from Amazon
Friday, March 18, 2011
Competition committees
Why are team or league presidents the final arbiters of what rules are implemented, with respect to the health and safety of players?
Say baseball players and hockey players and basketball players agree that any contact to the head is an automatic ejection, regardless of intent. But the team officials say: “Uh, no. That’s going to cause unintended consequences. Now, go out there and win!” Why does this scenario have to be the one that currently plays out?
In a normal situation, this kind of issue is why you have a union: to protect the employee from high-risk scenarios. And the union is the one that insists on workplace safety, not the owner. (*) The owner would only care if the workplace safety would affect his bottom line.
(*) Well, some owners are compassionate people, so, they would insist on it. I’m not talking about those minorities.
Unfortunately, players care about their bottom line far more than they care about their own health and safety. They could collectively bargain for such measures, having a larger voice on competition committees. But, they don’t. They treat themselves horribly, so, really, why should league presidents care about them more than they care about themselves?
Players see themselves as hired guns, as mercenaries. If they see themselves as otherwise, they should negotiate in that spirit.
So, NHL players: quit complaining about how the league doesn’t have a good disciplinary system. You agreed to it.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date