The Major League Baseball Players Association, which has been banging the strike drum, increased the beat here Thursday, but only slightly and certainly not to a fever pitch. The association`s executive council–the player representatives and their alternates from 23 of the 26 clubs–met at the O`Hare Hilton and, as anticipated, decided that a strike vote be taken of the union`s 700 members.
Although many of the players in attendance continued to voice defiance against the owners` proposals–”ridiculous” said the Cubs` Keith Moreland
–neither a strike date nor a bargaining deadline was set. Instead, Don Fehr, acting executive director of the Players Association, will meet with the players, team by team, beginning Friday with the Cubs. Friday`s agenda also might include meetings with the Houston Astros, who will be at Wrigley Field, and the Milwaukee Brewers.
Fehr`s journey is expected to take three weeks, until about June 15, and is expected to result in ratification. In the past, the player reps conducted such voting by themselves, without assistance from union headquarters. That Fehr regards it necessary to go on tour indicates, according to one owner,
”the possibility of a weakness or uncertainty of where the membership stands.”
Whatever, Thursday`s meeting lasted 4 1/2 hours and was confined mainly to a review of the labor negotiations that have been in progress since Nov. 14. There was some inconsequential talk about the ”drug program” initiated by Peter Ueberroth, the rookie commissioner. Ueberroth`s request to address the union`s executive council was rejected, but his attendance at future bargaining sessions would be welcome.
”All I can say is that we will bargain with whoever comes to the table,” Fehr said at a crowded press conference. ”Mr. Ueberroth is hired by the owners. They pay his salary. If the owners want him to come in and bargain, we would have no objection.”
Marvin Miller, the union`s former chief who, in a 16-year reign, showered the players with hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits and salary increases and now functions as an advisor, was in attendance. ”Marvin didn`t intend to give a speech,” said Arthur Schack, an attorney for the players.
”But he did talk some. Everyone talked.”
Miller was silent during the press conference, but in corridor interviews insisted, ”We`re getting incredibly unthinking offers from the owners at a point in time when there isn`t much time.”
The players struck for eight days in 1972 and 50 days in 1981. Asked if another walkout was likely, Miller replied: ”Without a crystal ball, I can`t tell.”
Miller emphasized that the owners` latest proposal, if accepted, would result in an approximate 30 percent cut in compensation.
The owners have offered an eight-point ”concept,” which included only one specific money figure: a 50 percent increase in the minimum salary from $40,000 to $60,000, an action designed to pacify the three or four rookies usually carried by each club.
The concept also includes the reduction or elimination of all incentive bonuses; an adjustment in deferred salary compensation; that players eligible for salary arbitration must have three, not two, years of major league experience; an unspecified increase in pension benefits; and that existing contracts can not be renegotiated or extended.
In addition, the owners have requested a salary cap which, in time, would limit each team to a player payroll of approximately $9-10 million. This, according to Fehr, would have a ”devastating impact” in reducing
compensation because 13 of the 26 clubs already have payrolls in excess of $9 million.
”They`re calling it an `Average Payroll Level,` ” said Fehr. ”The result would be an emasculation of the exisiting free agency procedure. It would allow the rich teams to get richer. They would continue making money, but would be paying less and less for player compensation.”
The cap would include a grandfather clause. For example, the New York Yankees and California Angels, both of which had 1984 player payrolls of almost $14 million, would be allowed to remain at that level. However, they would not be permitted to sign any free agents, or trade for a player if the player being acquired is earning more than the departing player.
Fehr also challenged the owners` poverty plea. According to figures provided by Ernst & Whinney, a major accounting firm, the owners last year suffered losses of approximately $40 million, with ”dire economic
consequences” looming ahead.
These figures, according to Fehr, are disputed by Roger Noll of the economics department of Stanford University. Said Fehr: ”After a preliminary review of the financial data supplied by the clubs, Professor Noll has advised us that the club`s forecast is essentially without merit.”
Asked to explain such opposite opinions, Fehr described the owners`
”bottom line” as ”meaningless” because, among other things, it doesn`t reveal tax savings, benefits to connected corporate affiliates and the soaring value of the franchises. ”If a baseball team was a losing proposition, you wouldn`t be able to give it away,” Fehr said. ”But the price of the franchises has been doubling and tripling.”
Fehr conceded that the players spoke of the possibility of boycotting the July 16 All-Star game in Minneapolis and also acknowledged that possible strike dates, from early July through the playoffs and World Series, were discussed. Despite this litany of doom, the players don`t appear ready for a strike. Down the line perhaps, but not now.
