Frank McCourt speaks out on union grievance
The players' union filed a grievance yesterday in response to McCourt's announcement earlier this month about the ``Ramirez provision'' in which every player the Dodgers sign from here on out will be asked to fill in an amount of that player's choosing to be donated to the Dodgers Dream Foundation. This is Frank's response to that grievance, which was emailed out a few minutes ago:
"I have not seen the grievance, but I find it odd that in these challenging times, that we encounter a complaint against the idea of players giving back to the communities that support them.
"We believe there are qualities that represent the Dodger Way. The player's contributions to the team, appreciation of the fans, and impact on such a supportive community all combine to help our organization live up to our core values. We seek players who embrace these values.
"The Ramirez Provision is a blank line to be filled in with whatever number a player chooses."
You tell em, Frank.
On a side note Tony, I was wondering if you felt the Dodgers not pursuing Gobble from KC is a sign they are starting to trust the front runners in the race for the backup lefty specialist?
While I appreciate the McCourts' good intentions in the name of charity, I think a forced donation in exchange for employment is wrong. Sure, you want good human beings on your team, but the main focus must be on who will help you best on the field.
So I guess that it's OK for me to put a big fat ZERO on that line when I sign my next Dodger contract... HEHEHEHEHE
Arte Moreno does it better. He doesn't force the players to give, but he matches all of their donations, so the players don't feel forced and they also feel like the owners is in it with them and that their contributuin really matters.
I think McCourt will wind up changing this little policy of his.
"While I appreciate the McCourts' good intentions in the name of charity, I think a forced donation in exchange for employment is wrong."
It's not forced. It's a provision in which the player is completely within his rights to donate exactly zero of his earnings. This is just the Players Union wanting something to do that doesn't have to do with steroids. I get it Manfred, Spring Training is boring for all of us, but do you really need to attack charities to keep you busy?
"While I appreciate the McCourts' good intentions in the name of charity, I think a forced donation in exchange for employment is wrong."
It's not forced. It's a provision in which the player is completely within his rights to donate exactly zero of his earnings. This is just the Players Union wanting something to do that doesn't have to do with steroids. I get it Manfred, Spring Training is boring for all of us, but do you really need to attack charities to keep you busy?
With all that is going on with the economy, the player's union is worried about this? Well then. Just wait and see what happens in the next couple of years and then let's see who's really being charitible. These guys are going to wind up without work if teams can't afford to pay them. It's already happening and it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah, but GScott, how many players are going to donate "exactly zero" if it could be a deal breaker?
That a player is free to write a big fat zero on the line would appear to be an assumption at odds with the plain meaning of Mr. McCourt's statement.
I totally agree that McCourt's position is a joke. As the saying goes, "All the world loves a cheerful giver." Not one mandated, coerced or other wise forced to make a donation.
Would McCourt and other owners abide with the same request made by the United Way or the American Cancer Society.
The whole thing is sounding like the whole "pay to play" thing that went on in Chicago politics...and do we really need that stuff in baseball?
People seem to be missing the rather obvious fact that a player can simply write in 0 or a small, trivial amount if they choose to. The power is still in their hands to give as much, or as little as they want.