Skip to main content

Why Should Marvin Miller Be Honored?

The Baseball Hall of Fame voters turned down Marvin Miller today. In the 1970's, Miller took over the baseball players' union and built it into the most powerful union in the world. Because of him, the worst major leaguers are guaranteed salary ranges in the mid-6 figures, and countless mediocre ones have been able to lock teams into multi-million-dollar deals, driving up ticket prices exponentially in the process.

The Hall of Fame is there to remember the best of the best in baseball, whether they are players, managers, umpires, or those who contributed in some other way. The idea that a union leader, especially this one, should be honored is ludicrous.  In the last half-century, labor unions have done more harm than good in our nation, and have been instrumental (along with numerous other contributing factors) in creating an entitlement mindset among most modern U.S. citizens that is truly saddening.

Some won't like the previous paragraph because they are convinced that unions are all about the little guy. I understand that. But even if your local truckers' or electricians' or auto workers' union does focus on improving the status of hard-working people with normal wages, that's still no reason to honor Miller. His union doesn't fit that description at all. The fruit of Miller's work has been an increase in team revenues and player salaries which goes way beyond the normal rate of inflation. Each team has 25 players on the roster who are doing well because of Marvin Miller, but those teams have hundreds of other employees who haven't seen that kind of windfall. How is that helping the little guy? Is the beer guy or the team office receptionist better off today because of Marvin Miller? Do any of the MLBPA members even acknowledge the existence of the folks who work the hardest in each organization, let alone share any of their bounty with them?

Marvin Miller's legacy is about millionaires arguing with billionaires, as well as the occasional strike. Such a legacy is not worthy of being immortalized in the Hall of Fame.

Disclaimer: I let Google put ads on the right. I never know what they are gonna be ahead of time. I'm often as surprised as you are.

Comments

The Oriole Way said…
A basic understanding of market economics reveals that ticket prices are NOT driven by player salaries. Ticket prices are driven by supply and demand for tickets within each local market and the revenue maximization (or fan goodwill considerations) of each team. Player salaries only determine who RECEIVES the ticket revenue, the players or the owners. You're right that the fight is between millionaires and billionaires, but you're also arguing for giving the billionaires more money and keeping the players from becoming millionaires.
James said…
I know, I know. I have taken a few economics courses, and am even certified to teach it at the high school level. I dang near took that one part out of this blog post, because I knew someone would focus on it. My main point stands, though: Miller stood up for millionaires, but at the expense of regular people with regular incomes. He should not be honored for that, and certainly shouldn't be lumped in with real working-class heroes.
Anonymous said…
This is ludicrous. Your 'main point' doesn't stand up to even the most cursory skim of his bio. He took over the union in 1966, not "the 1970s", for one thing, but let's look at this "millionaires" claim you keep trotting out. Wiki? "Miller negotiated MLBPA's first collective bargaining agreement with the team owners in 1968. That agreement increased the minimum salary from $6,000 to $10,000, the first increase in two decades." Presumably your economics courses informed you that $6,000 in 1968 only inflates to a little under $40,000 today.

Players weren't even allowed to play for anyone but the team that drafted them, ever, at whatever rate that team felt like paying. Ever. Doesn't indentured servitude strike you as a slightly un-American way of running an industry?

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the door greeter: The most important contribution of Tim Wright

My sons Jacob and Zachary have baseball cards. Hundreds of them. They like to spend time with them, because the cards feed two of their passions: baseball and numbers. They organize and re-organize the cards. They play fictional baseball games, complete with playoffs, with them. Most important, they show the cards off to their friends. Even adults who come over to the house are likely to be introduced to the baseball cards collection by my sons.
I have a friend named Frank. He's retired, and is an expert woodworker. Visitors to his house will be treated to the tour: he loves to show you the gorgeous cherrywood rocking horse, the grandfather clock, and countless other items he has made out of wood. They're all quite beautiful; very impressive. It's Frank's passion, and he loves to share what he has done with others.


For the last 15 years, I have had a friend named Tim Wright. His title was Pastor of Small Groups and Assimilation. We all know what a small group is, but &…

Them Dents is Valuable

I guess I am spoiled, but for a Pixar film, "Cars 2" falls a little short, if only because the bar has been set insanely high by the quality of recent masterpieces such as "Toy Story 3" and "Up".  Any comparison of "Cars 2" with other recent Pixar output just isn't fair.

Quality aside, "Cars 2" hardly seemed like a sequel. The tone, the look, and the feel are very different from "Cars". Additionally, the plot was hard to follow and a little convoluted.

Despite the flaws, this film had one shining moment; one profound line in a decidedly non-profound movie, and it was delivered by Tow Mater.

Mater, you may recall, is a tow truck who's in dire need of mechanical attention. He has a missing hood, several dents, and rust issues. He's also a lovable doofus, lacking anything that resembles sophistication.

At one point in the movie, British secret agents decide to bring Mater into their plans to catch the bad guys and sa…

Why Bethke Gets it Wrong

If you know any Christians, or are one yourself, you may have seen Jefferson Bethke's 4-minute poem titled "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus".  It's become quite popular in just a few days. Bethke is sincere, passionate, and mostly off-track.  


The bulk of his message is that old standby "It's not about religion, it's about a relationship", which has been around at least since I  came back to the Lord in 1987. It was refreshing and eye-opening at the time, but here we are a quarter-century later, and it's still being said as if it were a brand new concept.And that would be fine if it were in line with Scripture, but in fact, it's in opposition to what God's word says.

I have searched the Bible to see where it says anything negative about Religion, and it isn't in there. It's fairly easy to find a passage where the writer denounces those following a false religion, or not following their religion well. But the concept of …