Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NBA lockout question

  1. #1
    bleed Blue & Gold PacersPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,245

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default NBA lockout question

    if players are under contract and the lockout does occur in the NBA, do they still get paid regardless?

    im wondering since the pacers have 40 million in expiring salary maybe its best to leave the roster as is, let the contracts expire and if there is a lockout than the pacers avoid having to pay any additional salary. seems like a good position to be in if a lockout does occur.

    anyone know how that works for nba players under contract next season, are they paid regardless if a lockout does occur?

  2. #2
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: NBA lockout question

    No. The players do not get paid.

  3. #3
    bleed Blue & Gold PacersPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,245

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NBA lockout question

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No. The players do not get paid.
    thanks for the clarification. i was thinking this might be some of the reason for lack of player movement on the pacers behalf.

  4. #4
    Release Psycho T pwee31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,171

    Default Re: NBA lockout question

    I think it's why paid more now, when perhaps you can get the same player for less later.

    Ha I'm sure players would be just fine with a lockout if they're still getting paid!

    That's a benefit of a lockout, is that no one is really making money, aside from big time players w/ endorsements and stuff

  5. #5
    Get well PG! DGPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Whiteland, IN
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,055

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NBA lockout question

    It's like any union where if the workers go on strike then the company doesn't pay. Where I work at now we are trying to work on an agreement between the company and our union, but right now it's looking like a strike's coming.

    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin


  6. #6
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pacer Purgatory Praying for Paul
    Posts
    3,585
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NBA lockout question

    They may not get paid IN FULL from whatever their existing contracts are, but I suspect that both sides will expect that a portion (another negotiation point between the sides which is likely to be utilized just before they reach agreement) of whatever contracts are in force during the lockout will be paid retroactively on some kind of prorated basis.

  7. #7

    Default Re: NBA lockout question

    Quote Originally Posted by Brad8888 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They may not get paid IN FULL from whatever their existing contracts are, but I suspect that both sides will expect that a portion (another negotiation point between the sides which is likely to be utilized just before they reach agreement) of whatever contracts are in force during the lockout will be paid retroactively on some kind of prorated basis.

    A paid work stoppage, from an unsettled new contract, by ownership isn't going to happen. It takes any future advantage of a lockout from ownership. Other than the big stars, most players live from paycheck to paycheck which is a positive for ownership in a lockout. The longer the lockout the more pressure on the union from their members to settle. They have bills that need paid same as everyone else, and creditors who want to be paid. I just don't see giving back to the players salary that will have to come directly out of ownerships pocket, b/c they rec'd no revenue from games played. I'm sure the players union would love this to happen, but that's not a feasible option from ownership. I can't ever remember a strike/lockout in any business where the union members got part of their salary back during the period of non-work.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Justin Tyme For This Useful Post:


  9. #8
    How are you here? Kegboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northside Bias
    Posts
    12,968

    Default Re: NBA lockout question

    Considering the owners want massive cuts of existing contracts across the board, a la the salary rollback the NHL did, I don't see the players getting any money for time off.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  10. #9
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pacer Purgatory Praying for Paul
    Posts
    3,585
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NBA lockout question

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A paid work stoppage, from an unsettled new contract, by ownership isn't going to happen. It takes any future advantage of a lockout from ownership. Other than the big stars, most players live from paycheck to paycheck which is a positive for ownership in a lockout. The longer the lockout the more pressure on the union from their members to settle. They have bills that need paid same as everyone else, and creditors who want to be paid. I just don't see giving back to the players salary that will have to come directly out of ownerships pocket, b/c they rec'd no revenue from games played. I'm sure the players union would love this to happen, but that's not a feasible option from ownership. I can't ever remember a strike/lockout in any business where the union members got part of their salary back during the period of non-work.
    I stand corrected.

    Here is an article regarding this issue from the last lockout

    http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sp...nal/index.html


    FindLaw Sports Law Resources


    You Make the Call... is a publication of the National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School.

    Spring 1999
    Volume 1, Issue 4
    National Basketball Association Arbitration
    Major League Basebal Umpires Arbitration
    Oakland Raiders v. National Football League
    Davis v. Baylor University
    & Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Schools Athletic Association



    In The Matter of National Basketball Players Association on Behalf of Various Players and National Basketball Association on Behalf of All Its Teams, OPINION & AWARD (October 19, 1998).

    NATIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION GRIEVANCE DENIED, PLAYER'S DO NOT NEED TO BE PAID DURING A LAWFUL LOCKOUT.

    On October 19, 1998, Grievance Arbitrator John D. Feerick declared that the National Basketball Association (NBA) is not obligated to make salary payments during a lawful lockout.

    On June 30, 1998, the NBA terminated its Collective Bargaining Agreement with the National Basketballs Players Association (NBPA). On July 1, 1998, the NBA began a lockout during which it refused to pay players any salaries that would become due for the 1998-99 basketball season. In anticipation of this action, on June 30, 1998, the NBPA filed a grievance claiming that the NBA breached the contracts of more than 200 players whose contracts were fully guaranteed for the 1998-99 season.

    The NBPA sought to commence an arbitration with the NBA to resolve the status of whether players with guaranteed contracts should be paid during a lockout. However, the NBA would not consent to the use of an arbitrator. The NBA contended that since the Collective Bargaining Agreement had been terminated the dispute was not arbitrable. Further, the NBA argued that even if it was arbitrable, Feerick did not have jurisdiction over the matter because he was only authorized to serve for the duration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

    On August 4, 1998, Feerick rendered a decision stating that he had jurisdiction and that the dispute was arbitrable. Feerick's decision was based on the fact that the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Uniform Player Contract expressed that any dispute should be resolved by a Grievance Arbitrator. In addition, the NBPA grievance was filed prior to the termination of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was during Feerick's term as Grievance Arbitrator.

    Next, Feerick addressed the issue of whether the players were entitled to be paid during the lockout. In coming to a resolution, Feerick took into consideration the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement, individual player contracts, bargaining history, past practice, and principles and policies of federal labor law.

    Under federal labor law, unions and employers may utilize certain economic weapons to support their bargaining positions. The right to lockout employees, along with the right to strike, is well established and firmly grounded in federal substantive labor law. Case law reveals that during a lawful lockout employers can withhold the wages or salaries of employees. As with many economic self-help rights, a lockout may be waived by agreement of the parties. However, the NBPA did not satisfy the clear and unmistakable waiver standard established by the National Labor Relations Board with respect to limitations on economic self-help. As a result, in interpreting the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Feerick concluded that the NBA did not waive its right to an effective lockout.

    Feerick then found that the Uniform Player Contracts were controlled by, dependent upon, and closely intertwined with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement clearly states that the Uniform Player Contracts shall be governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Feerick also stated that the Collective Bargaining Agreement superseded the Player Contract. Therefore, after the Collective Bargaining Agreement was terminated the salary provisions of the Uniform Player Contracts are no longer in effect.

    During the course of the collective bargaining history, there have been threats of strikes and lockouts, with an actual lockout occurring in 1995. Throughout the bargaining history, the NBPA has never claimed that players have a right to be paid during the lockout. If the NBPA believed that the NBA had a right to withhold salary payments during the lockout in 1995, any intent to change that practice should have been included in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.

    Therefore, since Feerick was the designated Grievance Arbitrator outlined within the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Uniform Player Contracts, he had jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the NBA and the NBPA. In the end, upon consideration of the law, the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, and the testimony of both parties, Feerick concluded that the salary provisions of the player contracts were not effective during a lawful lockout following the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement.

    WEBFIND at http://www.adr.org/opinion.html

Similar Threads

  1. Another question to Brunner on Artest possibly coming back.
    By Will Galen in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-22-2005, 07:03 PM
  2. A stupid question...
    By flying dutchman in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-01-2005, 04:25 PM
  3. Game Management Kudos... And A Question
    By Bball in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-14-2004, 08:58 AM
  4. Monday morning question...
    By Peck in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-16-2004, 04:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •