I was listening to a baseball talking head talking baseball. I believe it was on XM, but this was a week ago since we’re getting caught up here, so I am unable to name names.
He was talking about the Raúl Ibáñez kerfuffle.* Specifically, he was saying because the players were upset about being accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, the players’ union should have stood up and said that they wanted mandatory testing, to protect the reputation of the players that weren’t using PEDs.
But this is daft. A union exists to protect the tangible interests of its members. That’s things like salary and benefits and workplace safety, sure, but it also includes things like not having to get tested for drugs. Privacy is a tangible benefit, and if I belonged to a union** then I would immediately call for the replacement of any union official that proposed to give it away without receiving equal value from management in collective bargaining.***
Is the reputation of the players a benefit too? Yes, but one that’s much harder to quantify. The cases of individual players losing endorsement deals after getting caught are the exception and not the rule. More importantly, the reputation of the players is really not under the union’s control, or anyone else’s:
- Some people think the players make too much money. You’re not going to give that up for people to like you better.
- Some people think that getting tested shouldn’t be an issue if you have nothing to hide. If you actually think this way, then I hope you get pulled over, on suspicion of having drugs in your car, at a random time once a week from now to October. People are so quick to give away other people’s rights.****
- Some people think today’s players are spoiled, coddled and don’t play the game the right way. You see my point that this kind of thing is not worth trying to influence to any great degree?
Now if enough of the players that were not using PEDs felt that they were losing playing time (and therefore salary) to the players that were, that’s certainly something the union members should vote on. But even then, why assume that the testing should be administered by MLB? That could be handled internally.
In conclusion, go to your boss and volunteer to get tested for drugs. If you don’t, point proven forever.
* Didn’t hear about this? A blogger wrote an article about how Ibáñez was having an inexplicably great season, and about how, sadly, when a guy starts doing that these days it’s not ridiculous to think he might be juicing. Ibáñez was asked about this, was very offended, and it became a national story.
** Admittedly, I’ve never belonged to a union. Computer geeks don’t have unions, not even in Pennsylvania.
*** They did eventually agree to it, but in collective bargaining, and neither MLB nor the union is in the habit of revealing what horses were traded. Also, Congress was grandstanding on the issue at the time. Don’t even get me started on that.
**** Now that I think about it, people are pretty quick to give away their own rights at the moment. But that’s another blog post. On a different blog. Possibly one where someone***** argues that unions shouldn’t exist at all. We already got too boring and political here.
***** Not me.
****** Hey, how do you like the Pozterisk thing? I am ripping off my favorite sportswriter, Joe Posnanski, except that he doesn’t put the asterisks at the end so they’re really just odd parentheticals.