Mediator Puts Baseball Onus on the Owners

Special mediator William J. Usery came down on the side of the striking baseball players Tuesday, urging owners to give up their revised plans to implement the salary cap on Dec. 15 and saying it’s basically up to the owners to create a new relationship based on trust and respect.

“Not only do we need to get a new collective bargaining agreement, we need to get a new relationship,” Usery said after talking to more than 80 players at the union’s executive board meeting in Atlanta.

“We have to get some faith and confidence restored. I mean, more than what the two sides are trying to achieve in bargaining, I’m trying to promote some mutual respect and trust, but it’s not easy. It has to be a lot on the owners’ side, if you know what I mean, but there’s a lot of history and stubbornness involved.”

The general perception has been that the owners believe they have a chance to break the union and have intended to implement the cap from the start of the sporadic negotiations. Bowing to Usery’s pressure, the owners agreed to postpone a Dec. 5 meeting, at which they had intended to implement the cap, until Dec. 15, giving the players a chance to organize a counterproposal to the tax plan submitted by the owners on Nov. 17.

What appears to be the final attempt to reach a negotiated settlement begins Friday or Saturday in Rye Brook, N.Y.

If the owners ultimately implement, the union will seek relief from the National Labor Relations Board, creating a legal quagmire certain to prolong the strike next spring when owners try to open camps with replacement players.

“From my perception, implementation would be very, very unfortunate,” Usery said. “I’ve told the owners and everyone concerned that.

“It’s certainly not in the best interests of collective bargaining, the best interests of my trying to mediate. We were fortunate enough to use all of our influence and stop it the last time, but I don’t know whether we can do it again.”

Although an appointee of President Clinton, Usery lacks binding authority and his view on implementation is likely to be ignored by the owners. Said acting Commissioner Bud Selig, when reached in Milwaukee:

“I agree with Bill that mediation is the only hope for a constructive, long-term settlement, but we’ve got to begin to make some progress. We’ll know more Friday. The players have promised us they’ll come back with a counterproposal. As I’ve said many times, this has to be resolved at the table. Implementation isn’t the answer, but we’re at a point on the calendar when we have to consider alternatives.

“A lot of the clubs were unhappy that I put it off and I doubt they would let me do it again unless the (negotiating) committee tells us they’re making progress and there’s a framework for a settlement. We have explained to Mr. Usery that ours is a seasonal business and we can’t remain in limbo as the result of stalemated negotiations. We have to know what system is in place so clubs can determine rosters.”

Congress might also be ready to rejoin the fray. Two U.S. senators and a senator-elect threatened government intervention if the conflict isn’t solved soon.

“If this dispute is not resolved in a timely manner, we will have no choice but to move forward with the consideration of an appropriate legislative remedy, in addition to reserving our right to address the (sport’s) antitrust exemption--a benefit that was predicated on baseball’s unique standing and the good will and accountability of its stewards,” said a Dec. 2 letter sent to both factions and signed by Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Jon Kyl, (R-Ariz.).

They represent the states where spring training games are played. Arizona also is seeking an expansion team for 1997 or 1998, and baseball officials have said the work stoppage might delay that decision.

On Sept. 29, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill partially stripping baseball of its antitrust exemption, but it was never voted on by the full House or Senate.

Although owners and players are on the same playing field with their “tax” concepts, little has changed since the players went on strike on Aug. 12. They are miles apart. The complex owners’ plan--labeled a cap in disguise by the union--calls for a payroll ceiling and a tax escalating to more than 100%. A plan offered by the players in September did not include a ceiling and called for a 1.6% tax on the 16 clubs with the highest revenues and the 16 with the highest payrolls.

“It should be no surprise that it is our feeling that their proposal is unlikely to form the framework of an agreement,” union leader Donald Fehr said Tuesday after he and his staff had worked with the players on developing a new proposal.

That proposal is almost certain to be short of the owners’ acknowledged quest for a system that will blunt salary growth and provide cost controls.

Said a union attorney, “I expect that we will definitely make a counterproposal, but it is too early to say what it will be. The players discussed various approaches to a framework, different ways to break the destructive (negotiating) cycle of the last 30 years without giving up any of the rights they have won in that time. They don’t want this confrontation to continue but they are resolute about protecting those rights. It remains a very difficult proposition.”

Does it matter what the players propose? Shortstop Jeff Blauser of the Atlanta Braves said he didn’t think so.

“I think (the owners have shown) they have in mind to implement the salary cap no matter what we propose or what influence the mediator exerts,” he said.

Nevertheless, the union appreciated Usery’s support.

Said union counsel Eugene Orza, “My suspicion is that it’s a function of his realization that in this particular dispute--unlike all the others he has been involved in--the employment group intends to implement what in any other industry would be illegal.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.