Unspeakably Asinine: Hall of Fame Denies Marvin Miller Entry, Picks Bowie Kuhn Instead
December 5th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
In an incredible move, the Baseball Hall of Fame has denied entry to 90-year-old Marvin Miller, who built the baseball players' union into one of the most successful unions in all of labor history, while at the same time admitting former Commissioner Bowie Kuhn, a buffoon who did more harm than good. (Miller is pictured above left at a press conference with several players concerning the Messersmith free agency case, and at the above right with Curt Flood concerning Flood's Supreme Court challenge to the reserve clause.)
Today's astronomical baseball salaries have made many forget that for 100 years baseball players were treated terribly. Owners had all of the power in the relationship, in part because of the reserve clause, which mandated that a player could only play for one team unless they traded or released him. With almost no negotiating power, players were vastly underpaid in relation to the value they brought to the industry. Prior to the union era, many retired players lived in poverty or scraped by on menial jobs.
That began to change in 1966 when Marvin Miller, formerly one of the leaders of the Steelworkers' union, became the head of the Major League Baseball Players Association. The union faced a hostile press, hostile, idiotic baseball fans, and some of the wealthiest people in the country, the club owners.
In 1972, the owners tried to roll back the already meager pension the baseball players received, and it led to the first strike in baseball history. The owners sought to provoke the strike in order to break the nascent union, and Miller himself thought there was little the players would be able to do about it, at least in the short term.
The Players' Association--though poorly funded, inexperienced and manned mostly by very young men--stood its ground, forced the owners to back down, and won the strike. Once a small, completely ineffective organization, the union stunned the sports world by racking up win after win, culminating in their victorious 1981 baseball strike to protect their right to free agency.
By contrast, then-baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn did everything he could to resist the union and reforms and to keep the players under the thumb of the owners. Even as a reactionary owners' man, he was in no way worthy of the Hall of Fame, because he was a mediocrity who was largely over his head in the job.
(To be fair, Kuhn does deserve credit on one important issue--he helped get the Hall of Fame to admit Negro League stars as full members of the Hall, even though the black players didn't technically meet the Hall's eligibility standards because they hadn't been allowed to play because of segregation.)
During Miller's era as leader of the Major League Baseball Players' Association (1966-1982), the average players' salary rose from $19,000 to $241,000 a year, and Miller won every strike/labor action during that period, including 1969, 1972, 1981 and others.
To learn more about the recent Hall of Fame vote, see the Sporting News' article Veterans panel omits Miller in Hall picks (12/3/07).
Also, see my blog posts The 'Best Interests of the Child' Standard, Marvin Miller, and the Baseball Players' Union, The Fatherhood Movement & Underdog Social Movements in History (Part II: The Rise of the Players' Union), and Judging the Success of a Movement by How Well Its Beneficiaries Remember It.
"));
19 queries. 0.357 seconds.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:24 am
The first time I disagree with Glenn. For many baseball fans in my hometown, Pittsburgh, the Players Union is only slightly less satanic than Pirates' ownership. Pittsburghers who were alive in the 1960s recall the day when three out of the starting eight position players went on to the Hall of Fame. Since 1993, the year the Pirates gave up Barry Bonds because they could no longer afford him, the Pirates have not had a single winning season, and there is no reason to think that is going to change any time soon. What other organization would allow its franchises to feed off each other in this manner? McDonalds? General Motors? No way. And we can thank the Players Union for eliminating twi-night double-headers that do not involve make-up games, and for insisting on weekday day games on a travel day for visiting teams, which is horrible for working season ticket holders. So, yes, if I were in L.A. or NYC or Philadelphia or Chicago, I'd probably agree with Glenn. From where I sit, no way.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Judge Rufus Peckham wrote “For many baseball fans in my hometown, Pittsburgh, the Players Union is only slightly less satanic than Pirates' ownership…Since 1993, the year the Pirates gave up Barry Bonds because they could no longer afford him, the Pirates have not had a single winning season, and there is no reason to think that is going to change any time soon.”
Judge—I sympathize, but I think it’s misguided to blame the Players’ Union. I think the biggest problem faced by small market teams like the Pirates is baseball’s peculiar system whereby TV revenues aren’t shared. This is the biggest factor behind the income inequalities between teams, thus predicaments like that faced by the Pirates.--GS
December 5th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I also have to disagree with Glenn on this one - while I am no fan of the owners either, I feel that the players union has in large part destroyed the game for all time. While they can claim attendance is at an all time high (and i can't argue) the fact is baseballs popularity is rapidly waning for the younger generations. Ticket prices are through the roof and I can no longer afford to take my family to a major league game. Games start so late i don't even bother watching the playoffs or WS and I was one who used to keep a scorecard for the all-star game as a kid and watched every game I could on TV no matter who was playing.
As a yankees fan prior to the strike of '94 I attended 10-15 games a year ( i live 150 miles away). I have not been back to the stadium since nor will I ever. My kids have all grown up not watching major league baseball for the above reasons. While i don't begrudge the union for trying to help the players - for someone like A-ROD to get 300 million to PLAY A GAME is patent abusurdity. It isn't coming out of the pockets of the owners, it is coming out of my pockets (or would be if I was stupid enough to go to a game)
My belief is that in a couple more generations baseball will be a minor sport much like hockey has become and that is a sad sad thing.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:52 am
DCR wrote "I feel that the players union has in large part destroyed the game for all time. While they can claim attendance is at an all time high (and i can't argue) the fact is baseballs popularity is rapidly waning for the younger generations. Ticket prices are through the roof and I can no longer afford to take my family to a major league game."
I sympathize--I took my family to a Dodger game this season for the first time in many years and was shocked at how much it costs. But the salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices—tickets (like any other product) are priced to bring in the most revenue, regardless of salaries. If the Los Angeles Dodgers or Boston Red Sox can charge high prices for tickets and still get good attendance, they’ll do it, like any other business. A-Rod’s salary is irrelevant.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Glenn, agreed about ticket prices, and about the fact that small markets are mostly hurt by the absence of revenue sharing.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:57 am
...as a fan of small market team known for developing Hall of Fame-caliber players who then leave for the big-$$ franchises, I have a hard time celebrating anything to do with the baseball players union... While baseball is drawing big time $$ these days, I too question its future. Can't tell you how many times I've driven past or visited public parks where the baseball diamonds and outfields were being used to play soccer, not baseball. I believe the only demographic that lists baseball as its top sport is men over age 55...