Debate No. 1: Membership for minor League players in MLBPA (vote complete)

[Squirrel]

Debate topic: Minor League players deserve membership in the MLBPA and a seat at the negotiating table.

 

[H2H Debater A]

7 Reasons Why Having MiLB Players Join The MLBPA is a Bad Idea

Having MiLB (minor league baseball) players join the MLBPA (Major League Baseball Players Association) and be included in the MLB (Major League Baseball) CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) would ultimately hurt baseball players rather than help them. It seems like having minor league players join the MLBPA would benefit playing conditions, off field life and compensation for minor leaguers who are currently paid low salaries and struggle to find good housing, but it’s likely to hurt MLB players more than it helps MiLB players.

First off, the MLBPA only has so much leverage in negotiations with MLB owners when it comes to the CBA. The MLBPA spending some of that leverage to help MiLB players means less leverage to help MLB players. This begs the question how much leverage can the MLBPA afford to spend on MiLB players? Probably virtually none without making MLB players angry with their own union as MLB players already feel they’ve been taken advantage of and MLB owners seem much more unified and prepared to dig in on issues.

Second, there’s an even bigger problem with the MLBPA negotiation philosophy. MiLB players outnumber players on the 40-man by about 3:1 so MiLB players would have far more voting rights and far more power than MLB or 40-man roster players. It would create a conflict of interest within the union itself, pitting MiLB players against MLB players, substantially weakening the union’s ability at the negotiating table for any issue.

Third, MiLB players making $10,500-$14,700 a year cannot afford to spend $14,000 a year in MLBPA dues, but MLBPA still needs to provide services to their members. How could MLBPA afford to expand its administrative and other services to the point they could handle a quadrupled union size without collecting a massive influx of union dues? The MLBPA can’t squeeze blood from a turnip, and that means either drastically reducing their services, wiping out the strike fund or a huge increase to union dues for MLB players to cover the MiLB players’ portions. Obviously, that’s a non-starter long term. MLB players are not going to spend their money to cover MiLB players long term. That means the MLBPA is going to be forced to take up negotiations with the owners to drive up MiLB pay several times over so the minor leaguers can afford their share of union dues… and that means a substantial drop in leverage for MLB players at the CBA table. It’s a horrible catch-22 which is bound to set players at each others throats.

Fourth, MiLB players don’t play for MLB owners… I’m not sure if people realize this, but the majority of MiLB teams are not owned by the MLB parent club in any way. It’s just an affiliation agreement where the MiLB club has to pay a fee (there was a leaked and supposedly inexact amount of $20MM for the Saints to become the Twins’ AAA affiliate, for example). MiLB clubs cover organizational and travel expenses right now. The MLB owners may not have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the MiLB teams’ ownership when it comes to expenses covered by MiLB so MiLB players might find the MLBPA’s power is somewhat limited on what they can and cannot get done without MiLB ownership being added to the CBA and MiLB owners want to be a part of a union about as much as they want an IRS audit.

Fifth, assuming MiLB players did become part of the MLBPA and negotiations for improved conditions were underway. The entirety of the cost would have to be footed by the parent clubs since MiLB clubs aren’t part of the CBA. Plus, the front office administration for the MLB club would need to expand enormously to accomplish all the tasks. Soaring college education costs have been tied directly to big staffing increases and administrative costs. MLB teams have already seen similar soaring administrative costs in recent years as analytics departments have grown and expenses in administration have increased by millions of dollars per team as a result. Expanding MLB team administrative costs will reduce leverage for the MLBPA before the negotiation even starts. The expansion of union size will be a net negative in and of itself.

Sixth, consider how MiLB players benefit from the current arrangement. MLB teams compete directly with one another at the very highest levels to sign top talent. Draftees don’t have to take on clubs, they’ve often got a more free-agent-ish environment where multiple teams are calling and talking to them about general signing bonuses or positions, continuing education, etc. Draftee players are not pitted against the billionaire MLB owners directly, but those same 18 year old kids would be put into a situation where they’d be negotiating and communicating about playing conditions and compensation on the direct opposite side of MLB ownership. It’s hard enough for an established MLB player with an agent making millions of dollars to be in that situation, let alone a starry eyed 18 year old newly graduated from high school. It’s scary.

Seventh, consider how baseball itself benefits from the current arrangement. A huge increase in salary, better living and playing conditions for MiLB seems all good for baseball, right? A minor league career often lasts only a couple years. Sometimes a team releases a player, but often it’s a player who decides to retire. Even with a shorter draft, teams are going to be faced with far more players who are making good money playing MiLB. Players will be more comfortable and it will become harder and harder to identify which players are willing to do anything it takes to improve their game. Roster management will become a real nightmare and we may very well see the we’ve lost a Brian Dozier to a roster crunch, guessing guys with more talent should stick around before we lose a Brian Dozier with more drive and ambition who is struggling due to economics.

[H2H Debater B]

Minor League players deserve membership in the MLBPA and a seat at the negotiating table

Hollywood extras. They can actually unionize. That’s right, those people populating streets and grocery stores in favorite shows and films can be unionized. The fodder for horror movies, that don’t make a sound before their gruesome death, union. Yup those guys jogging with Forest Gump across the country, union-eligible. And what is that union? It’s the Screen Actors Guild. Oh, there is the caveat that the extra works for three days on set, and if they had a line, well just one day. Three days. (Source.)

 

So how can minor leaguers be excluded from the MLBPA union, when actors are practically including mannequin in theirs? Indeed, the current scheme that excludes minor league players from the MLBPA Union is akin to a teacher’s union that excludes elementary teachers. Kids never get to high school unless they move up through the primary school ranks.

Major League Baseball Player Association Union. The Union of Supervisors, Mangers, and Highly Compensated. The Millionaires who work for Billionaires Union. Union of Space Hotel Workers (Front of House only). Only one of these is a real thing.

Well it’s just capitalism at work! Let’s dispense with the notion that the current system is a natural order of things. As if market forces are actually at work in minor league baseball’s employment scheme. Drafted players have already put years into crafting their skill for nearly free-of-charge, save a scholarship if they go to college, by the time they are drafted. Drafted. It’s literally conscripting employees, just taking turns with your competitors. I don’t pass moral judgment on this process, but this system is not a bastion of capitalism. The individual players have no say in where they go, beyond negotiating their signing (the only real choice is the team that drafts them or no team at all).

After being drafted, the player does not so much negotiate a contract for payment for time spent playing the game, but rather to sign with the team that drafted them at, near, above, or below the given slot. The signing bonus is paid in consideration/exchange for the player signing with the team. The signing bonus guarantees that you will work for the particular team that drafted you; the signing bonus is not designed to compensate for your future work. (Though your future value to the team is always good leverage for a larger signing bonus).

Well it’s the journey they signed up for, right? I mean how long do teams even have control of minor leaguers? Seven years. SEVEN YEARS. See Major League Rule 3b (and here). So what’s the actual pay for the work they do? In 2016, Congress addressed the situation and made MLB raise there pay from $1,100 to $1,160 per month Saving America’s Pastime Act. Sixty bucks, problem solved. (It should be noted, that just this month, MLB, all on their own (not due to the threat of litigation or unionization), is giving them even more, though details are a bit sketch as of yet.) What’s worse, they only get pay checks for the months they actual play (5), and they work for Spring Training for free. (See here and here.) ESPN claims that adds up to anywhere between $8000 and $14000 over those months, hovering right around the poverty line ($12K). Some woke scientists at MIT think it takes 26K to make basic needs. But they haven’t tried sleeping in a chest of drawers to save costs.

Because minor leaguers cannot bargain on their own behalf, they need outside forces like Congress, or the 9^th circuit ruling, allowing minor leaguers to sue as a class action law suit. What’s the significance of a class action lawsuit? Well, that the harm being caused is not limited to the suing plaintiffs. Put another way, the harm suffered is not anecdotal. or by a few and remote individuals. The 9^th circuit ruled that all players in Arizona, California, and Florida were similarly situated to have suffered the same harm and that any of those players could take part of the suit. What was the underlying claim? Minor thing, like being paid below minimum wage for hours actually worked. This isn’t a living argument; baseball isn’t even meeting the federal minimum wage for its minor league players.

Or perhaps with looming litigation we can depend on the goodwill of Major League Baseball to do right upon the minor leaguers. Look, they just made teams provide housing, too! No need to bargain here. So cancel the chest of drawers, IKEA!

Where there is an actual market for free agent minor leaguers who were not drafted, the Royals scored 6 of the top 50 such free agents, because of the amenities they offered, more than twice any other team. Indeed, teams were inconsistent on what kind of housing and benefits they offered minor leaguers, but because they are conscripted to service, it’s not like the minor leaguers have any meaningful choice outside of retirement or demanding a trade if they don’t like how their owners treat them. (See ESPN). And as far as other benefits, like off-season health insurance, Minor League Baseball doesn’t seem to know, as their FAQ directs you to call some one at their administrative office. (See here). Oh I almost forgot about the $25 whole dollars per diem to fill 3 meals on the road; that’s 8 bucks a meal, that’s like 48 bags of ramen.

9^th circuit may not care to address each anecdotal harm visited upon individual minor leaguers, but those people are real, their times are tough, and their story deserves to be heard and are already being told. These are men who have had to work second jobs (something not afforded to visa holders), sleep in their car, or with numerous roommates, hold off having families, having no means of pursuing any entertainment (what he has netflix accout and an xbox??). Sure if we ran an austerity state, the minor leaguers could probably survive some semblance of a life somewhat better than standing in a breadline, but why is that standard? (We have not begun to discuss the opulence of their bosses, the owners, and their more senior peers, the major leaguers).

Coming full-circle, we hear similar stories about actors early in their career making due with their depravity of pay, yet even the dudes and ladies in the background can be unionized, and get the benefit of that bargaining power. If SAG can include extras, it is long past time to bring minor leaguers to the bargaining table. If you consider yourself a believer in the market at all, the essence of any exchange of goods or services is a fair deal. Given the non-market structure of the initial acquisition of professional baseball players, only a union can assure that minor leaguers get a fair shake.

[H2H Debater A]

You'll get no disagreement from me that MiLB players are not fairly compensated for the work they put in while playing for their parent clubs. Fair compensation isn't the real issue here. The issue is whether or not MiLB players, MLB players, the MLBPA and baseball as a whole would benefit from MiLB players being admitted into the MLBPA and becoming part of the CBA like 40 man roster MLB players.

Unions need to be focused and keep leverage to be effective. Just being part of the union doesn't guarantee any condition, wage or benefits improvements. I've worked for unions where my net pay, after union dues were deducted were lower than minimum wage and benefits unobtainable. By taking on the mammoth task of quadrupling the union membership, the MLBPA would be forced to spend an enormous amount of precious leverage not on the MLB players who've been paying the dues and funding the MLBPA, but on the MiLB players who outnumber MLB players 3 to 1. A sure fire way to create chaos inside the union and fall into a situation where MLB players would likely vote to decertify the MLBPA entirely. Owners would pounce and create an even more lopsided CBA... one without guaranteed contracts, with a hard salary cap by offering MiLB players compensation improvements worth a dime on the dollar for the sacrifices from the MLB player compensation.

There's also a huge risk to the signing bonuses for MiLB players. Owners would see a sudden opportunity to wipe them out or severely cut the signing bonus. After all, the MiLB players in this new hypothetical MLBPA already received their signing bonus. Of course they'd be willing to also sell out the up coming draftees for higher compensation while playing, right? Joining the MLBPA would not only create chaos for the compensation structure of MLB players, but likely result in savage reductions to draftee signing bonuses. There are too many ways for owners to exploit the chaos which would result from incorporation of MiLB players into the MLBPA and it would set the players back for decades.

If MiLB players want to advance their case through unionization, the MLBPA is the wrong avenue to take in the pursuit.

[H2H Debater B]

The premise of my opponent’s post is that this issue should be decided by what’s best for those who already benefit from a leveraged system, a pragmatic consideration no doubt, though I argue part of the systemic problem. The beneficiaries are the owners and those major league players with the highest earning potential. Practically, any admission into the MLPA union, would take a majority vote, or some formal mechanic. I don’t know, exactly. But what such players decide, most of whom do not make top dollar, and not so far from the minor leagues, can be influenced by the court of opinion, the fans.

Quote

Having MiLB (minor league baseball) players join the MLBPA (Major League Baseball Players Association) and be included in the MLB (Major League Baseball) CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) would ultimately hurt baseball players rather than help them. It seems like having minor league players join the MLBPA would benefit playing conditions, off field life and compensation for minor leaguers who are currently paid low salaries and struggle to find good housing, but it’s likely to hurt MLB players more than it helps MiLB players.

Perhaps the minor leaguers would be part of the CBA, perhaps not.  The MLBPA union could simply negotiate a separate contract for the minor leaguers; so as not to compromise their negotiation in the CBA; in fact, that's probably likely.  Though as you suggest below, even still the MLBPA's leverage could conceivably be compromised.

Quote

First off, the MLBPA only has so much leverage in negotiations with MLB owners when it comes to the CBA. The MLBPA spending some of that leverage to help MiLB players means less leverage to help MLB players. This begs the question how much leverage can the MLBPA afford to spend on MiLB players? Probably virtually none without making MLB players angry with their own union as MLB players already feel they’ve been taken advantage of and MLB owners seem much more unified and prepared to dig in on issues.

Leverage is what you make of it. Certainly adding more members, affecting the MiLB ownership's capacity to make dollars, and affecting more regional entertainment options all provide leverage. As I said above, the minor league players do provide leverage with their own ability to strike and cut off the ability to feed the major league team further.

Quote

Second, there’s an even bigger problem with the MLBPA negotiation philosophy. MiLB players outnumber players on the 40-man by about 3:1 so MiLB players would have far more voting rights and far more power than MLB or 40-man roster players. It would create a conflict of interest within the union itself, pitting MiLB players against MLB players, substantially weakening the union’s ability at the negotiating table for any issue.

Points 2 and 3 are related so I address both issues just below.

Quote

Third, MiLB players making $10,500-$14,700 a year cannot afford to spend $14,000 a year in MLBPA dues, but MLBPA still needs to provide services to their members. How could MLBPA afford to expand its administrative and other services to the point they could handle a quadrupled union size without collecting a massive influx of union dues? The MLBPA can’t squeeze blood from a turnip, and that means either drastically reducing their services, wiping out the strike fund or a huge increase to union dues for MLB players to cover the MiLB players’ portions. Obviously, that’s a non-starter long term. MLB players are not going to spend their money to cover MiLB players long term. That means the MLBPA is going to be forced to take up negotiations with the owners to drive up MiLB pay several times over so the minor leaguers can afford their share of union dues… and that means a substantial drop in leverage for MLB players at the CBA table. It’s a horrible catch-22 which is bound to set players at each others throats.

Not all minor league players need to join in order for the union to represent their interests. The dues could be renegotiated at a different rates for minor leaguers, perhaps in exchange for a lesser share/vote (majors=full share; minors at A ball 1/8th a share). There are bold solutions, but we must be willing to venture there. Again, minor league baseball need only be represented by small caucus of minor leaguers who comply with union rules, in order for the union to represent their interest.

Quote

Fourth, MiLB players don’t play for MLB owners… I’m not sure if people realize this, but the majority of MiLB teams are not owned by the MLB parent club in any way. It’s just an affiliation agreement where the MiLB club has to pay a fee (there was a leaked and supposedly inexact amount of $20MM for the Saints to become the Twins’ AAA affiliate, for example). MiLB clubs cover organizational and travel expenses right now. The MLB owners may not have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the MiLB teams’ ownership when it comes to expenses covered by MiLB so MiLB players might find the MLBPA’s power is somewhat limited on what they can and cannot get done without MiLB ownership being added to the CBA and MiLB owners want to be a part of a union about as much as they want an IRS audit.

I’m pretty sure MLB pays the salary, but minor league owners own the “team,” the uniforms, logo, location, coaching staff, etc. But the players I believe to do actually work for their parent club. It’d be interesting to see a paystub. According to https://www.advocatesforminorleaguers.com/ : MLB pays the salary: “MLB and its teams decide the minimum amount to pay the players, and the paycheck then comes from the MLB team — not the Minor League team.

Quote

Fifth, assuming MiLB players did become part of the MLBPA and negotiations for improved conditions were underway. The entirety of the cost would have to be footed by the parent clubs since MiLB clubs aren’t part of the CBA. Plus, the front office administration for the MLB club would need to expand enormously to accomplish all the tasks. Soaring college education costs have been tied directly to big staffing increases and administrative costs. MLB teams have already seen similar soaring administrative costs in recent years as analytics departments have grown and expenses in administration have increased by millions of dollars per team as a result. Expanding MLB team administrative costs will reduce leverage for the MLBPA before the negotiation even starts. The expansion of union size will be a net negative in and of itself.

I think the argument here is that players work for MiLB clubs; I don’t think they do. But MiLB owners do benefit from minor leaguers. To the extent MiLB clubs have been unjustly enriched, MLB will certainly will negotiate or sue for such.

Quote

Sixth, consider how MiLB players benefit from the current arrangement. MLB teams compete directly with one another at the very highest levels to sign top talent. Draftees don’t have to take on clubs, they’ve often got a more free-agent-ish environment where multiple teams are calling and talking to them about general signing bonuses or positions, continuing education, etc. Draftee players are not pitted against the billionaire MLB owners directly, but those same 18 year old kids would be put into a situation where they’d be negotiating and communicating about playing conditions and compensation on the direct opposite side of MLB ownership. It’s hard enough for an established MLB player with an agent making millions of dollars to be in that situation, let alone a starry eyed 18 year old newly graduated from high school. It’s scary.

I just disagree. I think drafted players are under a severe negotiation disadvantage. The only leverage drafted players really have is to not play for an entire year, and that’s an incredible risk to take on, even for the most talented. The overriding problem is that the minor leaguers will not reach a “free-gent-ish” environment for up to seven years. Seven years is an incredibly long time for someone to wait to negotiate a new contract, especially for someone living in near poverty condition.

Quote

Seventh, consider how baseball itself benefits from the current arrangement. A huge increase in salary, better living and playing conditions for MiLB seems all good for baseball, right? A minor league career often lasts only a couple years. Sometimes a team releases a player, but often it’s a player who decides to retire. Even with a shorter draft, teams are going to be faced with far more players who are making good money playing MiLB. Players will be more comfortable and it will become harder and harder to identify which players are willing to do anything it takes to improve their game. Roster management will become a real nightmare and we may very well see the we’ve lost a Brian Dozier to a roster crunch, guessing guys with more talent should stick around before we lose a Brian Dozier with more drive and ambition who is struggling due to economics.

Well, what do you mean by “baseball”? Again, I think you mean the owners and some elite players. Baseball to me is just more expansive than that, it’s the broadcast crew, the grounds keepers, the vendors, the coaches, the mlb players, the fans, the sports writers, and yeah the minor leagues, because we see and root for those players too. And, the idea that there’s not enough money to pay minor league players more is just baloney. Maybe the minor league needs to contract, and it already has, and if that’s what needs to happen so that those who are enlisted to play can actually have a living wage. So be it. I think baseball will benefit by giving a quality of life for those who play at all levels.

And Brian Dozier isn’t worth condemning the whole minor league to serfdom, as good as the hair was.

[H2H Debater A]

MLB teams do pay all of MiLB player wages. The MiLB player rights are owned by MLB and their salaries are paid by MLB. The MiLB team still covers travel expenses, like the per diem, travel costs like hotels and the MiLB team provides supplies like bats and uniforms. Things like the tight meal per diem and other travel conditions have been hotly debated in recent years, but MLB clubs aren’t currently responsible for that cost and MiLB teams are not part of the CBA leading to these types of headache issues from an administrative point of view.

My opponent appears unaware that some MiLB players are already full fledged MLBPA members. All 40 man roster players are eligible to be part of the MLBPA and are represented in the CBA. The only players who are ineligible for MLBPA membership would be any “replacement” players who are permanently banned. Each team has about 150 MiLB players on their collective US rosters. About 15 of those MiLB players are already members of the MLBPA, affording them additional benefits and a minimum salary of $41k. That minimum salary is still insufficient to cover typical living expenses once the $14k in MLBPA union dues are deducted. It’s worth noting the MLBPA has scarcely supported those 15 or so players who were members but not playing in the big show showing how the union works and probably should work. Leverage is at its strongest when there is a unified front and MiLB members either had no significant voice inside the union despite being full fledged members or they didn’t care what was going on with the other MiLB players. Baseball players are human and they’re going to look out for themselves first.

Adding 135 additional MiLB players to MLBPA eligibility would almost certainly result the scenario I talked about. An increase in MiLB salary of $6MM per team, minimum to bring the total salary for MiLB to $60k, less the $14k in MLBPA dues for a wage which would allow players to make ends meet. That $6MM per team is a major expense for what amounts to non-roster administrative costs and that will absolutely be a major leverage issue. Right now, the only reason the MLBPA is functional is because MLB players have a strong majority of roughly 26 to 14 so their interests are represented almost exclusively. 40 man roster players probably go along with this because they, too, expect to be playing at the MLB level in the immediate future. My opponent proposes stripping the voting rights away from the MiLB players in on the 40 man so that more MiLB players with no voting rights could be added to the MLBPA with no or heavily reduced union dues as a concession to prevent the MiLB players from overwhelming their MLB counterparts in voting power. The idea is the MLB level members would cater to non-paying union members in MiLB out of the goodness of their hearts even though they’ve never done this before despite decades of opportunity. What advantage is afforded to MiLB players who aren’t actually represented by their very own union? That further exacerbates a potentially huge issue. MLBPA membership is not compulsory. MiLB players would have little reason to join the MLBPA if they weren’t represented. This creates tension and fosters an atmosphere of mistrust and fragmentation. There is also the possibility the MLBPA could collect union dues from some MiLB players who choose not to join the union as state laws allow this in roughly half the nation as it would still be critical to expand the administrative power of the union to handle the influx of members, even if it wasn’t a high percentage who joined and even if the CBAs never focused on MiLB players. MiLB players who choose to not join the union would be more likely to ignore the MLBPA when they get to the big show. Those players would benefit from the CBA, but still be allowed to cross picket lines in the event of a strike or potentially benefit from favoritism shown by owners who would love to fragment the players’ power.

Aside from the hypothetical expansion of the MLBPA, MLB has recently made significant steps up in compensation and living conditions for MiLB players in the real world. Was that accomplished through the MLBPA negotiating for them? No. It was due to public humiliation from baseball fans everywhere demanding MLB owners take action and treat their employees better. Not only is the public sentiment and media vocally and strongly in the favor of MiLB players, MLB owners are begrudgingly making improvements already. Joining the MLBPA would grant MiLB players a perceived powerful representative and negotiating strength which would then place the MLBPA in the crosshairs rather than the owners themselves. MiLB players are likely going to get every bit as much from the public outcry and likely allies at the federal government level in support of the powerless young kids playing in the minors today as those players would get from lip service in a union who cannot afford to lose leverage fighting MiLB player issues, and those gains would come absolutely free from wasted leverage in CBA negotiations. The MLBPA would be putting themselves between a rock and a hard place by taking in MiLB players.

[H2H Debater B]

On 11/8/2021 at 6:40 PM, H2H Debater A said:

You'll get no disagreement from me that MiLB players are not fairly compensated for the work they put in while playing for their parent clubs. Fair compensation isn't the real issue here. The issue is whether or not MiLB players, MLB players, the MLBPA and baseball as a whole would benefit from MiLB players being admitted into the MLBPA and becoming part of the CBA like 40 man roster MLB players.

I think the issue is that minor league players aren’t being fairly compensated. There already exists a union in baseball to barter for such, why not negotiate to expand the ranks? Surely, there’s some accommodation that the parties could reach?

On 11/8/2021 at 6:40 PM, H2H Debater A said:

Unions need to be focused and keep leverage to be effective. Just being part of the union doesn't guarantee any condition, wage or benefits improvements. I've worked for unions where my net pay, after union dues were deducted were lower than minimum wage and benefits unobtainable. By taking on the mammoth task of quadrupling the union membership, the MLBPA would be forced to spend an enormous amount of precious leverage not on the MLB players who've been paying the dues and funding the MLBPA, but on the MiLB players who outnumber MLB players 3 to 1. A sure fire way to create chaos inside the union and fall into a situation where MLB players would likely vote to decertify the MLBPA entirely. Owners would pounce and create an even more lopsided CBA... one without guaranteed contracts, with a hard salary cap by offering MiLB players compensation improvements worth a dime on the dollar for the sacrifices from the MLB player compensation.

As I’ve suggested, minor leaguers need not have full voting shares/membership. The union implosion you predict, suddenly followed by a non-guaranteed contracts, doesn’t seem realistic to me.

On 11/8/2021 at 6:40 PM, H2H Debater A said:

There's also a huge risk to the signing bonuses for MiLB players. Owners would see a sudden opportunity to wipe them out or severely cut the signing bonus. After all, the MiLB players in this new hypothetical MLBPA already received their signing bonus. Of course they'd be willing to also sell out the up coming draftees for higher compensation while playing, right? Joining the MLBPA would not only create chaos for the compensation structure of MLB players, but likely result in savage reductions to draftee signing bonuses. There are too many ways for owners to exploit the chaos which would result from incorporation of MiLB players into the MLBPA and it would set the players back for decades.

The signing bonuses wouldn’t come into play at all. Those are negotiated before the players sign, as such the players at that point wouldn’t be part of any union. Again, signing bonuses are consideration for signing the contract, not for future work.

(Respond to Debater A's most recent post will be in the closing.)

[H2H Debater A]

The MLBPA, MiLB players and MLB players would all be harmed by the absorption of the 3,600 additional minor leaguers into the MLBPA.

While the MLBPA is not a for-profit business, they do need to cover their expenses. Making membership available to minor leaguers would cause administrative service costs to skyrocket and those costs absolutely must be paid by somebody if full rights are to be extended to the new members. MiLB player salaries are basically the same as the union dues themselves. Either the MLBPA would be forced to increase MiLB salaries approximately 400% (more than $180MM per year from MLB owners), or the MLBPA must make MLB players pay for the MiLB players. Either way, the existing MLB players who are members of the MLBPA, the ones who keep the lights on and have paid millions of dollars for representation stand to lose. Pay for the MiLB players out of their own MLB player pockets and lose leverage in the union to the MiLB players who far outnumber MLB players or lose leverage at the table with owners. Pick your poison for MLB players in this scenario.

My opponent believes the solution to the scenario above is to offset costs by treating MiLB players as second-class members,  stripping them of voting rights, excluding them from the CBA and offering them reduced services. The MLBPA could certainly do that and retain their leverage for the MLB players, but why would a MiLB player join a union who offers them only lip service? The MiLB players know joining the union will annoy the very same owners who pay the MiLB player’s wages and choose who is promoted. The struggle is real. Consider MLB players (and MiLB players on the 40 man rosters) have had the leverage needed to negotiate and improve MiLB conditions for decades and have never really made a significant effort. It is not reasonable to conclude they’d suddenly change their stance and act selfless at this point with the harm recent lopsided CBA’s have caused MLB players who are now out for every dime they can get for themselves to try and balance the equation. A pseudo-membership in name only would hardly make sense to the MiLB players themselves. “Why don’t I get a vote and what would the voting members stand to gain by fighting for me? If I’m not part of the CBA, who is going to protect me from owner retaliation? The union wasn’t even able to protect MLB superstars from service time manipulation!” The MiLB players would be absolutely right, too. Then there’s the public shredding the MLBPA would be in for as it abandons its responsibility to work for 75% of its most vulnerable and financially helpless young members. Both the MiLB players and MLBPA would be harmed in this scenario, maybe even the MLB players themselves as collateral damage in the media war.

When you sum it all up, there are no options which are viable for the MLBPA to take in MiLB players and add them to the CBA at this point, and that is the exact subject of this debate. This debate is not about other unlimited and off topic hypothetical options. My opponent says the MLBPA already exists so it’s best to expand the scope, right? In this case, that’s like saying you have a Honda Civic with a tow hitch rated for a bicycle rack you own so you might as well try to pull that house boat with the same Honda Civic because the tow hitch exists. The two aren’t compatible and if you try it, the results could be a tow directly to the Civic's new forever home, the junkyard. If it’s adding MiLB players to the MLBPA or not, the better option is to watch how the changes MLB has already committed to work out, allow public opinion and outrage to compel additional improvements from MLB owners and perhaps use a small portion of leverage to aid MiLB players without having them join the union. If the changes requested by the MLBPA do not represent a significant increase in costs, it won’t cost significant and precious leverage at the negotiating table with owners and everybody wins. The MiLB players may not get everything they should, but there will be a small walk forward of further improvements, the CBA can be more balanced for MLB players, the MLBPA can regain its position of respect and owners can use the publicity.

[H2H Debater B]

The overriding consideration is how can we best compensate minor league players fairly.   There is already a vehicle with which this can be done, the MLBPA union.  What they would lose in leverage, they would gain in membership.  To offset both cost and influence of minor leaguers, the union could adopt lesser shares for minor leaguers (...A ball 1/8th share/vote/dues; AA 1/4th; AAA; 1/8th).  Those already on the 40 man may as well be considered major league players; with a new scheme that invites minor league players, that of course, would change.

We cannot ignore the below minor wage conditions MiLB players live within; something must be done, and will be done.  If MLBPA does not adopt the minor league players into their own union; those players will unionize on their own, adverse to the MLBPA. Control of the entire feeder leagues to the MLB is serious, if unrealized leverage.  The MLBPA should get creative and seek to negotiate some settlement that brings the minor league players in.  Otherwise, the MLBPA will have two fronts with which to battle. 

[Squirrel]

The debate is concluded. Please read and submit your vote. The thread is now open to public comments.

I want to thank both participants for being the guinea pigs in our new site feature ... they did a tremendous job! Please give both a virtual round of applause! ???

Look for new debates to start soon ... "Mauer vs Puckett: Who was better?" and "Strong lineup vs strong rotation: Which is more important?".

If you want to be a debate participant or have topics to suggest, please PM @Otto von Ballpark or @Squirrel.

[glunn]

I think that both debaters did an excellent job.  I am not voting on a winner, because in my mind this was a tie.

[Otto von Ballpark]

13 minutes ago, glunn said:

I think that both debaters did an excellent job.  I am not voting on a winner, because in my mind this was a tie.

I've added that as an option to the poll now.

[h2oface]

38 minutes ago, glunn said:

I think that both debaters did an excellent job.  I am not voting on a winner, because in my mind this was a tie.

No future as a judge........  

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 11/6/2021 at 11:18 PM, H2H Debater A said:

First off, the MLBPA only has so much leverage in negotiations with MLB owners when it comes to the CBA. The MLBPA spending some of that leverage to help MiLB players means less leverage to help MLB players. This begs the question how much leverage can the MLBPA afford to spend on MiLB players? Probably virtually none without making MLB players angry with their own union as MLB players already feel they’ve been taken advantage of and MLB owners seem much more unified and prepared to dig in on issues.

See, and this is where I believe the issue has gone awry. Why are we so eager to sacrifice the pay rate of MiLB players, which in the aggregate add up to a few million dollars, over the single paycheck of a middling free agent?

And that's why minor leaguers should have a seat at the negotiating table.

[mikelink45]

Nice job.  The union can configure voting to make sure that it is not overwhelmed by minor leaguers, but I think the lack of reasonable compensation also includes the lack of retirement/pension benefits.   Guys making $10 - $30 million a year don't need the pension, but players struggling for 7 years in the minors do.  Nice debate.

[Brock Beauchamp]

29 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

Nice job.  The union can configure voting to make sure that it is not overwhelmed by minor leaguers, but I think the lack of reasonable compensation also includes the lack of retirement/pension benefits.   Guys making $10 - $30 million a year don't need the pension, but players struggling for 7 years in the minors do.  Nice debate.

Good point. It's like the NFL when they covered players from 1993 forward. It was such a **** move on their part, negotiated and accepted by the player's union. As a result, we have (or had, unfortunately) a slew of NFL players from the 60s-80s with massive CTE and health-related issues that were left completely unprotected by the NFL and its player's union. Many of those players literally died in poverty from health issues caused by playing football as young men.

We need to demand better from our sporting leagues and their unions.

[TheLeviathan]

Our Debate A person did their best with a difficult topic, but at the end of the day their argument was predicated on two hurdles I don't think are all that hurdle-y:

Adding them would inflate the union too much and what to do about their dues.  

There are solutions to these problems that don't have to be catastrophic for the union.  For example, maybe each minor league team has one representative and as a team they split the union dues.  You're adding roughly 150 representatives then, enough to be significant but not detrimental.  Or maybe you send two voters.  Whatever helps keep the balance from going too far one direction.  

They need to be fairly represented, especially since the league's ability to act like a monopoly and control career paths is protected by Congress.  Right now they aren't and the only path forward is through some new formation of the union.

[Brandon]

Does this mean we are guaranteed minor league ball next season should the union not agree to a new plan with the owners of MLB? As a fan I prefer no union at all.

I do think the minor leaguers should be paid at least minimum wage.  I am ok with taking into consideration signing bonuses.  

don't forget the union doesn't always represent the player (the individual either) unions represent what is voted to be the best for the collective.  I know I don't go to work for the betterment of you.  I may work twice as hard as you.  

 

[tony&rodney]

Excellent debate and good comments as well. 

[Craig Arko]

What I'd be curious to know is whether voters were actually influenced by the debate or if the votes would have been the same anyway.

I did not vote, although I do have a sentiment about it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

49 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

What I'd be curious to know is whether voters were actually influenced by the debate or if the votes would have been the same anyway.

That's a good idea!

We've just posted a pre-debate poll for our second debate topic ("Who was the better player: Kirby Puckett or Joe Mauer?) -- please vote in that if you haven't already, then start following the debate itself and vote in the post-debate poll when it is complete.

[Otto von Ballpark]

And once again, a very special thanks to our first debate participants, who both agreed to be unmasked now.

Debater A (leave minor leaguers out of MLBPA): @bean5302

Debater B (include minor leaguers in MLBPA): @PseudoSABR

We literally couldn't have done this without them!

[DocBauer]

Just wanted to say that I think both sides debated well, fairly, and intelligently. I agreed with various arguements from both sides and nearly voted neutral.

Ultimately, I did choose to vote to include milb in the union. Having representation, a presence/vote but not a full share, won me over as a workable option. I guess I feel the players are still a part of the ML player structure and it's where the current players all came from originally. 

[bean5302]

I refrained from voting either way. I ultimately think baseball would be best served by incorporating the MiLB players into the MLBPA, but I was willing to play devil's advocate here. 

There are some major issues with putting MiLB players into the union, but I think it's best for players to front-load this arrangement and for the MLBPA to trade off some leverage for their current MLB players to get the entire player base under the umbrella so the owners can't leverage MiLB players against MLB players in the future. With MLB already owning a special monopoly exemption, a strong union is just about the only thing which can really force owners to treat players fairly.

Since we haven't heard anything about the MLBPA planning to do this, the MLBPA could use that to their advantage. Push MLB owners to the brink in the new CBA and then organizing non-40 man MiLB players into the MLBPA afterwards for a second bite at the apple.