The United League announced that strike-breakers would not be welcome as players when the league started. [Would this have been legal if the United League didn inherit MLBs antitrust exemption?
There have been a few players who have threatened strike-breakers. This would be illegal, and would be an unfair labor practice if it were endorsed by the union. However, with or without explicit threats, it is likely that union members will not be friendly with strike-breakers. When the umpires last went on strike, the replacements who stayed in the league were ostracized by the union umpires. Union umpires would not speak to them or back them up on the field. [Is this still the case now?] There have been some comments in the press about replacements being shunned in the clubhouse. Although this seemed to be wearing off, the Dodger team refused to allow replacement player Mike Busch to sit on the bench during games in late August. Only one of the replacement players who was eligible for a share of postseason money in 1995 was voted a share by his teammates, and he received only a token $250; a similar situation happened in 1996. (One other player was on the roster in 1995 long enough
Related Questions
- The United League announced that strike-breakers would not be welcome as players when the league started. [Would this have been legal if the United League didn inherit MLBs antitrust exemption?
- The United League would sign free agents from the major leagues, and professional players outside MLB. [Does this mean that it would respect MLBs reserve rules?
- How impressed were you with the younger players beating Sheffield United 6-0 in the League Cup?
