Skip to content

There should’ve been a moment of silence for Marvin Miller yesterday

Sep 3, 2013, 8:23 AM EDT

Marvin Miller

Or some sort of acknowledgement of one of the foremost labor leaders in history on Labor Day. I suppose he probably wouldn’t have much cared, though, so it’s fine.

But what’s not fine is how little fans in general appreciate Marvin Miller and misapprehend what he did for both players and the game.  People have been brainwashed in this country for the past 30 years that labor unions are bad, workers are lazy and the people who own businesses are justified in making their billions while those who have contributed their work to all of that are vilified as socialists for even asking for a piece of it.

But watch this video essay from Keith Olbermann about Miller in which he explains how none of the horrors imagined by baseball owners and fans ever came to pass as a result of free agencies and rising player salaries. And remember, as Olbermann notes, that it wasn’t a player who just signed a $6 billion contract, it was the Los Angeles Dodgers. And no one ever accuses them of being greedy the way players are so accused.

Hope you had a happy Labor Day. Hope you remembered what the day is for.

  1. nobody78 - Sep 3, 2013 at 8:36 AM

    “And no one ever accuses them of being greedy the way players are so accused.”

    Owners and players are both greedy. People shouldn’t be greedy.

    There you go.

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Sep 3, 2013 at 8:42 AM

      Have to agree – I think nearly all fans see the owners as greedy. The difference is they are for the most part in background, and hence not in the public discourse as often as the players

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Sep 3, 2013 at 8:44 AM

        But the players actually produce the product, whereas the owners sit back and collect the $. If you are Hank/Hal Steinbrenner, what do you actually have to do as owners of the Yanks? Cashman runs the baseball side, you have scouts running your minor leagues, and Levine shooting his mouth off at every turn as president of the club. I’m sure they also have a marketing branch handling that side as well. The Steinbrenners can be the Duke Brothers and just sign checks.

        So who should get the lion’s share of the profits?

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Sep 3, 2013 at 8:50 AM

        I didn’t say anything to the contrary. I was agreeing with the OP – I think most fans find the Owners to be greedy.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Sep 3, 2013 at 8:44 AM

        But the players actually produce the product, whereas the owners sit back and collect the $. If you are Hank/Hal Steinbrenner, what do you actually have to do as owners of the Yanks? Cashman runs the baseball side, you have scouts running your minor leagues, and Levine shooting his mouth off at every turn as president of the club. I’m sure they also have a marketing branch handling that side as well. The Steinbrenners can be the Duke Brothers and just sign checks.

        So who should get the lion’s share of the profits?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Sep 3, 2013 at 8:56 AM

        I’ve unfortunately found the opposite to be true. Granted it most recently happened with those knuckledraggers in the NFL, but go look at some of the old labor posts on PFT (I’d suggest heavily imbibing in scotch first), and see how many posts are “players are far too overpaid, without the owners, there would be no football”.

        As if there weren’t dozens of uber-rich people waiting to suckle at the teet that is the No Fun League…

      • gibbyfan - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM

        Church —I understand your point that it is the players that draw the crowds and produce the revenue but we live in a capitalistic society. Were it not for the owners there would be no game and most players would be flipping hamburgers instead of gaining instant wealth and fame soley because they were blessed with a certain physical skill………In terms of greedy—probably applies to both parties just as it applies to most of us to one degree or another–
        But Craig —-Yes Mr. Miller did an enormous service to the players—but I have to ask–how exactly did that benefit the game?

      • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM

        Why is it that people always reduce what unions do to pay issues (when in fact, AGENTS negotiate pay for players — not the union)? The unions negotiate rules for work conditions (which was a matter of discussion for Mets fans yesterday due to the short turn around between games) and offer assistance to players facing discipline and a host of other things. I think guaranteeing employees good work conditions and fair treatment improves the game and I fail to see how letting owners do whatever they want would instead.

      • bigharold - Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        Chruch..

        “But the players actually produce the product, whereas the owners sit back and collect the $. If you are Hank/Hal Steinbrenner.”

        I have to disagree, . players are the product. Owners organize it or in other words produce it. Nobody ever paid a nickel to watch an owner do anything but owners in effect keep things organized and focused. They are an important part of the process.
        And, the Steinbrenner’s are a poor example inasmuch as they inherited the “family business” from perhaps the greatest sports entrepreneur of the 20th century, .. certainly the greatest MLB entrepreneur. Sure GMSlll was bombastic to the point of being asinine at times and he did some stupid things but the man understood promotion. Where others saw skyrocketing cost he saw branding and name recognition. The Yankees were in such dire straits when he first took over that he had to pay to get local radio stations to get their games broadcast. That has changed a quite a bit but it hasn’t got to the point that they need only show up and count the cash flowing in.

        Ironically owners and players have benefited wildly from each other but still see the other as the “bad guy”. They still have essentially an adversarial relationship. While cable TV is the foundation of a lot of the wealth in MLB, I’m certain that without free agency owners wouldn’t have developed the revenue streams that now make up the cash cow that is MLB.

  2. js20011041 - Sep 3, 2013 at 8:40 AM

    Thity years ago, a family could live comfortably on a single income. Today, both parents must work to support a family. The disparity in income between the wealthy and the common worker is as high as it’s ever been. Union membership has declined sharply over the last thirty years. Coincidence?

    • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:35 AM

      Well, some families could live on one income then — the funny thing is that owners oppose unions so much but for a long time, that’s what kept the system functional. Are we going to return to the days of riots in the streets? I doubt it because we are so socialized to behave now, but I do think it will hasten a change in the system. I doubt I live to see the day when we fully transition out of capitalism, though…of course, there was a whole generation who probably thought the same thing about our pre-capitalist system.

      • js20011041 - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:22 AM

        Sure, some families could live on one income, if they don’t care about quality of life or if that one income is sufficiently large. But for the vast majority of us, raising a family requires more than a single income. When people call for change, I don’t think they’re calling for socialism. They’re just saying that the wealthy need to share some of that wealth with the workers who made that wealth possible. Modified capitalism, not socialism. Any system that is suffiently extreme in either direction is bound to fail.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:33 AM

        I think you missed my first point. As to the second, I wasn’t necessarily advocating socialism specifically. There will be something beyond that. My second point was pretty much that unions helped make modified capitalism work and with their decline, that may hurt the system. We are kind of agreeing there, and I wanted to clarify that.

  3. kaoticbandito - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM

    Olbermann is not exactly known for his objective reporting.

    • deadeyedesign23 - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:26 AM

      Are you gonna take issue with any of the things he presents as facts here? If not I don’t know what his politics has to do with anything.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:29 AM

      Yes: please explain which facts Olbermann gets wrong here.

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 7:15 PM

        Now we know why KING KACA is on nbcsports. He is a union labor socialist, living high off the hog like all the labor asskissers.
        In 1966 baseball players made almost 300% the average salary of an American worker for playing a game. According to the baseball statistics, in 1966 baseball players made an average of $19,187 while the average American made about $7,000. With the unions, strikes etc, the baseball average salary increased to $326,000. and the average American made $22,000.
        Let’s put in percentages. American workers’ salaries increased 300% baseball players’ salaries increased 1,700%. That is almost 6 times faster than the salary of the average fan. WHY?
        Were six times more home runs hit? Where six times more shut outs pitched? Were ERA’s reduced by six times? Were batting averages increased by six times?
        Both KING KACA and Olberman make several times more than the average worker for stirring up resentment against the men who take the risks.
        It is the capitalists that risk the capital, not the players. I know that Olberman and KING KACA have to be mouth pieces for NBC but at least get the facts right. I heard a lot of blame the owners. Poor Players that got 17 times more than the fans in 1986. An accountant can make numbers stand up and salute you and twist them anyway he wants to. But when you put the numbers straight, so everyone can see what is true, the socialists and crazy liberal unionist get proved wrong every time.

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 7:30 PM

        KING KACA you dared to put that LIAR OLBERMAN with your socialist, pro ped, pro cheating horsesh*t? Look at http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/miller-elected-executive-director-of-mlb-players-association
        The average baseball player salary in 1966 was over $19,000 and overzealous actor Olberman, watch him turn pages that he is nor reading, pretending to read them, clearly states that the average ball player made $10,000 in 1966. I want to know how much Olberman steals from NBC and KING KACA gets for writing his nonsense to support ass*oles like Olberman. Come on KING KACA have the stomach to correct Olde Buddy Olberman.
        Who the f**k do you think is paying the six billion to the dodgers to pay the players? THE FANS IDIOT through the increase of the products by paying for all the stupid commercials to brain wash the fans to buy the junk pushed on them by the companies, which have to advertise to compete.
        Of course you and Olberman want to sit back and watch your new deluxe 70 inch $10,000 tvs and laugh at all the suckers who pay for the stupid commercials that pay your salaries.
        Hail to the LIARS AND CHEATS!

    • emdash01 - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:07 AM

      He’s not reporting here – he’s editorializing. Offering his opinion is pretty much the whole point of that.

  4. jlinatl - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:30 AM

    I think most people think that unions played an important part in our nations history but are somewhat outdated as they currently operate. That hardly constitutes brainwashing.

    Most industries no longer completely function on an us Vs. them mentality. It’s just business evolution.

  5. ssazz - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:34 AM

    “People have been brainwashed in this country for the past 30 years that labor unions are bad, workers are lazy and the people who own businesses are justified in making their billions while those who have contributed their work to all of that are vilified as socialists for even asking for a piece of it.”

    What a load of generalized liberal hogwash. Olberman would be proud.

    What no mention of how public sector unions have played a primary role in fomenting a decline in support for unions?

    No mention of the use of PED’s and it’s toll on the game by players hoping to cash in on free agency?

    I’m not anti-Marvin Miller, or pro-ownership. Fighting the reserve clause was the right thing to do and Miller’s legacy should be honored. No question. But framing it in that claptrap about how society has been brainwashed and how most business owners are all a bunch of billionaires is like a grade school level of naivety.

    • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:38 AM

      The very last word there makes the teachers’ union weep.

      • ssazz - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:44 AM

        Technically that would be considered the “British” form of spelling, true, but it’s still correct with either an “é” or “y”.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:45 AM

        Fine, then Noah Webster weeps.

      • ssazz - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM

        My apologies to Noah, I just was too lazy to type the accent over the “e”.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:56 AM

        That was a hardcore history joke there, btw. And since Webster essentially built the American English system used in schools today, the union probably would still mark you off — which is not to say I haven’t heard many a teacher around my parts conjugating verbs in the common present perfect-past tense. Ugh. Also, we woulda let you slide with a naked “e” — we’re good like that. Freedom fries!

    • ssazz - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:08 AM

      Next time, a naked “e” it is then.

  6. royalintx - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:14 AM

    Actually, due in part to the incompetence of teachers unions, most teachers now don’t know the difference.

    I have nothing against Miller and agree that the reserve clause needed to be busted. However, a socialist telling us to watch a video created by a socialist about a labor attorney who should be considered a hero…and then everyone telling us that it is not political. Please…

    Some business owners are greedy, some union leaders are greedy. Pretending one side or the other is morally correct is absurd. The opposite of your argument is that unions have destroyed businesses, cities (Detroit), and the education system in this country (also facts). I guess all of that is ok as long as workers have good pension plans.

    • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:28 AM

      Those are not “facts.” The bankruptcy in Detroit is not due to the pension plans, and plenty of other cities have contracts with public workers and have not declared bankruptcy — so your conclusion there is flawed. Also, please cite a business that has been “destroyed” by a union, so we can examine your evidence. Why don’t you give us actual facts instead of making blanket statements? And, I don’t know why you wouldn’t want your fellow Americans to have pensions.

      • asimonetti88 - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM

        “Also, please cite a business that has been “destroyed” by a union”

        One could certainly argue for Hostess.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:26 AM

        Ok, again, saying something doesn’t make it so. Please outline an actual argument for HOW the unions destroyed Hostess. Please be sure to address the fact that employees there took numerous paycuts over the years as it was destroying the company in your response.

      • asimonetti88 - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:28 AM

        That’s why I said “one could argue”, not “I could argue”.

      • misterj167 - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM

        No, one certainly cannot argue for Hostess, as the union agreed to take pay cut after pay cut while the owners lied about their profits and voted themselves huge bonuses before declaring bankruptcy.

        The anti-player sentiment I see here is the same as the anti-worker sentiment I see everywhere else in this country. It’s getting to the point where the only people who aren’t considered to be welfare queens are used car salesmen, hedge fund bankers, and motivational speakers.

        Any look at the history of baseball will show you that no group of people has done more to damage the sport than the owners. Apartheid. The reserve clause. Even the 1919 scandal could have been averted if Comiskey hadn’t been such a colossal jerk to his players. But facts are irrelevant to people whose only motivation is to hate on their fellow workers.

        Marvin Miller saved baseball. If it hadn’t been for him the reserve clause might still be in place today, and it would be far less competitive and nowhere near as popular. And some of you hate him because he made the players rich, which a lot of you clearly feel they don’t deserve. And it’s because it’s so easy to turn us against each other that the “owners”, in baseball and elsewhere, can get away with what they get away with.

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 7:46 PM

        Hostess and American Airlines come right off the top of my list. Bankrupt. Thousands out of jobs. You crazy mindless socialist liberal unionist leaders only want to fill your pockets. Twice as bad as politicians. Even Obama’s aides know your kind for what you are:
        President Obama’s former economic advisor, Larry Summers, wrote:

        Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy.

        Lets hear you tweet hail to the treat. You union assh*les are shills for not working and lining your pockets. Worse than welfare cheats. Dig your hole a little deeper and crawl back in it. I”ll throw in a bone every month or so.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 7:49 PM

        You’re crabby when you’re hungry. Have a snickers.

  7. tanzkommandant - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:27 AM

    What unfair labour practises are workers being protected against in today’s day & age through the usage of unions? If someone attempted implementing intentionally dangerous working conditions or unsavory practices, people would denounce this, work elsewhere & the business would either cease the policy or cease to exist. Of enough people were ok with working under those conditions, then they should have the right to choose to do so. The market sorts itself out.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:34 AM

      “The market sorts itself out”

      If that was the case there never would have been sweatshops with 12 year-old kids in them, coal mines in which thousands died from explosions or silicosis or the entirety of the U.S. tort law system which was largely built on the back of cases involving industrial and railroad accidents as we moved from an agrarian economy in the mid-19th century on.

      “The market” allowed and even encouraged all of that. The market’s excesses in this regard were reigned in by regulation and unionization. You may argue that the balance has been tipped too far away from the market by now (I disagree, but that’s another conversation) but don’t even pretend that the market is some benevolent self-regulating thing. History overwhelmingly proves otherwise.

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

        KING KACA how much are you being paid for this sh*t? I knew that there was something off with you when I first read one of your columns. It wasn’t baseball you were writing it was socialism and protecting the druggies. At least now we know the sh*t you are pushing and can discount everything you write. The other real baseball writers are writing about what we want to know baseball. You are nothing but a shill for the labor unions.
        You are in favor of all these monopolistic practices of unions:
        Big Labor’s Top Ten Special Privileges
        Privilege #1: Exemption from prosecution for union violence.
        Privilege #2: Exemption from anti-monopoly laws.
        Privilege #3: Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.
        Privilege #4: Power to collect forced union dues.
        Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering.
        Privilege #6: Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations.
        Privilege #7: Right to trespass on an employer’s private property.
        Privilege #8: Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work.
        Privilege #9: Union-only cartels on construction projects.
        Privilege #10:Government funding of forced unionism.

        KING KACA what do you have to say to the New York Times article that the cost of the building that is replacing the 9/11 towers costs 10% more due to union corruption of the building trades?
        KING KACA you must be in favor of the open vote law

        And you ask why unions are in decline and why manufacturing jobs are going overseas and why the rust bucket states are rusty. What manufacturer wants a few union bigshots to come in and do all this to their company?
        Would YOU set up a business where complete strangers could put a stranglehold on your operation anytime they wanted and extort any amount of money or work conditions out of you? Stall your assembly line any time they choose and be above the law and drive you out of business?
        Let’s have the truth KING SOCIALIST KACA how much are you paid for your bulls*it. Like all the union stooges, after you get yours, f**k the rest!

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:43 PM

        KING SOCIALISTIC KACA Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? You and Sharpton get together every week to sing the praises of how much anarchy you can stir up?
        I enjoy calling you a stupid loser, mentally, morally and ethically.
        Can’t wait for NBC to do a house clearing and get rid of sh*t like you. The market forces you so abhor, are going to force nbc to get back into the market middle to reclaim readership and increase ratings. You can go out and get a job on some liberal rag or join some tree hugger company protecting all those burned trees out west! Just have to repeat what a sh*t you are.

    • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM

      Oh, yes, no one works at Wal Mart anymore despite the fact that they have paid female workers less than men and promoted them less often, violated break and overtime laws, and spend more on their anti-union campaign than on a host of employee programs. Why do you think Wal Mart resists the union so much? Because then employees would have recourse to an actual grievance process and could negotiate better benefits. If you live in a small town where it’s the biggest employer, you don’t get much choice.

      Also, it’s naive of you to think no businesses (or others) game the system and break the rules to get advantages — so the market doesn’t function as theory says it should.

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM

        historiophiliac You have never been to college studied economics or did anything to understand market forces. Why didn’t you complain when Obama went and signed new free trade agreements reducing tariffs to southeast Asian companies. That only cost the U.S. a couple of hundred thousand jobs. Isn’t he your pride and glory? The leader of the labor movement and socialistic prize you wanted all your life?
        You raise the cost of labor and you raise the cost of the merchandise. You do understand that? You raise the cost of the merchandise, the purchasing power of the American citizens declines. You follow that? The purchasing power decreases, then the number of jobs to make, ship, sell and buy more items declines. You follow? So you want the employees to make more, so the stores sell less, the factories make less, the factory employees get laid off, the stores buy less and go out of business as there are fewer customers. BRILLIANT IDEA! Whatever you do not think of new ways to create more business, lower health costs, reduce costs or increase productivity. We certainly don’t want to strain the few brain cells remaining in that globe that is sitting on your shoulders.

    • clemente2 - Sep 3, 2013 at 2:43 PM

      tanz–please read up on the Progressive Era and why it happened before you say such uninformed junk. As Craig notes above, the market does an absolutely shitty job of protecting health and safety. It does an awesome job of displacing inefficiencies. It does an OK job of permitting innovation, when monolopies/anti-trust behavior/underhanded dealings are regulated. The current accumulation of both wealth and income into fewer and fewer hands is nonsustainable, and it is the lack of government intervention rather than its presence permitting that to occur.

      • louhudson23 - Sep 3, 2013 at 3:36 PM

        look at the brain on Roberto…very nicely put…

  8. ningenito78 - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:49 AM

    He’s talking about the market NOW. In other words, labor unions are obsolete and the labor laws, which of course the unions are primarily responsible for, take care of working conditions. Do you people really need facts laid out on a baseball website to understand how unions have evolved into useless, cost inflating organizations? How about entire industries that got shipped overseas because of the prohibitive costs the unions force on them? Sure back in the industrial age the unions were needed to help shape the workforce environment. However they are no longer needed to maintain it.

    • nbjays - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM

      So you’re saying that if the unions all disappeared tomorrow, that businesses wouldn’t do whatever they wanted to improve their bottom line at the expense of the workers? One could argue that the polar opposite of the unions has been the almighty shareholders, and that they are responsible for much that is wrong in today’s business atmosphere.

      And don’t dismiss the notion of sweatshops as being strictly an industrial revolution thing. They still exist, only now they have been “offshored” to Third World countries by companies looking to save money.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM

        So, we need to unionize those countries too — then they can’t get around it by offshoring anymore.

  9. Bob - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:51 AM

    Stop it. MLB ownership hated Marvin Miller. Do you think they would actually give him credit by doing this? That would be like honoring Donald Fehr. The MLB office would control that designation of a moment of silence, and that office is run by a commissioner who is a former owner who was around at the height of Marvin Miller’s time in office.

    Did Miller do a lot of good for the game? Of course. But I’m sure most owners are arrogant enough to think that their business acumen is the reason the game’s profits are through the roof, not because of some player union head.

  10. mongo2011 - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    While I am not specifically anti-union, here is exactly what Marvin Miller did for baseball. 30 years ago a family with a reasonable income could go to a baseball game and root for their hometown team. Today, there is the Yankees, and 29 major league farm teams supporting the Yankees. The Yankees (having the benefit of living in a city awash with money) can afford to pay their players much more then the other teams so they become the best team money can buy year after year.
    I laugh whenever I hear someone talking about “small market” teams. The Minnesota Twins play in a stadium that seats 39,504 and the population of Minneapolis and St. Paul is some 668,000 not counting surround areas. That means for any given day only 6% of the total population of the area needs to show up to fill the stadium. The problem is that the average income of the area is such that the Twins can’t compete financially with the Yankees. The same is true for nearly every other major league team. So for those of us who do NOT live in New York City, we get the pleasure of rooting for the players who simply weren’t talented enough to end up with the Yankees.
    THAT’S Marvin Millers legacy!

    • misterj167 - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:43 AM

      As if the Yankees didn’t dominate baseball before free agency.

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:02 PM

        historiophiliac that last statement made you appear so much stupider than I thought you were.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Sep 3, 2013 at 11:46 AM

      You obviously didn’t watch the video. In the years leading up to Miller taking over the union teams quadrupled ticket prices. There was no union forcing that then and the union is not forcing that now.

      Player salaries follow revenues, not the other way around. Teams charge what they can because they can and do get away with it. Not to cover player salaries.

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM

        More bullsh*T from KING SOCIALIST KACA. Nothing was mentioned about comparing ticket prices. KING SOCIALIST KACA can’t listen to his own bullsh*T Olberman, who gets $2,000,000 a year for his socialistic crap compared ticket prices to player salaries and got that wrong too. He was reading from a monitor while flipping pages to make it appear he was using information from documents. Jesus what crap Olberman and KING KACA are trying to force down our throats. After Olberman and KING KACA get theirs, and kiss the baseball asses to keep on getting their payoffs, they have to lie. The truth would get them both fired. Show me one owner who relies on income from a baseball team to have food to eat. Show me team by team how much an owner earns relative to his income from other sources. Olberman and KING CACA can’t or won’t. This two mental socialist dropouts, I guarantee you run to the bank every week to cash their checks. They have to be the union anti business mouthpieces or bye-bye jobs. It takes brains, money, education, intelligence and the ability to risk to run a business. Few people have that combination. Certainly not Olberman, he has difficulty turning a few pieces of paper. KING KACA is so busy back peddling on his goofy writings he doesn’t know how to lie out of which side of his ex-lawyer mouth.

    • Kevin S. - Sep 3, 2013 at 12:21 PM

      I’m not sure it’s possible to count all the wrong in that post. Econ 101 – revenues drive salaries, not the other way around. Prices are so high because people are willing pay those prices. The union’s involvement was to make sure the players got a cut of those rapidly expanding revenues. As for market imbalance and other teams serving as the Yankees’ farm system, the way the current revenue sharing system, at the very basic level, involves the Yankees and other high revenue teams paying a share of their incomes to lower revenue teams. The way revenue sharing used to work was the other seven teams in the AL sold their best players to the Yankees so they could remain solvent. I’d respond to the rest of your gibberish, but my eyes are starting to bleed. I’m sure someone else will explain to you how much of an idiot you actually are.

  11. bigyankeemike - Sep 3, 2013 at 12:02 PM

    40 comments made…and not one mention that, until his last dying breath, Marvin Miller was opposed to ANY form of drug testing.

    That alone is reason enough for me to be unconcerned with how Marvin Miller is honored.

  12. kitnamania13 - Sep 3, 2013 at 1:28 PM

    Miller didn’t do anything for labor. He worked for the players and only for the players. People need to stop comparing Major League Baseball players to teachers, factory workers, and service workers. Part of the reason organized labor gets such a bad reputation is because of professional athletes and the crooks who pretend to fight for then while really just padding their own bank accounts.

    • IdahoMariner - Sep 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM

      huh. i could swear that i read a letter from michael weiner to the head of the atlanta symphony orchestra union, expressing the mlbpa’s support of their efforts tomai tain a living wage. just last year. on this site.
      the mlbpa and the nfl players’ union also vocally opposed last year the opposing the anti-worker legislation being pushed in michigan.
      so, no, i don’t think you can say they only care about players. these are pro-worker people, standing up for the simple principle that one person with no money or power isn’t going to be able to convince or persuade or make “the market” to adjust and treat her or him fairly – but if a bunch of people get together, the “market” finally starts to pay attention. if there are abuses, it might be because there are abuses in every human endeavor, on both sides. the trick is to fight against the abuses, not against the underlying principle that people should be allowed to at least bargain for a living wage, or a share of the profits they produce.

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM

        Atlanta symphony base pay is almost $74,000 a year. The Symphony is $20,000,000 in debt because of the UNION! If you are going to write something get it right! Add onto the $74,000 base average pay, health care, food, traveling expenses, hotels, etc and by George we are looking at $100,000 a year base pay!
        Gee Rodriguez only gets $40,000 a swing! Two swings and he gets more than a violin player at the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. WOW! Imagine for two swings of the bat Rodriguez can buy 5 Atlanta Symphony Orchestra CD’s.
        KING CACA must be out there demanding that the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra inflate the CD prices so they can lose more money!

    • IdahoMariner - Sep 3, 2013 at 2:59 PM

      huh. i could swear that i read a letter from michael weiner to the head of the atlanta symphony orchestra union, expressing the mlbpa’s support of their efforts to maintain a living wage. just last year. on this site.
      the mlbpa and the nfl players’ union also vocally opposed last year the anti-worker legislation being pushed in michigan.
      so, no, i don’t think you can say they only care about players. these are pro-worker people, standing up for the simple principle that one person with no money or power isn’t going to be able to convince or persuade or make “the market” to adjust and treat her or him fairly – but if a bunch of people get together, the “market” finally starts to pay attention. if there are abuses, it might be because there are abuses in every human endeavor, on both sides. the trick is to fight against the abuses, not against the underlying principle that people should be allowed to at least bargain for a living wage, or a share of the profits they produce.

  13. ningenito78 - Sep 3, 2013 at 2:26 PM

    Anybody that thinks labor unions are still necessary and all that is good with the American work force should move to New Jersey. They had the biggest hand in running the state into unbelievable debt and soaring taxes. Corruption in government? Absolutely. But guess who were the ones making sure all those corrupt a–holes got voted into office.

    • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 3:05 PM

      Anybody who thinks that right-to-work or anti-unionism is good for the economy or American workforce should move to Oklahoma. The State does not have unbelievable debt but the roads are crap, education sucks, and there’s no quality of life. The State also wastes a lot of money on hiring and training due to employee turnover — also, it gives away lots of tax breaks to corporations, because the good old boy system gets politicians elected. Wages are incredibly low, obesity rates are high and there’s lots of uninsured workers. We have corruption in government too. But, seriously, come live here.

  14. pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:14 PM

    historiophiliac of course unionize and sink lower into the slime pit. Hundreds of union officials are now on trial, or awaiting trial. Union officials believe the pension plans and dues are their cookie jars and they have the right to raid the cookie jar any time they please. The list is long and there are union officials awaiting trial, sentencing or on trial in every state in the nation. The worker is the best person to use and spend his/her money, not a corrupt union official who doesn’t give a damn about the worker.
    U.S. government studies have demonstrated many times that after five years a unionized worker and a nonunionized worker’s take home pay is the same. The extra union take makes the business less competitive and places too many restrictions on it. You want a better job and make more money, go back to school, take night classes, learn to dress and present yourself. I could never get enough decent salesmen.

    • historiophiliac - Sep 3, 2013 at 9:42 PM

      I mean this in the nicest possible way: go fuck yourself.

      • pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:08 PM

        historiophiliac It’s nice to know I hit home. A long time ago a teacher told me that when a person insults you or uses profanity, the reason is that the person is stupid and doesn’t have the intelligence to adequately reply. You just made her point. But then you already screwed yourself with your stupid statements and lack of mental ability to make a cogent argument for the ideals you were presenting.
        When are you going to meet with KING KACA and OLBERMAN to plan your next comment strategy meeting?

  15. pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:32 PM

    historiophiliac As you don’t have the capacity to read, absorb, assimilate and understand the printed word, I will explain the immediate cause of the Hostess bankruptcy. All the unions but the bakers union agreed to the new contract, about 95%. The bakers union refused even after the president of the Teamsters asked them to approve the deal. So Hostess went bankrupt.
    Had all parties agreed and then sad at the table and went over the accounting books and agreed to binding arbitration to cut future costs all the Hostess employees would now have paychecks. FYI the Teamsters wanted Twinkies and other hostess products be delivered in separate trucks to the same stores. Hostess ridiculously gave in to those demands, doubling freight costs. It goes on and on. So there you have the long and short of it. Refusal of one small union to accept a temporary pay cut and Hostess giving in to absurd union demands. For more details google “Hostess Bankruptcy”. Somehow I doubt that you will do that.

  16. pjmarn6 - Sep 3, 2013 at 10:33 PM

    sad=sat

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Does anyone want to win the NL wild card?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Cuddyer (2881)
  2. R. Castillo (2645)
  3. J. Werth (2233)
  4. A. Garcia (2230)
  5. A. McCutchen (2146)
  1. C. Gonzalez (2102)
  2. K. Bryant (2089)
  3. W. Myers (2086)
  4. M. Fiers (2043)
  5. Y. Molina (1998)