third tier. The highest, smallest tier would probably be something like leisure time—there's a bunch of stuff in here about prohibitions on doubleheaders, protection of home off-days, restrictions on night games before day games in certain circumstances, avoiding Sunday Night Baseball before the All-Star break, etc. But what I think would be second-biggest tier is what most interested me, and is probably best expressed as “be treated special.” Another, more specific way to express it would be “fly first-class.”
There are so many references to the way that a player must be transported from one part of the country to another. For instance, if a team is trying to sign a free agent, it can only require him to negotiate in person once—and the team must fly him there first-class. At the end of a season, they must fly him home, first-class. If they assign his contract during a season, they must fly him to the new assignment first-class—and, also, fly his wife first-class. If they terminate his contract, his parting gift is a first-class flight. If he’s rehabbing at the club’s spring training facilities—first-class flight, first-class hotel, and if his wife is with him a family-sized rental car. But what if there aren’t any first-class seats on the plane, you might ask. In such a case, the player gets two seats—technically, three seats for every two players—and the first-class meal. Team bus travel, by the way, isn't allowed for any trip longer than 200 miles.
Now, maybe the players asked for all this because they ran out of bigger things to ask for, but I don't think it's that simple. The history of baseball’s labor movement before Marvin Miller could basically be simplified down to this: The players saw themselves as highly skilled workers who deserved treatment commensurate with the value of their skills and their prestige in the field, and who merited the benefits of guild-like collectivism. The owners saw them—or, at least, framed them—as replaceable labor in a system that they, the capital, had created. As the president of the American Association once put it, “the woods are full of good ballplayers.” [i]
Obviously, this different way of viewing ballplayers was most relevant to the question of salaries and freedom of player movement, but it’s the subtext to any player gripe during that century, e.g. owners don’t care about our safety on the field, owners don’t care about our security among unruly fans, owners don’t care about how grueling the schedule is, owners don’t care about our wellbeing after our careers end, owners don’t care about us at all because they see us as totally nonspecial. A couple of the big wins in the first collective bargaining agreement: $12 per day in meal money during spring training, and moving expenses for players who were traded or sold. Not to downplay in any way the real, tangible benefits of those 12 dollars and those moving expenses, nor the real, tangible benefits of… getting an $85-a-day rental car, I guess. But as much as anything, these victories are acknowledgments that the players have a claim not just in how much money they get, but in how they are treated. The first-class everything is a mandate that owners must treat them as special, because in the field and in the market they are, whether the owners of the day believe them to be or not.
2. There are brief glimpses of the BIG issues that each side is holding on to for the day things get really ugly.
It’s so specific. What makes this stand out isn’t that the players are dwelling on the length of the season—though, it’s important to remember, the owners’ essentially unilateral decision to increase the season from 154 games to 162 was, a decade later, still a source of tension between players and owners during early CBA negotiations. Rather, what makes it stand out is how it is otherwise never mentioned. It’s like, imagine you and your husband are deciding where to go on vacation.
You: How about someplace warm?
You’d probably want to know what happened in Duluth, right? Why are we talking about Duluth all of a sudden? I think you’d better tell me about Duluth, honey.
For the owners, the one-time-one-time-only mention is contraction, in which the owners agree not to undertake “any centralized effort to reduce the number of Major League Clubs” during the years covered by this CBA but, in an attachment, state their position that they don’t actually have to get the players’ approval to do so in the future: “The Players Association has consistently maintained that a centralized effort by the Office of the Commissioner and/or the Clubs to reduce the number of Major League Clubs is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act. The Clubs, on the other hand, have consistently taken the position that such action is a permissive subject.” Italics mine. In other words, as I read that: We’re happy to negotiate with you on this, until we actually have a disagreement.
3. Every player who does an initial physical examination has to tell his new club whether he is missing his eyes.
Also, on the same form, every player who signs a contract has to tell his team whether he has ever had a sexually transmitted disease. Baseball couldn’t keep its anonymous steroids tests secret, so for the next few decades I’ll be watching with great interest to see whether it can keep this implied database of ballplayers’ STDs from being leaked to Deadspin.
4. The Home Run Derby (and, to a lesser extent, the All-Star Game) agreements are like a bizarro CBA within the CBA.
A thousand bucks and a shwag bag! They call it a “stipend,” even. And if they’re in the All-Star game already, as most are, all the rest of the "perks"—the travel, etc.—is already covered. (All-Stars also get $1,000 and the bag full of, I’m guessing, Cialis and Scott’s Turf Builder lawn food.) The Players Association also gets “at least one minute” during the Derby broadcast to talk about the MLBPA trust, their charity arm. And, because this is the level of detail that the CBA sometimes goes into, “The Player interviewed [about the MLBPA trust] will also be offered the opportunity to continue the discussion.”
Meanwhile, the means of picking the Derby teams are completely lawyered over. The league must ask the union for consent when it chooses the captains, though the union must not “unreasonably” withhold consent. The league may not contact possible captains until this consent is given. Then
Yup. The commissioner is expressly granted the right to give the captain instructions in a task that every blogger among us has managed to pull off with nothing more than a Wordpress login and an irrational desire to see Barry Bonds hit batting practice dingers at age 50. After that, the captain gets the final say—unless the league and the union think the captain is acting like a turd, in which case the commissioner can overrule him. Anyway, if “first-class airfare” is the players’ surprisingly high priority, I guess the Derby (and, to a lesser extent, the All-Star Game) is their surprisingly low one, as they allow the commissioner uncharacteristically broad rights to micromanage and they demand uncharacteristically light compensation in return.
5. The revenue sharing and competitive balance sections are so dense.
6. The level of detail is sometimes spectacular.
7. I did not know these things.
8. The way these people sign off letters. · Bud Selig: Sincerely, · Michael Weiner, executive director of the MLBPA: Sincerely, · David M. Prouty, Chief Labor Counsel of the MLBPA: Very truly yours, · Rob Manfred, Executive vice President, MLB: Even split between Very truly yours and Sincerely · Daniel R. Halem, General Counsel–Labor, MLB: Very truly yours nine times, Sincerely seven times.
Despite careful study I have deduced no pattern that explains why Manfred and Halem choose what they do for each situation.
All in all, I give this CBA four stars out of five. I recommend it especially for diehard fans of the genre, though I’ll caution that it’s more bathroom reading than a real page-turner. I am hopeful there will be a sequel.
[i] This quote, as well as the information in the paragraph below it, come from the book Baseball’s Power Shift, written by Krister Swanson and to be published next month by University of Nebraska Press. It’s a very good book.
Sam Miller is an author of Baseball Prospectus. Follow @SamMillerBB
9 comments have been left for this article.
|
Why Duluth, Sam? Why did you pick that city? Do you have something to tell us?
But seriously, this was great.