Simple Solution-Binding Arbitration

[Bruce S]

This what what happens if both sides in a labor duspute know they MUST come to a solution, but can't achieve it.They agree to an arbitrator and agree to abide by the resulting ruling. Both sides go back to work as the arbitrators works through the data.
If all else fails, USSF and players should just agree to arbitration, and get back to work.-Bruce

[petersoccer]

This what what happens if both sides in a labor duspute know they MUST come to a solution, but can't achieve it.They agree to an arbitrator and agree to abide by the resulting ruling. Both sides go back to work as the arbitrators works through the data.
If all else fails, USSF and players should just agree to arbitration, and get back to work.-Bruce


Good point , Dont let any oppoetunity to promote US soccer get away,

I am sure the Eurosnobs are just waiting to jump all over this if it causes Scrubs to paly T&T

[Bruce S]

This what what happens if both sides in a labor duspute know they MUST come to a solution, but can't achieve it.They agree to an arbitrator and agree to abide by the resulting ruling. Both sides go back to work as the arbitrators works through the data.
If all else fails, USSF and players should just agree to arbitration, and get back to work.-Bruce
Letter sent to both sides.This was sent to the rep of the players association:
Dear Mark- as a youth coach and player, I am very worried about how the dispute between the USSF and the Players will impact on qualification for WC 2006- and how that in turn will impact on soccer development in the USA. If it is impossible to reach a settlement very soon, I strongly urge both sides to agree to binding arbitration.Time is of the essence here. An identical latter has been sent to the USSF.Best regards, Bruce XXXXXX

[Bruce S]

if BS posters here agree, please send a note to both sides urging binding arbitration.Maybe WE can move this forward.

[JoeSoccerFan]

Best regards, Bruce XXXXXX

Just a few questions -

Do you always give kisses when writing to the player's association?
Did you give hugs to the USSF?
Is it better to kisses rather than hugs? And should that be arbritrated?


:D

[Bruce S]

Just a few questions -

Do you always give kisses when writing to the player's association?
Did you give hugs to the USSF?
Is it better to kisses rather than hugs? And should that be arbritrated?

:D
how you approach these things depends entirely on what outcome you are trying to achieve.If you want to make yourself feel better, send insults.If you want to encourage people to work together in a cooperative manner, you write it in a friendly manner. I go on the assumption that everyone involved at the USSF and the Players Association would like a happy outcome that works for the betterment of US soccer.Until proven otherwise.

[petersoccer]

how you approach these things depends entirely on what outcome you are trying to achieve.If you want to make yourself feel better, send insults.If you want to encourage people to work together in a cooperative manner, you write it in a friendly manner. I go on the assumption that everyone involved at the USSF and the Players Association would like a happy outcome that works for the betterment of US soccer.Until proven otherwise.

Well statd keep up the good work.

[monster]

The players claim they have offered to go to arbitration, but the USSF has refused.

[Bootsy Collins]

The players claim they have offered to go to arbitration, but the USSF has refused.
Is this correct? I thought I remember TriHutch saying that the PA offered to go into mediation (which is different from arbitration), but the USSF refused.

[monster]

Is this correct? I thought I remember TriHutch saying that the PA offered to go into mediation (which is different from arbitration), but the USSF refused.
Mea culpa. I misread prevoius posts.

[Bruce S]

I mean BINDING arbitration.Like no more BS, this is ending.

[geordienation]

I mean BINDING arbitration.Like no more BS, this is ending.


Binding arbitration is something both sides need to feel they can have a victory in any possible outcome. That isnt' the case right now.

[Bruce S]

Binding arbitration is something both sides need to feel they can have a victory in any possible outcome. That isnt' the case right now.
that is why we should urge it on both sides.

[SamsArmySam]

Is this correct? I thought I remember TriHutch saying that the PA offered to go into mediation (which is different from arbitration), but the USSF refused.

Binding arbitration and mediation are very different things. For those of you who aren't as familiar with how the nuts and bolts of binding arbitration can get to an agreement more efficiently...
(apologies if you saw this earlier in another thread, but I'm assuming most didn't with the holidays)

The problem with mediation is that it has no teeth. Even with a professional mediator running the show, it's easy to agree you'll listen and keep an open mind and then at the end of the process say, "No thanks. We'll go back to our totally partisan point of view now."

A better solution might be binding arbitration.

First step: The two sides agree in principle that an agreement is in the best interest of both US Soccer and the players. Why? Because it is. They don't have to agree to specifics at this point. Just agree that both would most likely be better off with an agreement than they are today.

Second step: Both sides agree to a binding arbitration structure. The "binding" part brings the teeth. They essentially sign away their right to say "No, thanks" when the arbitrator(s) come back with the deal. They have to live with it.

Third step: Each side picks one professional arbitrator. These two are likely to be biased, so...

Fourth step: The two arbitrators agree on a third impartial professional arbitrator.

Fifth step: The three arbitrators go into a room, periodically come out wih furrowed brows and ask for more documents from either side, hack through the accounting and positions of the two sides, and then come up with their best win-win solution.

Sixth step: Both sides lick their wounds, "blame it on the arbitrators" when a handful of their minor terms weren't met, and then move on.

Biggest challenge with this set-up is getting the two sides to tell their current attorneys that their services are no longer needed. Most attorneys don't like to hear that.

[Roehl Sybing]

that is why we should urge it on both sides.
If you were either side, would you agree to it?

(hint: this is now the part where it becomes not so simple, contrary to the suggestion of the title of this thread)

[Bruce S]

If you were either side, would you agree to it?

(hint: this is now the part where it becomes not so simple, contrary to the suggestion of the title of this thread)
yes, because it is a situation where if NO agreement is reached, everyone will lose. Everyone will remember this Fed and these players as the ones who could not agree, and forfeited the WC 2006.Damn right I would agree to it!

[SamsArmySam]

Another interesting question.

Will they be smart enough to put a binding arbitration clause into the new player agreement for when he next one expires?

Would prevent this brinkmanship from happening again.

[denver_mugwamp]

This sounds like a proper solution. But the problem with binding arbitration is that both sides have to be willing to relinquish a bit of their control. I'm not sure the USSF is willing to do that. Remember there's two types of binding arbitration:

(1) The arbitartors can compromise between the two sides and arrive at a solution that's halfway in between.
(2) The arbitartors can only choose between one side or the other, like in baseball salary disputes.

I would prefer the first choice but that's another decision that would have to be agreed to by the USSF and the players before the process could begin.

[Serie Zed]

Is this correct? I thought I remember TriHutch saying that the PA offered to go into mediation (which is different from arbitration), but the USSF refused.
I think it's pretty safe to say that if the USSF refused mediation they wouldn't get within 1000 miles of binding arbitration.

[TriHutch]

I think it's pretty safe to say that if the USSF refused mediation they wouldn't get within 1000 miles of binding arbitration.

I don't remember writing anything about us trying for mediation. Not that it's out of the question, but it's also not fair to the Fed to say we did and they refused. That's not accurate. If you show me where I wrote it or implied it, I'll try to figure out what I was thinking. But it's not fair to draw this kind of conclusion if the original statement isn't accurate. Just saying, and no hard feelings either way.