Comments on: These guys need a union… WHY?

by: Jack

Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:25:03 +0000

A union’s goal is more for fair compensation and work environment, not really a particular wage range. The higher your pay goes, the more likely you are getting a fair wage. But in the case of professional sports, there is a monopoly market on the jobs, so if you don’t play in the NBA/NFL/MLB, what equivalent do you go find a job in? As far as the union taking up a ball issue, that goes more along the lines of the union workers having enough money to demand the union do whatever they need.

by: Polimom

Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:23:34 +0000

Hunh. You’re likely right, Ashley. But when I think labor movement and bargaining units, it’s not for these kinds of occupations that pay this kind of money, regardless of how long the players do it.

Obviously, that’s one of the reasons professional athletics should be underpinned by an education.

by: Ed T.

Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:28:45 +0000

…who have destroyed their bodies and minds for their sport.

If that is truly the case, they don’t need a union: they need a shrink!

~EdT.

by: ashley Morris

Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:25:48 +0000

I’ve always heard that it’s for the non-stars. The guys making the league minimum; the guys who have a career expectancy of 3 years. The guys like Mike Webster, who have destroyed their bodies and minds for their sport.

by: Ed T.

Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:42:59 +0000

Because otherwise they might have to work for a living?

I’ve always wondered the same thing about movie actors, who can make per picture what these guys make in a year… And, in addition, they (both groups) need to have agents, too…

~EdT.