Angel Hernandez Strikes Again

[bravesfanMatt]

He was clearly out.

I didn’t see a replay that said clearly out. Couldn’t tell if foot was touching corner as tag was applied. If I had to choose. Yes out. But would I have changed the call. No.

We have been on a few calls that didn’t have enough evidence yet had more evidence than that play.

 

[salmagundy]

Tell me how Hernandez and CB still have jobs.

No accountability

You can add Doug Eddings, Joe West, Holinger and Morales to the list.

 

[Carp]

I don’t think we should get rid of umpires. Just hold them more accountable.

Yep. There needs to be an efficiency grade throughout the year and major flubs (infield fly anyone???) result in some form of punishment like a 1 or 2 game suspension or something of that nature.

 

[bravesfanforlife88]

 

[jpx7]

Tell me how Hernandez and CB still have jobs.

No accountability

That’s on MLB, not the union. The union’s job isn’t to imperil its members’ jobs, but to ensure those jobs are fairly compensated and not unfairly exploited. It’s MLB’s job to work within such confines to set measures of accountability, to gauge job-performance thereby, and to ultimately manage employees accordingly.

Unions are the best way to ensure fair labor practices without a lot of state regulation and intervention, so (as I’ve said before) I’d think you’d have a bit more favorable feeling about them.

 

[DirkPiggler]

Unions are the best way to ensure fair labor practices without a lot of state regulation and intervention, so (as I’ve said before) I’d think you’d have a bit more favorable feeling about them.

What you posted above is true in theory. In many unions, once working conditions are satisfactory or above, to justify their existence they move into asking for protections and benefits that are superfluous.

I agree that MLB bears the responsibility here though. The Umpires' Union was effectively neutered several years ago when MLB refused to hire back many of the striking umps like Fatass Gregg among others. The league needs to set standards for performance and accuracy, and make performance reviews public periodically (at the end of a season) to gain the trust of fans and the teams. MLB should also be proactive in implementing any solutions that remove the human element from umpiring decisions without causing disruptions to game flow.

The biggest thing the union could do to help the situation would be to work to destroy the culture of umpires protecting their colleagues poor performance. When you have an egregious error like Sam Holbrook and the Outfield Fly, admit the error, take steps to correct it in the future, and move on. Don't put every ump out there front and center defending the indefensible. People are very forgiving and admire people who take ownership of their mistakes and try to make amends for them. Look at how Jim Joyce was treated after he cost Galarraga the perfect game. Most umps would've belligerently defended the incorrect call to the death.

 

[BeanieAntics]

That’s on MLB, not the union. The union’s job isn’t to imperil its members’ jobs, but to ensure those jobs are fairly compensated and not unfairly exploited. It’s MLB’s job to work within such confines to set measures of accountability, to gauge job-performance thereby, and to ultimately manage employees accordingly.

Unions are the best way to ensure fair labor practices without a lot of state regulation and intervention, so (as I’ve said before) I’d think you’d have a bit more favorable feeling about them.

As a libertarian, I can say that the existence of Unions is one of the most hotly debated topics around libertarian circles, right up there with abortion. Most of us fall into the category of being fine with most private sector labor unions. Or at least fine with their right to organize and collectively bargain. But many libertarians have a major problem with union's propensity to support statist agendas and their lobbying in favor of the state regulation and intervention. Another huge problem libertarians have with unions is the security agreements that they often make in non-right to work states. The idea that a union can essentially prevent someone outside the union from gaining employment within that sector is disgusting to us. So basically what I'm saying is: I have no problems with unions guaranteeing fair labor practices and protecting against exploitation. But the idea that unions accomplish this without state regulation is hilarious.

 

[jpx7]

But the idea that unions accomplish this without state regulation is hilarious.

We’re in danger of seriously derailing this thread quick, so I’ll just point out that I clearly did not say, “unions accomplish this without state regulation”, but instead that unions can help ensure fair labor practices while avoiding “a lot of state regulation and intervention”—ie encouraging robust collective bargaining is one way to minimize (but not wholly evacuate) the role the state needs to play in protecting labor.

If you want to go further in this discussion, I’d be happy to move to PM; but it’s probably best to stay on umpires in this thread.