Union’s Clock Is Ticking

The Major League Baseball Players Assn. Friday moved closer to shutting down the sport for the ninth time in 30 years, setting an Aug. 30 strike deadline that disappointed management and further strained a process stalled on the core issue of a payroll tax.

The union’s executive board voted to approve the walkout date with the sides entrenched at opposite extremes on the salary-restraint tool management deems essential to establish competitive balance, trying to spur completion of a new collective bargaining agreement before the regular season ends.

Negotiations hit a wall Wednesday because the union considered management’s counterproposal to its payroll tax offer unacceptable, resulting in the strike date that could wipe out the World Series for the second time in nine years and affect the 2003 season. The 1994 strike lasted 232 days.

Owners have said they would not initiate a work stoppage this season, vowing not to lock out players through the World Series, but they could unilaterally implement new work rules after the postseason is completed. The union, fearful of being locked out as NBA players were after the 1998 season, played its main bargaining chip.

“Obviously, we want to do the right thing for the game, for the fans, it’s just sometimes you have to make decisions,” said Shawn Green, one of 10 Dodgers who attended the meeting at the union’s Manhattan offices before a game against the New York Mets at Shea Stadium.

“When you’re backed into a corner, you have to make the right decisions. No one wants a strike. If it happens, it happens. It’s not something we’re looking forward to.”

Players weighed the Sept. 11 issue in setting a date, saying they are sensitive to the role baseball played in helping the United States heal after the terrorist attacks. However, their bargaining concerns superseded that matter.

“As baseball players, we don’t control what goes on,” Met first baseman Mo Vaughn said. “We couldn’t control what happened on Sept. 11 last year, and we couldn’t control that our deal is up this year.”

Although management and players continued to express hope of reaching a deal that would avert another work stoppage, they acknowledged the payroll tax issue has been a formidable hurdle. The sides plan to resume negotiations today and still have two weeks to resolve their major differences, but now they’re working against a clock.

“The players wouldn’t have made this decision lightly,” union head Don Fehr said on a conference call. “It comes after a lot of thought, a lot of bargaining and weighing of the issues.

“We are simply not in a situation in which we can go into an off-season without an agreement. We need a contract before the year is out, and we think this is the best way to do that.”

Owners disagreed. They wanted the union to give negotiators a few more days, hoping it would again postpone setting a date after taking no action during an executive board meeting Monday in Chicago.

“They apparently felt that the addition of a strike date would create more pressure,” said Rob Manfred, baseball’s lead labor lawyer. “In all honesty, I don’t think we feel a lot different today than we felt yesterday.

“We would like to get an agreement. We feel it’s important to get an agreement as quickly as possible.”

As late as Tuesday, Manfred believed an agreement could be reached “in the next several days,” characterizing the process optimistically. But the mood changed Wednesday when management presented its latest tax proposal, sources said.

Under the union offer, the minimum payroll subject to being taxed would be $130 million in 2003, $140 million in 2004 and $150 million in 2005, at which point the tax would end. The tax would be assessed at a rate of 15% for clubs above the threshold once, 25% twice and 30% three times.

Based on projections, the New York Yankees are the only team that would be affected by the tax next season. That’s unacceptable to owners, insisting that the next agreement includes a viable mechanism to slow escalating player salaries.

Moreover, only seven of 30 teams exceeded $140 million total revenue in 2001, meaning it’s doubtful many clubs would ever be subjected to a payroll tax of $140 million or more.

“That’s inconsistent with all the things that we’re trying to accomplish,” baseball President Bob DuPuy said, “which is a compression of the ratio from top to bottom.”

Under the owners’ proposal, a team would be taxed at 37.5% the first time it exceeded the threshold, 42.5% the second time, 47.5% the third time and 50% the fourth time. The previous labor contract called for a 35% tax in 1997 and 1998, and a 34% tax in 1999, levied on the portions of payrolls above the midpoint of the fifth-highest payroll and sixth-highest payroll. Teams paid $12.1 million in 1997, $6.6 million in 1998 and $12 million in 1999, a total of $30.6 million.

Management adopted the union tax-rate formula, but increased the threshold only $4 million--to $102 million--from its starting figure. The minimal movement was greeted with anger from the union.

“We were extraordinarily disappointed with the proposals they made,” Fehr said. “The proposal was of a kind that, not only could we not accept, but the owners’ negotiators knew from the beginning that our reaction would be one of deep disappointment.”

Owners similarly expressed frustration about the union stance.

“I don’t know why Don reacted the way he did,” Manfred said. “Quite frankly, we thought we made a proposal that would continue the process. Did we think that they were going to jump up and down and say, ‘Let me sign here?’ Maybe not. But we thought it would continue the process.

“We made the last proposal with respect to the luxury tax. Not only did we make the last proposal, we then met with them after that and expressed our desire to compromise and move the process forward. What they told us is they have nothing more to say on the topic. Those are the facts.”

The union views a payroll tax-revenue sharing combination as a salary cap by another name.

“Without a doubt, it’s come down to a luxury tax,” Met pitcher Al Leiter said. “Is it used to create competitive balance, or to be disguised as a salary cap?

“A cap is not what we’re looking for. We think there’s a number in the threshold that can be worked with.”

Management believes players are misinformed.

“It is important for people to understand that just because someone, player or otherwise, runs around and says this amounts to a salary cap, that doesn’t make it true,” Manfred said. “You need to look at the facts ... and the things that we’re seeking in this agreement are not revolutionary.”

The union views payroll tax as a component of revenue sharing, another means of transferring money from high-revenue to low-revenue clubs, maintaining they work in conjunction only to redistribute revenue. The union is prepared to make further concessions in revenue sharing, but not unless owners abandon their proposal for a payroll tax that would affect many teams.

“You’re talking about taking very substantial sums of money away from a number of clubs, and transferring those to other clubs,” Fehr said. “There’s no doubt that revenue sharing is a considerable drag on players’ salaries.

“We have moved very substantially in their direction on revenue sharing, but their proposal, at this point, still retains a luxury tax. The luxury tax is troublesome on its own. When it’s added on top of the substantial revenue sharing, it becomes [more] difficult to deal with.”

Owners and players are committed to sticking with their tax views, casting a shadow over the rest of the season and further alienating fans as the fight continues.

“I can understand the fans’ point of view, and I know both sides will be calling each other out, and can understand their frustrations,” said Paul Lo Duca, the Dodger player representative. “We just want something in the middle.”

*

Times staff writer Mike DiGiovanna contributed to this report.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

*--* Work Stoppages 1972 STRIKE April 1-12; Games lost: 86 * Key move: Owners agreed to binding salary arbitration * Lasting effect: Union boss Marvin Miller became the most powerful man in baseball and his players were never again afraid to strike 1973 LOCKOUT Feb. 8-25; Games lost: 0, camps opened late; season started on time * Key move: Owners increased minimum salary from $13,500 to $15,000 * Lasting effect: Three years of peace, but the free-agency issue was looming 1976 LOCKOUT March 1-17; Games lost: 0 * Key move: A federal judge ruled that pitchers Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally were free agents and able to negotiate with any team * Lasting effect: A four-year deal was brokered and the issue of controlling salaries was on the way to becoming a major concern for owners 1980 STRIKE April 1-8; Games lost: 0, final eight days of spring training lost, but season started on time * Key move: A four-year deal was made but with a clause allowing free agency to be revisited in 1981 * Lasting effect: An incomplete agreement opened the door for another stoppage 1981 STRIKE June 1-July 31; Games lost: 712, resulting in a split-season format * Key move: The owners, hoping to curtail free agency, asked that draft picks be used as compensation to a team losing a player * Lasting effect: Draft picks did nothing to curtail free agency and the ineffectiveness of Bowie Kuhn caused the commissioner’s office to lose its grip on power it has never regained 1985 STRIKE Aug. 6-7; Games lost: 0 * Key move: New commissioner Peter Ueberroth negotiated a compromise changing arbitration eligibility from two to three years, but kept free agency for players with six years of service * Lasting effect: Arbitration and free-agency standards were established that continue to this day 1990 LOCKOUT Feb. 15-March 18; Games lost: 0 * Key move: After losing the collusion case in 1988, the owners have little legal credibility or leverage, so a five-year “status quo” agreement is hashed out * Lasting effect: The salary cap issue was raised and rejected. Fay Vincent was sacked and the owners install one of their own, Bud Selig 1994-95 STRIKE Aug. 12-March 31; Games lost: 938 * Key move: The owners planned to let their current agreement expire and then force a salary cap on the players. The union struck rather than accept unilateral changes. The courts ordered the players back to work under the terms of the expired agreement. A new agreement was signed on March 14, 1997, and the term luxury tax became a part of baseball * Lasting effect: For the first time since 1904 there was no World Series. Salaries have remained unchecked and the gap between baseball’s “haves” and “have-nots” has widened Hartford Courant

*--*

*

Still Showing Up

A look at Friday’s attendance figures and comparing them to season averages:

*--*

RK TEAM GMS AVG ATT FRI. ATT 2 at Seattle (NY Yankees) 63 43,831 46,033 7 at NY Mets (Dodgers) 60 36,736 35,089 9 at Chicago Cubs (Arizona) 59 35,219 39,188 10 at Baltimore (Detroit) 53 34,698 36,086 11 at Atlanta (Colorado) 62 33,523 30,504 15 at Texas (Toronto) 60 30,732 31,194 17 at Angels (Cleveland) 62 26,877 41,356 19 at Oakland (Chicago WS) 63 24,728 22,622 20 at Cincinnati (Houston) 60 23,500 22,691 21 at Pittsburgh (Milwaukee) 61 23,409 35,343 22 at Minnesota (Boston) 63 23,022 35,824 24 at Philadelphia (St. Louis) 61 20,807 31,117 28 at Tampa Bay (Kansas City) 62 13,401 10,311 29 at Montreal (San Diego) 60 10,185 7,564 30 at Florida (San Francisco) 62 10,049 14,724

*--*