Management and labor are quiet on the eve of the expiration of football`s collective bargaining agreement. That doesn`t mean there won`t be a strike.
It might be a quiet strike. It might be a short strike. It might be a stupid, pointless strike. But don`t count out a strike. For a while, it appeared management negotiator Jack Donlan and union director Gene Upshaw were such good friends that everything would work out. But you have to recall a quote by Upshaw some two months ago:
”Every time we`ve ever met at the crossroads, management has always tested us and always forced some type of work stoppage. I don`t see this round being different.”
If management doesn`t believe the players are serious about their demands, management doesn`t concede anything. The only way players can convince management they are serious is to strike.
In 1982, players struck for 57 days. They wound up settling for approximately the same thing management offered before the strike. But at least they got management`s attention.
This year, management looks at the average player salary of $205,000, compares it to 1982`s average of $90,000 and wonders: ”Who wants to strike?” According to the players` union, which is currently making its rounds of each team, the players are solidly in favor of walking out if management continues to stall. The union calls management stupid if it underestimates the resolve of the players.
The collective bargaining agreement expires Monday night, but the players cannot strike until at least Sept. 15 because of a 60-day notice filed July 15. That means the Sept. 14 Bears-Giants Monday night opener appears out of jeopardy. That`s a good idea, considering the Bears-Giants game might be the highlight of the season anyway.
A strike could wipe out the rest of the season and fans could still say:
”Remember that Bears-Giants game back in 1987?”
Management is proposing a standard wage scale for incoming players, something the union wouldn`t mind. How it might work:
Every player entering the league would get the same base salaries of $50,000, $55,000, $60,000 and $70,000, regardless of the round in which he was drafted. The player could sign for two, three or four years.
Signing bonuses would vary according to the draft round.
Incentives for playing time and individual and team accomplishments could be factored into the scale. The point is to save the millions of dollars paid every year to untried rookies while productive veterans watch with envy. Already this year, signing bonuses of close to $30 million have been paid to first-round draftees alone before any of them play a down. History says some of them never will, but they will continue to gain yardage to the bank.
According to union sources, management wants the players to agree in principle to such a wage system before supplying details. This is where it gets sticky.
Veterans wouldn`t mind the idea if they could be guaranteed that the money saved on rookies would go to them. It doesn`t do Mike Singletary or Otis Wilson any good to complain about Brian Bosworth`s contract unless they can cash in on the money a team would save with a wage scale.
So far, management sounds more interested in saving money on rookies than spending it on veterans.
A wage scale has additional possibilities. It would keep large chunks of money out of the hands of agents who prey on rookies. That might enable teams to pay some of their scouts more than a few bucks per diem for meal money on the road.
A scale would discourage Norby Walters and others from signing underclassmen, because even if they didn`t go to class, most underclassmen would realize they don`t need agents to negotiate wage scales.
So if the union agrees to a wage scale, what does management give in return? Free agency? That would do it in a minute. But owners have two words for free agency: no way.
It would seem reasonable that some compromise allowing more freedom for players to switch teams could be linked to a wage scale for incoming players. It also would seem reasonable that it wouldn`t take a strike to reach that compromise.
But the Bosworth contract of $11 million for 10 years throws reason to the wind. Why would veterans want to gamble on a wage scale or free agency when owners are paying out that kind of money? Why bother to strike when all the veteran defensive players have to do is take the Bosworth contract into their next negotiations and all the veteran offensive players have to do is take the Vinny Testaverde contract into theirs?
As sage Lester Hayes of the Los Angeles Raiders remarked, Bosworth`s teammates should be outraged that the Seahawks, owned by the Nordstrom family of Seattle`s leading department store, would pay that kind of money.
”If I was Steve Largent or Kenny Easley, I would stop shopping at Nordstrom`s,” Hayes said. ”I would not shop at Nordstrom`s again in my life. No more Nordstrom`s shopping. That`s null and void.”
Drug testing is another arguing point in bargaining. Management wants random testing. The union fears invasion of privacy and claims that football already has a system allowing random tests ”upon reasonable cause.”
The Los Angeles Rams announced this week that running back Charles White, who had a recurrence of dependency problems he experienced with the Cleveland Browns, will undergo tests every day. If he fails once, he`s gone. He is believed to be the first athlete to undergo daily testing.
