Article on Donald Fehr

[salsadancer7]

Exactly, Fehr should protect ALL the players in the union, not just the cheaters. We agree!


Sandra

And that is exactly what they did on the LAST CBA. Until the next one comes up, this is a non-issue.

Tell me, don't you think the head of the union has not ALREADY spoken to all the team reps? And don't you think that IF they had totally agreed with with Fehr, they would have not gotten rid of his a$$ if he did not meet HIS demands?

...your post sounds like the head of the union is acting on his own asn the players do not agree with what he/they have said or done....

 

[cosmo_kramer]

And this is not some new phenomena nobody has ever heard of. Every (well, most...perhaps every) union contract has penalty provisions for employees who break company policy or break the law.

I agree, but in every case those penalty provisions were initiated by the company, not the union. The union is never going to suggest penalties of its members and it's ridiculous to suggest that they do. In the MLB case though, they should not have fought them as hard as they did, just from a public relations standpoint....

 

[SandraC]

Tell me, don't you think the head of the union has not ALREADY spoken to all the team reps? And don't you think that IF they had totally agreed with with Fehr, they would have not gotten rid of his a$$ if he did not meet HIS demands?

Who do you think is going to be the first player to disagree with a union?

CBA's over the years have protected the cheaters much more than the collective.


Sandra

 

[salsadancer7]

I agree, but in every case those penalty provisions were initiated by the company, not the union. The union is never going to suggest penalties of its members and it's ridiculous to suggest that they do. In the MLB case though, they should not have fought them as hard as they did, just from a public relations standpoint....

excellent point:up

 

[SandraC]

I agree, but in every case those penalty provisions were initiated by the company, not the union. The union is never going to suggest penalties of its members and it's ridiculous to suggest that they do. In the MLB case though, they should not have fought them as hard as they did, just from a public relations standpoint....

Does your last sentence mean the union shouldn't have fought MLB as much as they did regarding testing, from a public relations standpoint?


Sandra

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Does your last sentence mean the union shouldn't have fought MLB as much as they did regarding testing, from a public relations standpoint?

Yes. Taking that stance gave the impression that were lots of problems in that area as opposed to sending a message that there was just a few bad apples. Unfortunately though, it looks like that first impression was correct....

 

[Paul Wozniak]

Who do you think is going to be the first player to disagree with a union?

CBA's over the years have protected the cheaters much more than the collective.


Sandra

:up:up:up

 

[cosmo_kramer]

CBA's over the years have protected the cheaters much more than the collective.

If you're not doing anything wrong, already have good working conditions and already are very highly paid, what do you have to be protected for??

 

[SandraC]

If you're not doing anything wrong, already have good working conditions and already are very highly paid, what do you have to be protected for??

From your fellow union members who are using illegal drugs to make themselves better ballplayers than you. And they're protected by your own union.


Sandra

 

[salsadancer7]

From your fellow union members who are using illegal drugs to make themselves better ballplayers than you. And they're protected by your own union.


Sandra

This is just like clean cops/dirty cops. They wanna make sure EVERYONE knows they are clean...but refuse to clean it up among themselves because they are afraid of be considered a "rat".

...well, time to "rat" people out if you wanna make sure everyone knows you are not one of "them".

...ESPECIALLY if the clean outnumber the dirty ones.