Rieder, Nicholas J.

English

Marquette University Law School

Marquette Sports Law ReviewVolume 20Issue 1 Fall Article 13Book Review: Getting On Base: Unionism inBaseballNicholas J. RiederFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslawPart of the Entertainment and Sports Law CommonsThis Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, pleasecontact megan.obrien@marquette.edu.Repository CitationNicholas J. Rieder, Book Review: Getting On Base: Unionism in Baseball, 20 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 291 (2009)Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol20/iss1/13BOOK REVIEWGETTING ON BASE: UNIONISM IN BASEBALLDon Wollett[Bloomington, Indiana: iUniverse, 2008]131 pagesISBN: 978-0-595-50412-1An unfettered market, where you get where you can, has takenon a religious aura. Tampering is blasphemous. The absenceof market restrictions is viewed as a badge of freedom. Itseems fanciful to imagine a labor-management partnership inwhich the parties accept reasonably matched standards -'minimum and maximum payrolls - with individual salarynegotiations taking place within those parameters.' 1Most sports fans are well aware of the inherent conflict that exists betweenthe Major League Baseball Players Association (hereinafter "the Union") andteam owners. What they may not be familiar with is that inherent conflict alsoexists between the different classes of players making up the Union, as well asbetween the Union's current and potential members. Professor Don Wollettintroduces his book, Getting on Base, by asking a series of questions examin-ing the role of the Union. By using the collective bargaining agreement topinpoint inadequacies that exist for some players, the book challenges readersto reexamine the legitimacy of actions that have been taken by the Union, anddiscusses potential improvements that could be made in the future. Wollettapplies his years of experience in the field of collective bargaining to critiquehow collective bargaining impacts baseball. He starts by establishing his cre-dentials and then briefly describes some of the memorable moments in the his-tory of the game. Wollett then explains, in relatively easy to understand terms,the definition and benefits of his "true love:" 2 collective bargaining. The booktouches on many different topics and a common theme emerges: Not everybaseball player is being properly represented by the Union.Wollett's first chapter commences by highlighting individuals who have1. DON WOLLETT, GETING ON BASE xx (2008).2. Id. at 17.MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEWhelped make the game of baseball special. His first example points out the fo-resight exhibited by Branch Rickey's signing of Jackie Robinson in 1946, theleague's first African American ballplayer, and how Rickey's actions rein-forced the notion that baseball would be open to everyone who has the talentto play the game. 3 In recent years, players who bring special leadership quali-ties to the ball diamond, in a similar manner to that of Jackie Robinson, aremore likely to have higher compensation early in their careers. 4 MajorLeague Baseball's (MLB) Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allows ar-bitrators to recognize players financially when they bring special leadershipqualities to a team or to those that may appeal on a wide basis to the public. 5For example, Wollett was acting as a representative to Jim Abbot, a playerborn with a genetic defect that stunted the full development of one of hishands. 6 Abbot likely cost himself money by refusing to allow his agents todemonstrate his disability was of a special appeal to the public. 7 Further ex-amples demonstrate that while unsavory behavior may on occasion occur inthe game, it is the special players like Robinson and Abbot that are remem-bered. 8Next, Wollett discusses situations from his life that led him to develop theviews he holds towards baseball, collective bargaining, and unions. Wollettbegins by sharing his memories as a young boy attending a minor league ball-game with his father, and how it was his first step toward falling in love withthe game. 9 He then discusses the almost sixty-year journey through his career,starting with his service in the Navy during World War II, continuing throughhis professorships at numerous law schools, his time at a large New York lawfirm, his memberships in the New York Governor's cabinet, and concludeswith the time he was introduced to Scott Boras, which caused him to focus onbaseball on a professional level.' 0 The common thread in tying together thelong journey of Wollett's legal career has been collective bargaining. 11Wollett found through his years of experience in the field that collectivebargaining cannot work without cooperation. 12 The National Labor Relations3. Id. at 1.4. Id at 6.5. Id.6. Id. at 7.7. Id.8. Id. at 4-5.9. Id. at 10.10. See id. at 11-14.11. Id. at 17.12. Id. at 18.292 [Vol. 20:1UNIONISM IN BASEBALLBoard (NLRB) requires that employees who are part of a union belong to thesame bargaining unit with bargaining unit defined as employees who are partof a similar job grouping and having a common interest. 13 In MLB, the bar-gaining unit is made up of at most 1200 players, with the players dividedamong the 30 MLB teams. 14 Unions have a duty to represent all of its mem-bers equally; however, there is no duty to those who are not current membersof the union. 15Wollett draws attention to the notion that the current Union does not prop-erly represent most baseball players. 16 He points out that it is normal for un-ions to have a degree of control over the supply of labor, but that baseball'sUnion does not do this because they fail to represent minor league players, re-gardless of their skill level, until they reach the major leagues. 17 Wollettpoints out that at least theoretically under the NLRB, the Union should be re-sponsible to every baseball player who has the skills that people will pay towatch play. 18 Also, MLB's Union, like other similarly situated entertainmentunions, is different from the majority of its brethren in that the Union allowsplayers to negotiate salary and benefits on an individual basis between themand the individual employer. 19 This has led to inequalities, which is demon-strated by the fact that while the player's percentage of league revenue tripledbetween 1969 and 1999, a disproportionate amount of that money went to starplayers.20 This has widened the financial gap and increased the conflict of in-terest existing between the MLB's stars and those making the league mini-mum.2 1Using the barometer that already exists between the haves and have-notsin MLB, Wollett attempts to argue why a more expansive Union that coversminor league baseball players would not work. First, he points to the largerdiscrepancy in salary a player in the minors makes compared to those in themajors. 22 Next, he describes another conflict of interest that exists betweencurrent major leaguers and those in the minor league players: Typically, a par-ent organization pays the salaries for both major and minor league players, and13. Id. at 20.14. Id. at21.15. Id.16. Id.17. Id. at 23.18. Id.19. Id at 22.20. Id. at 88-89.21. Id. at 88-89.22. Id. at 24.2009]MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEWby keeping the minor leaguer salaries lower, there is a larger amount of moneyavailable for the major league players. 23 Third, Wollett points out less thanten percent of minor league players who advance to AA ever make it to themajors, and those who do not make it to the big leagues are typically out ofprofessional baseball within two years. 24 This situation creates a large dividebetween the interests of those who make it to the major leagues and those whodo not.25 To overcome these obstacles, Wollett suggests the solution is forminor league players to organize their own distinct union.26This argument is weakened by Wollett's decision to focus the next half ofthe book on the injustices that current major league players face with theCBA 27 before he continues analyzing the issues that could possibly be over-come by minor league players unionizing. Wollett points to the financialhardships felt by minor league players as his main reasons for why they shouldunionize. He recalls the testimony given by Dan Peltier to the United StatesSenate Judiciary Committee, in which Peltier complained about the lack ofpay for minor league players and the odds against most players ever playing inthe big leagues. 28 Further, Wollett discusses how a player, who made $40,000in 1995 (adjusted to $56,649 based on 2009 inflation 29), did not own his ownhome, had little in savings, and had to work in the offseason for added finan-cial support. However, Wollett's argument is not supported because he doesnot demonstrate how those issues should be considered a hardship. For an in-dividual who was still redefining his "craft" and may have not had all the nec-essary skills to reach the highest level of his profession, to many, the correlat-ing compensation would appear to be adequate. Wollett could have made amore convincing argument for minor league ballplayer's need to unionize byfocusing on individuals such as Bobby Lanigan. Lanigan, playing Class Abaseball in 2009 for the Beloit Snappers, earned $1100 a month over the six-month season.30 In order to survive financially he had to share an apartmentwith three other players. 31 Wollett could have also strengthened his argument23. Id.24. Id.25. Id.26. Id.27. See generally id. at 26-70.28. Id. at 73.29. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator,BLS.Gov, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (last visited Nov. 22, 2009). The calculator uses theaverage Consumer Price Index for a given year. Id.30. Bill Glauber, Ball Team Runs the Squeeze Play, MILWAUKEE J. SENTINEL, July 5, 2009,available at http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/49985257.html.31. Id.[Vol. 20:1UNIONISM IN BASEBALLby attempting to explain in more detail the benefits he perceives minor leagueballplayer would accomplish by unionizing, instead of just assuming that un-ionizing would automatically increase minor league players' compensation.Wollett goes on to contradict himself later in the book by discussing howthe creation of a new bargaining unit, including minor league players, could bea good idea. 32 In giving the impression he would support minor league play-ers as part of the bargaining unit, he goes on to provide two reasons why hefeels this inclusion could still not work.33 First, Wollett states the NLRB doesnot like to change who is part of bargaining unit when the current bargainingunit has a long history of working. 34 Then, Wollett again mentions that a con-flict of interest would arise, trumping the community of interest shared by thedifferent players, if the two classes of ball players belonged to the same un-ion. 35One should not be so fast to accept Wollett's assertion that major and mi-nor league players have a different community of interest. In most unions, it iscommon for individuals of different seniority and skill levels to be paid on dif-ferent pay scales. In fact, the differences in wages can be quite significant.One could make the argument that if the Union were to include minor leagueplayers, the difference in salaries could be millions of dollars. This is no dif-ferent than what is currently the norm between major league journeymen andtheir megastar brethren. Also, with a common employer, in this instance thecombined thirty major league teams under the MLB banner, the amount of to-tal available money is not going to change regardless of some or all the playersbeing a part of the Union. In fact, with the increasing signing bonusesawarded to non-Union players, including minor league players in the Unionand limiting bonuses may make more money available to the current bigleaguers.If presented with the offer to include minor league players in to the Union,Wollett makes the argument that the 1200 MLB players currently part of thebargaining unit will say "let the minor league players wait their turn," 36 as hefeels it would be against the current major league players' best interests. Isthat statement true? Wollett, in quoting former minor leaguer Peltier's Senatetestimony, states that only one in every ten players drafted spends at least oneday in the majors, and further, only one in one hundred of those players make32. WOLLETT, supra note 1, at 102-06.33. Id. at 104-05.34. Id.35. Id. at 105.36. Id.2009]MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEWa significant impact in the majors. 37 Would this then not be the same as say-ing that nine out of ten guys who make the major leagues do not have a sig-nificant impact? If this is the case, then where do their best interests lie?Many players have a "split contract," which regulates both their major and mi-nor league salaries depending on if they are in the big leagues or in the mi-nors. 38 One could imagine a situation in which many of these players wouldrealize that it would be in their best interest to guarantee themselves extra fi-nancial security by voting to include themselves as part of the bargaining unitif they were ever sent back down to the minor leagues.Wollett does not shy away from being outspoken with his thoughts when itcomes to individuals he does not feel are representing the best interests of thegame. 39 Wollett describes the Union as a "unionoid, 40 meaning that it islawyers who are in charge and not the players who are being represented.Wollett questions if, in today's game, the Union is putting forth its best effortof creating membership participation. 41 Wollett suggests that he would like tosee more participation by players in the Union and an increase in sharing ofinformation between the Union and its membership. 42 While focusing heavilyon the role of the Union, Wollett's suggestion for improving baseball does notsolely focus on the Union leadership. 43Wollett's suggestions to improve the game include examining manage-ment, 44 the commissioner, 45 the fans, 46 and how to better adapt the game for aglobal scale.47 Wollett believes if members of teams' front offices would do abetter job in evaluating players and coaches, any team can compete even witha limited budget. 48 He also looks to the commissioner's office, where he feelsa stronger presence is necessary. 49 Wollett encourages fans to not be the "si-lent partner 50 and to use their market power if baseball goes in a directionthey do not appreciate. Wollett also writes that as the game progresses, base-37. Id. at 73.38. Id. at 23.39. See id. at 77-78.40. Id. at 77.41. Id. at 79.42. Id. at 78.43. See generally id. at 93-119.44. Id. at 93.45. Id. at 112.46. Id. at 107-12.47. Id. at 120-25.48. Id. at 93.49. Id. at 112.50. Id.[Vol. 20:1UNIONISM IN BASEBALLball's most important goal will likely be to reach out on an internationalscale. 51Overall, Getting on Base is a thought provoking and interesting book.Wollett uses the personal stories accumulated over his lifetime to share awealth of information. His love for baseball and collective bargaining is quiteclear. Wollett uses his observations and examples to discredit the role beingplayed by the Union leadership and points out that there is an inherent unfair-ness that exists in the collective bargaining agreement, for both the journey-man player and the minor leaguer looking to become a major leaguer. As itwas pointed out previously, Wollett's arguments for improving the situationare hurt by the absence of support for his recommended changes, and the lackof a focus when examining certain issues. Despite these flaws, Wollett enticesa person to think about the issues effecting baseball, and helps to guide themin their search for answers.Nicholas J. Rieder51. Id. at 120.2009]

Book Review: Getting On Base: Unionism in Baseball

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&amp;context=sportslaw

Book Review: Getting On Base: Unionism in Baseball

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Marquette University Law School