The Fighter's Union

So I have heard countless times on this forum about "The fighters need a fighter's union", and I wonder how many of these people know anything about unions other than the pay. I've worked for both UPS (union) and for Wal-Mart (severly anti-union) and I personally feel that unions are both good and bad, but mostly bad.

The Good:

-Unions are great about getting their members better pay
-Members usually get better benefits
-The working conditions are usually good
-Members have job security (even if they deserve to be fired)
-If conditions aren't met, the union has the power to keep the employees from working for the employer (Strike).
-etc.

The Bad:

-Unions become too powerful.
-The members do not progress in their careers based upon how good they are, but how long they have been a member.
-When a company's employees become part of a union, the employer generally does not give a crap about the employees, and the employees miss out on many perks.
-The bottom line (cost) affects the consumers.
-When a union decides to strike, the members have no choice but to strike... and the pay while the strike happens? About $60.00 per week (could differ by union, but this is out of the unions pocket, not the employer so it is not going to be high).
-The members have very little flexibility in their responsibilities (they sometimes get way over worked).
-etc.

Everyone becomes so hypnotised about how you can get better pay and benefits working for the union, but they often overlook the downside of these things.

Look at the recent writer's strike... they have been on strike for how long? The strike is supposed to be coming to an end and what have they gotten? Pretty much nothing. What was the impact? The studios continued to make money from advertisements and dvd residuals by airing re-runs and reality shows. The viewers (us) were left with having our shows end early, and having nothing on tv even worth watching. The writers ended up losing all kinds of money by striking to make a deal that wasn't even for what they wanted.

When I worked for UPS I went in there busting my a$$ every day like I always have. In the past it has gotten me promoted to management and other supervisory positions. At UPS all it got me was more work, and no extra pay. Sure I got the annual raises that the union negotiated for us, but if it were a non-union place who knows how many regular raises or perks I could have gotten. Not to mention, since I was new I got stuck with all the crap while the guys who had been there a while pulled seniority. Most people have to work there almost 10 years before they can even become a driver and make money that you can even live on. What happens when a fighter asks for a title shot because they have been fighting for many years and gets it because the organization is too worried about a strike? My guess would be that they would get it, when there could be another GSP at the bottom of the pole who deserves it more, but he's still fighting undercard fights for peanuts even though his performance is deserving of that shot simply because he is a newer member.

With a fighter's union we could expect the fighters to receive a more appropriate salary, and better contracts I'm sure. With that extra money, I suspect Zuffa would be unwilling to accept a major loss and would raise the price of merchandise, tickets, PPVs, etc. Hell they just raised my PPV $5.00 not too long ago. Don't think we wouldn't be the ones paying for it. The UFC would have very little to gain from signing fighters in a union, and we might miss out on a lot we are taking for granted. Not to mention how crappy they could treat their fighters knowing that they only have certain obligations and don't have to keep the fighter happy (and there is always a surplus of people waiting in line for that union job, so they don't care if you stay or not... someone will do it).

I could go on and on all day about the opposite effect of the union, but in the end the decision you make is going to be based upon your own beliefs. There are hundreds of posts of people saying that there needs to be a fighter's union, but I say to hell with a fighters union... it would in the end ruin some of what we take for granted. What we really need is another top organization that gives fighters some leverage in negotiating their contract.

You don't wanna pay me $1 million per fight? Yeah well, Mr. Cuban over at M-1 said he'd pay me that. We both know that I can draw a crowd, and I can beat anyone you put in front of me... so go ahead and draft that contract or you can lose me to M-1.

Sounds a whole lot better than:

You don't wanna pay me $1 million per fight? Either you will, or we'll strike because this is unfair treatment. Than UFC 97 won't even air, and you'll have to pay back all those tickets. Then we all lose on watching the match because of even more drama than their already is.

I'm open to hear your thoughts!

Agreed...unions are for communists and choices are for democracies.

UFC being the monopoly is the problem, not the lack of a fighter union. Once M-1, Elite XC, Strikeforce get their feet underneath them, then fighters will have choices and everyones problems are averted.

Good point TNunley man !!
No need for an union.

---

Posted by TNunley

Look at the recent writer's strike... they have been on strike for how long? The strike is supposed to be coming to an end and what have they gotten? Pretty much nothing.

---

It's entirely off-topic, of course, but this isn't exactly true. One of the big concessions the networks made was to release financial information to the union. The writers' current contract is up in the Summer, and while they've ended the strike, they haven't negotiated a new contract. The financial information - which they didn't have before - will put them in a much stronger position to negotiate a share of the profits from Web broadcasts, of which they had 0.00% before the strike (part of the deal that ended the strike was a fixed-dollar value attached to electronic distribution of their work).

---

Posted by TNunley

You don't wanna pay me $1 million per fight? Yeah well, Mr. Cuban over at M-1 said he'd pay me that. We both know that I can draw a crowd, and I can beat anyone you put in front of me...

---

This is a misleading example, for two reasons. First, unions have never been about the rich folk. Chuck Liddell and Fedor Emelianenko aren't the reason fighters might want a union. Second, having a union doesn't mean the athletes can't negotiate a contract with the highest bidder, which is what you're suggesting here. When you worked for UPS, I presume that you were free to quit and accept a higher offer from another company..?

---

Posted by Lay_N_Pray

Agreed...unions are for communists and choices are for democracies.

---

Actually, I don't know that any Communist country has ever had workers' unions. Besides, if you passed 3rd-grade Social Studies, you already know that Communism is an economic system and Democracy a form of government, and therefore the two are not mutually exclusive. That's neither here nor there, though...

---

Posted by Lay_N_Pray

UFC being the monopoly is the problem, not the lack of a fighter union.

---

I don't think we should be throwing the word "monopoly" around so freely, because I don't think the UFC is a monopoly (yet). Just because a company is the top dog in its field doesn't mean it's a monopoly.

I agree with your general point point, though. I don't know whether MMA fighters would benefit from a union at this stage, although I think they would benefit from other organizations finding some success. Which is why people who will only follow the UFC are bad for the sport.

Using the word union when it comes to sports is completly wrong. Athletes may call themselves union, but they are really players association. Fighters would model ther fighter association after them not unions. As far as the bad many of the standard conditions mandated by federal law that all workers now enjoy started with unions fighting for them. Big Bussiness cares nothing for the worker whether yuor in a union or not.

---

Posted by AchillesHeel

---

Posted by TNunley

Look at the recent writer's strike... they have been on strike for how long? The strike is supposed to be coming to an end and what have they gotten? Pretty much nothing.

---

It's entirely off-topic, of course, but this isn't exactly true. One of the big concessions the networks made was to release financial information to the union. The writers' current contract is up in the Summer, and while they've ended the strike, they haven't negotiated a new contract. The financial information - which they didn't have before - will put them in a much stronger position to negotiate a share of the profits from Web broadcasts, of which they had 0.00% before the strike (part of the deal that ended the strike was a fixed-dollar value attached to electronic distribution of their work).

---

Okay, I'll give you that one... maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it because I don't know all of the details. First off.. it is not off topic, because it is related to issues involving the union. Either way, I'll concede to this, but it wasn't the point of my argument just saying that strikes have an effect on the employees and the consumers probably more so than the employer at times.

---

Posted by AchillesHeel

---

Posted by TNunley

You don't wanna pay me $1 million per fight? Yeah well, Mr. Cuban over at M-1 said he'd pay me that. We both know that I can draw a crowd, and I can beat anyone you put in front of me...

---

This is a misleading example, for two reasons. First, unions have never been about the rich folk. Chuck Liddell and Fedor Emelianenko aren't the reason fighters might want a union. Second, having a union doesn't mean the athletes can't negotiate a contract with the highest bidder, which is what you're suggesting here. When you worked for UPS, I presume that you were free to quit and accept a higher offer from another company..?

---

Okay... you missed the point of this one. I could have put any number in there to make it work... here I'll fix it:

You don't wanna pay me $20,000 per fight? Yeah well, Mr. Cuban over at M-1 said he'd pay me that. We both know that I can draw a crowd, and I can beat anyone you put in front of me...

Also, Tito is one of the biggest union pushers out there... you think he's struggling? The point of the comment was that another organization capable of competing with the UFC is needed much more than a union.

As for the last part of your comment... yes I was free to quit and accept an offer from another employer, but I also was not under a service contract (who's misleading?). The UFC would not change the way they do business... so the union idea would not end the service contracts so I don't see the purpose of this comment.

Either way... sounds like you are pro-union, and like I said... you are gonna believe what you wanna believe. My point of my original post was that so many people are talking about needing unions even if they don't know the downside of such.

Most MMA pro-union people don't understand what the ramifications would be, they simple-mindedly think it just means "fighters will be treated better".

Among other things it would increase cost for consumers, and effectively eliminate unestablished young fighters from getting contracts in any halfway decent sized promotion. Oh and fight bonuses? Gone.

Great post, TNunley; A union is not the answer.

Young fighters would still get contracts and fight bonusus would still be viable. Not all unions are the same. Not all unions are bad. Not all unions are good. If the fighters banded together it would be a fighters association like the NFL or MLB players have. Those are not unions. they call themselves that but there not. they still have young players coming in and players still get bonuses. Tnutlety is right about one thing. You need two org to compete against and work with each other. But an association of fighters coming together would not be a bad thing either. A unifeied voice from the fighters perspective on what they need as far as health and safety would be invaluble. Not to set contracts or wages but a voice from the guys in the sport other than the promoters.

I was just saying unions are for communists...its like saying this Fedor/UFC dispute is gay.

Obviously its not gay, its an expression. I'm just saying unions, while good on paper, are usually kind of crappy in execution, much like communism.

---

Posted by Lay_N_Pray

I was just saying unions are for communists...its like saying this Fedor/UFC dispute is gay.

Obviously its not gay, its an expression. I'm just saying unions, while good on paper, are usually kind of crappy in execution, much like communism.

---

well i would like to first disagree with the reason you said that you justify the correlation between communist and unions, however i do agree with the fact that unions are a communist/socialist ideal.

i disagree with your justification because there was a time when unions were a necessity. to say they never were good in execution is like turning a blind eye to history. now, i know 100% where you are coming from because we live in a time where unions have exceeded their purpose (in some jobs) and are unnecessary hassles in the business world today (again only in some careers). so when you say unions don't work like they should, i can totally see how you justify this since you live in a time period where they aren't so much as protecting rights as taking advantage of businesses.

however, this is where i disagree with your justification. when asking if unions are effective, ask yourself; is there child labor today? how about a minimum wage so low you can barely afford to live? ridiculously unsafe working conditions? how about lack of job security? the answer to those questions is no, well at least not at all close to what they used to be. unions were a necessity back in a time where workers were oppressed. they helped regulate businesses and made sure that workers were no longer stuck in poverty, helpless about a better situation. now, this is a socialist ideal where it is the workers uniting for the greater good. not all socialist ideals are bad in execution, and the union is a perfect example of one that did its job.

so to sum it up, yes unions are a communist ideal, but they were effective. however now, almost a century later, they have gotten a little too powerful but that still doesn't make it right to say that unions don't work. some MMA fighters get treated like expendable merchandise and get taken advantage of by bad contracts and low pay. a union could work to make it a better deal for the fighters. every union did some good in its early days, and a limited union in MMA would do some justice for the fighters. unions don't work in environments were injustices aren't occurring, but in MMA there are a lot of injustices to fighters and also there isn't the injustices in some occupations because of the union in the first place.

I totally agree with the fighter unions being wrong. I would rather see fighters (or any profession for that matter) reward the most skilled, not the most loyal. A loyal fighter is not necessarily a good fighter.

I'm not sure why communism came up, but MMA is one of the most pure forms of capitalism, the most skilled stick around, those who cannot compete fade away.

Good post TNunley. I agree with almost everything your had to say. I think in the end unions hurt everyone involved.

Tell that to the guy that gets fired simply because hyis boss doesnt like him, or the woman doing the same job and getting paid less. Almost everyone on this board gets overtime after 40 hours. You can go to work in safe conditions becuase of unions. Just like every other system there are good points and bad points. Some unions work hard for there employees to ensure that people dont get screwed over. If you think workers today are not still getting screwed over by big bussiness your are kidding yourself.

A union would suck for MMA. Even more things getting in the way of dream matchups. No group should force a worker to join them and go on strike when they demand them too.

My bro works for UPS and its a perfect example of how unions are trash and need to either be discarded or vastly improved

---

Posted by dstlvb

Tell that to the guy that gets fired simply because hyis boss doesnt like him, or the woman doing the same job and getting paid less. Almost everyone on this board gets overtime after 40 hours. You can go to work in safe conditions becuase of unions. Just like every other system there are good points and bad points. Some unions work hard for there employees to ensure that people dont get screwed over. If you think workers today are not still getting screwed over by big bussiness your are kidding yourself.

---

The situations you're talking about, to me, are of no significance of why a union is or is not needed.

The guy that gets fired because his boss doesn't like him, probably would be better off at a different job. You think a union would fix that? In my experience of working at a job as a union member it seemed as though the employers hated the employees. They didn't give a care in the world for any of us. So how would a union solve that problem? Because they could get his job back as long as he didn't do something stupid? Personally if I got fired because of tension between an employer and I, I for sure wouldn't want that job back.

The whole deal about a woman doing the same job and getting paid less... how often do you really think that goes on? I mean seriously, the days of desegregation and equal rights for women are over. Everyone has rights now, and if there is a woman somewhere not making as much as a man... perhaps there really is a logical explanation. Everyone is just so quick to say... "OH It's because she's a woman". Not, "well maybe she hasn't been there as long... maybe she doesn't have the same education... maybe she has missed a lot of work and the employer doesn't feel she can be relied upon to always work the extra hours." Why do we not ever hear about the men that make less than her? Because there has never been a movement for equal rights for men, and it wouldn't be newsworthy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about equal rights for women, and everyone else for that matter. Hell I'm even proud of the fact that my wife makes more than I do. It sure makes our financial situation a little bit easier. I just get sick of the "poor me" attitude everyone seems to have, and how it's always someone else's fault. Irregardless, a union is not the answer to every work related problem. Sometimes the best solution is to find a different job where you're more appreciated.

So unless you can come up with a better example for why a union is needed, I don't think this reason justifies anything.

---

Posted by TNunley

The whole deal about a woman doing the same job and getting paid less... how often do you really think that goes on? I mean seriously, the days of desegregation and equal rights for women are over. Everyone has rights now, and if there is a woman somewhere not making as much as a man... perhaps there really is a logical explanation. Everyone is just so quick to say... "OH It's because she's a woman". Not, "well maybe she hasn't been there as long... maybe she doesn't have the same education... maybe she has missed a lot of work and the employer doesn't feel she can be relied upon to always work the extra hours." Why do we not ever hear about the men that make less than her? Because there has never been a movement for equal rights for men, and it wouldn't be newsworthy.

---

Studies have tried to control for the variables you mentioned, as well as other factors. I know you won't believe anything I say, since I'm apparently a Communist, but here's something from a 2003 Congressional report, as archived by the University of North Texas:

"Based on its review of seven empirical studies, the National Academy of Sciences found that less than one-half of the wage gap between the sexes could be explained by human capital variables alone. While this finding lends credence to some researchers questioning of the ability of the skill depreciation hypothesis to account for the wage gap over the long-run to explain the different occupational distributions of men and women, it also reflects the inherent difficulty of accurately measuring all productivity-related characteristics. In addition, the finding gives support to claims that factors other than productivity affect wages, including the presence and strength of unions, the industry of employment, and firm size."

and...

"The results of empirical studies reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and other researchers indicate that addition of job-related variables to human-capital variables increases the ability to account for differences between the wages paid to women and men. Nonetheless, even those studies that incorporate both types of variables leave a substantial portion of the wage gap unexplained. In one study, for example, taking human capital variables into account left 67.1% of the gender pay gap unexplained, while the addition of job-related variables reduced the unexplained portion to 38.0%. Expressed another way, women working full-time were estimated to have earned 72% as much as men on average; this was the observed or unadjusted ratio. According to the analysis, if women had the same human capital attributes as men, they would have earned 80.5% as much as men, and if women had the same occupational, industrial, and union characteristics as men, the adjusted ratio would have been 88.2%."

I'm sure there's a lot more out there, but that's all I could find with a quick Google search.

---

Posted by jiujitsufreak74

well i would like to first disagree with the reason you said that you justify the correlation between communist and unions, however i do agree with the fact that unions are a communist/socialist ideal.

i disagree with your justification because there was a time when unions were a necessity. to say they never were good in execution is like turning a blind eye to history. now, i know 100% where you are coming from because we live in a time where unions have exceeded their purpose (in some jobs) and are unnecessary hassles in the business world today (again only in some careers). so when you say unions don't work like they should, i can totally see how you justify this since you live in a time period where they aren't so much as protecting rights as taking advantage of businesses.

however, this is where i disagree with your justification. when asking if unions are effective, ask yourself; is there child labor today? how about a minimum wage so low you can barely afford to live? ridiculously unsafe working conditions? how about lack of job security? the answer to those questions is no, well at least not at all close to what they used to be. unions were a necessity back in a time where workers were oppressed. they helped regulate businesses and made sure that workers were no longer stuck in poverty, helpless about a better situation. now, this is a socialist ideal where it is the workers uniting for the greater good. not all socialist ideals are bad in execution, and the union is a perfect example of one that did its job.

so to sum it up, yes unions are a communist ideal, but they were effective. however now, almost a century later, they have gotten a little too powerful but that still doesn't make it right to say that unions don't work. some MMA fighters get treated like expendable merchandise and get taken advantage of by bad contracts and low pay. a union could work to make it a better deal for the fighters. every union did some good in its early days, and a limited union in MMA would do some justice for the fighters. unions don't work in environments were injustices aren't occurring, but in MMA there are a lot of injustices to fighters and also there isn't the injustices in some occupations because of the union in the first place.

---

The Man won't let me give you Props for this, so I'll just say "Right on, brother! Fight the power!"


EDIT: Yes, I see the irony in being part of a Fight Camp run by Hippysmacker. I'm being tongue-in-cheek, if it wasn't obvious. I can't tell sometimes.

---

Posted by AchillesHeel


Studies have tried to control for the variables you mentioned, as well as other factors. I know you won't believe anything I say, since I'm apparently a Communist, but here's something from a 2003 Congressional report, as archived by the University of North Texas:

---

Okay, I'm not sure if you realized it or not, but I never said ANYTHING about anyone who is pro-union being a communist. So I'm not sure why you said that. I will readily admit to being an a$$ if I have been one, but ease up a little... I haven't attempted to degrade you in any way for your opinion. I've always enjoyed your posts (in fact I'm sure you have several props from me), and I'm not the type of person to bad mouth you simply because we don't share the same opinions. Just ask cmill, we almost never share the same opinion... but I try to never degrade him. I'm not trying to make this personal (but it doesn't necessarily have to be civil )

Also, I cut your post short because it was just something you copied and pasted. So I didn't feel any need to re-post it since I am going to comment to you, and not it.

First off, that study is 5 years old... you may argue that, that isn't a long time, but a lot can change when someone is put in the spotlight for inequal treatment. Then again, it's possible that the study would remain the same as it is today.

Secondly human capital only measures an education level, and work experience when it compares two (or more) employees. So, I can see how this could somewhat disprove part of my opinion regarding difference in level of education and experience. Then again this measures people considering that the output of their labor is equal to all others with similar work/education history... To put this in a concept related to MMA; how many times have we seen a fighter who looked better on paper outperform a fighter with less experience? Just saying that using this as an example isn't much different than performing MMAth when picking who wins a fight (it doesn't always work).

Like I said before, I am all for equal treatment of all human beings (unless they don't deserve it.... I'm talking about you, Osama Bin Laden). If there is unfair treatment in the workplace when their shouldn't be than that is a matter better dealt with through the Equal Employment Opportunity laws, and should be taken up with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This, in my opinion, is not any evidence supporting why their should be a Fighter's Union. You don't need to pay some union $30.00 per month (or whatever the dues are) to take it up with the EEOC for you.

Even if a union were capable of helping solve the problem of inequal treatment of women in the workplace, they are trading one judgement for another. For the most part (to repeat part of my original post) position and salary are determined by seniority rather than experience and how hard you work. So that way a women could bust her butt, but then get less money than someone who has been there a year longer than her... even if she has put in twice the work as him.

---

Posted by TNunley

Okay, I'm not sure if you realized it or not, but I never said ANYTHING about anyone who is pro-union being a communist. So I'm not sure why you said that. I will readily admit to being an a$$ if I have been one, but ease up a little... I haven't attempted to degrade you in any way for your opinion. I've always enjoyed your posts (in fact I'm sure you have several props from me), and I'm not the type of person to bad mouth you simply because we don't share the same opinions. Just ask cmill, we almost never share the same opinion... but I try to never degrade him. I'm not trying to make this personal (but it doesn't necessarily have to be civil )

---

Like I said, I can't tell if my tongue-in-cheek comments are obviously so. Maybe I should use those winky-smilies more often.

Also, I don't take offense at being called a Communist, even though I'm not one. I've known a few college-campus Communists, and they seemed a lot less dangerous to me than your average Neo-Con (being called a Neo-Con is something I would take offense at... ). A couple of them were even pretty cute (the Commies, not the Neo-Cons; I don't think I've ever met a cute Neo-Con).

i just want to put it out there that i am a centrist capitalist who favors free trade with limited government regulation of business. unions aren't government interference on business and although i actually usually anti-union, i support them when they are needed such as i believe is the case with MMA. i am the furthest thing from a communist but i was just trying to show how unions were technically a socialist ideal that did a lot of good for this country but have now grown a little too powerful.

---

Posted by jiujitsufreak74

i just want to put it out there that i am a centrist capitalist who favors free trade with limited government regulation of business. unions aren't government interference on business and although i actually usually anti-union, i support them when they are needed such as i believe is the case with MMA. i am the furthest thing from a communist but i was just trying to show how unions were technically a socialist ideal that did a lot of good for this country but have now grown a little too powerful.

---

Just out of curiosity... since you're 17, what experience have you had with unions?

---

Posted by TNunley

---

Posted by jiujitsufreak74

i just want to put it out there that i am a centrist capitalist who favors free trade with limited government regulation of business. unions aren't government interference on business and although i actually usually anti-union, i support them when they are needed such as i believe is the case with MMA. i am the furthest thing from a communist but i was just trying to show how unions were technically a socialist ideal that did a lot of good for this country but have now grown a little too powerful.

---

Just out of curiosity... since you're 17, what experience have you had with unions?

---

well, my uncle is part of an union and i can see the various protections that he receives from the union. i also bare witness to the overpower of the union because even he says that he gets away with a lot and sometimes the pay is way too much than what they deserve. also, my dad is a business owner so i take his "anti-union" approach most of the time in today's world since he directly influences me. i saw most of the time because i dislike the labor unions that my uncle that are similar to my uncle's (construction) because they inhibit production, give workers too much power and sometimes make negotiations one-sided in favor of the workers. however, in the UFC i feel a union would be good. as i a history and sociology student i can see how labor unions helped rid the world of oppressive business and extremely harsh conditions. unions were a necessity at one point in time but have now grow too powerful and the balance has swung in the other direction imo. although in the UFC i feel that a small union be is perfect for the situation of the fighters now because just like football, baseball, basketball and all of the other major sports a union of some kind should be in place to make sure the athletes are treated fairly. now, i don't want this union to grow out of control, but rather keep the UFC in place and make sure the fighters get what they deserve.

so pretty much, my experience with unions come from my family (both sides of the argument) and my studies in school

and i am 16 btw, not 17

---

Posted by jiujitsufreak74
well, my uncle is part of an union and i can see the various protections that he receives from the union. i also bare witness to the overpower of the union because even he says that he gets away with a lot and sometimes the pay is way too much than what they deserve. also, my dad is a business owner so i take his "anti-union" approach most of the time in today's world since he directly influences me. i saw most of the time because i dislike the labor unions that my uncle that are similar to my uncle's (construction) because they inhibit production, give workers too much power and sometimes make negotiations one-sided in favor of the workers. however, in the UFC i feel a union would be good. as i a history and sociology student i can see how labor unions helped rid the world of oppressive business and extremely harsh conditions. unions were a necessity at one point in time but have now grow too powerful and the balance has swung in the other direction imo. although in the UFC i feel that a small union be is perfect for the situation of the fighters now because just like football, baseball, basketball and all of the other major sports a union of some kind should be in place to make sure the athletes are treated fairly. now, i don't want this union to grow out of control, but rather keep the UFC in place and make sure the fighters get what they deserve.

so pretty much, my experience with unions come from my family (both sides of the argument) and my studies in school

and i am 16 btw, not 17

---

Well you obviously have more knowledge of them at 16 than most your age. I can understand your reasoning involved with what the union could do, and it's noble... but what happens if a union comes in and DOES grow out of control? It just isn't something you can say and hope that it doesn't happen.

In the end, I stick with my guns about a union could do some good, but in the end it would be worse off than before.

---

Posted by TNunley


Well you obviously have more knowledge of them at 16 than most your age. I can understand your reasoning involved with what the union could do, and it's noble... but what happens if a union comes in and DOES grow out of control? It just isn't something you can say and hope that it doesn't happen.

In the end, I stick with my guns about a union could do some good, but in the end it would be worse off than before.

---

i totally understand your point and i agree with it. however, if there was some sort of regulatory committee that was run objectively through a non-biased party that could regulate the transactions between the Union and the UFC it could work. i know all of this is easier said then done and isn't as perfect in the real world, but if we can get some administrative agency watching over the Union then maybe it can make sure it doesn't grow out of control as most unions have today. its really more of a long shot dream for this to happen, but it is a possibility. i 100% agree that unions do eventually grow out of control, but if we can regulate them with a nonpartisan agency then maybe it could work.

---

Posted by dstlvb

Tell that to the guy that gets fired simply because hyis boss doesnt like him, or the woman doing the same job and getting paid less. Almost everyone on this board gets overtime after 40 hours. You can go to work in safe conditions becuase of unions. Just like every other system there are good points and bad points. Some unions work hard for there employees to ensure that people dont get screwed over. If you think workers today are not still getting screwed over by big bussiness your are kidding yourself.

---

Ok if your boss does not like you why work for him... IT IS CALLED FREE ENTERPRISE... Fighters have contracts... they are offered X amount of money for X amount of fights... When that contract is over they can negoiate for higher amount of money if they did well.. on the same side the Org can offer less if they did not do well or let them go.. Unions are bad example... the UAW,,, yup the United Auto workers Union.. it is single handedly destroying the amercian made car industry... by allowing people who suck at thier job to keep thier jobs just cause they been there longer.. while someone who might be a better worker is stuck waiting for the lazy ass to retire...


Now most athelete are not in a union in the tradational sense as mentioned above.. if they were the oildest guy in the league would be getting paid the most ...
Atheletes each have an individual contract with the team or group they are with.. individually they have little power.. as an association they can make changes happen if they are being untrated fairly..

Unions back in the day were a good thing.. espically when the government did not have the saftey rules in place... it made the government take notice and and institute LAWS that are now in place.. Unions did thier jobs.. but they are dinosaurs for the most part...

As for fighters having unions.. No worst thing that could happen... what is needed is other orgs getting a foot hold and giving fighters choices... if groups like affliction and even elite XC can grow and give fighters an alternative to the UFC the UFC will start to pay more to keep the top fighters..

its called FREE MARKET BABY