Decertification owes its power to the uneasy truce between labor laws and antitrust laws. The antitrust laws prevent employers from banding together to restrain competition. For example, if all the banks in a city agreed that they would not pay their tellers more than $30,000 per year, it would almost certainly be an illegal case of "price fixing." Likewise, if the banks laid off all their tellers and refused to rehire them unless they agreed to take a pay cut to $30,000, it would almost certainly be an illegal "group boycott." These types of agreements -- which restrain competition -- are addressed by the antitrust laws.

However, collective bargaining encourages the very type of behavior that the antitrust laws make illegal. To resolve this inherent conflict, there is something called the "non-statutory labor exemption," which shields collective bargaining agreements from attack under antitrust law. This protection extends even after the agreement expires -- so long as a bargaining relationship continues to exist.

Here's the key to the whole process: This bargaining relationship continues to exist as long as the union is in place. If the players dissolve the union, the bargaining relationship dissolves with it. Without the bargaining relationship, the league is no longer shielded from antitrust laws.

Much of the economic structure of the NBA -- such as the salary cap, maximum salaries, rookie-scale salaries and the luxury tax -- could be challenged under the antitrust laws as a form of price fixing if there was no union. The lockout itself could be challenged as a group boycott.

In many normal businesses, employers fight unionization and would be thrilled if the employees decided to get rid of their union. But in the sports world, employers benefit from the existence of the union -- so the employees can use the dissolution of the union as a threat.

So far the NBA players have kept the dispute within the realm of labor law by continuing to negotiate as a union. If the players dissolve the union -- either by decertifying or through a related process called a disclaimer of interest -- they surrender their collective bargaining rights, lift the shield of protection provided by the non-statutory labor exemption, and shift the venue from labor law to antitrust law.

After decertifying, the players could then bring an antitrust suit against the league, challenge any rules that constitute a restraint of trade, and ask the court to end the lockout. They could also seek treble (triple the amount) damages -- up to $6 billion per year. The odds of winning are not 100 percent certain (they never are), but the risk to the owners would be enormous. Such a case could take years to resolve.

Once the union decertifies, the collective bargaining process would be over -- there literally would be no union with which the owners could negotiate. Billy Hunter, Derek Fisher and the other players on the executive committee would no longer be in charge -- as a practical matter, control would pass to attorneys. The players also could not reassemble the union for one year without the league's consent. However, such consent obviously would be granted if the two sides eventually cut a deal.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/decertification-111104/nba-decertification-threat-strong-message

The current business model is broken. It needed to be changed. The owners wanted to change it. They did. The players don't like it because of being spoiled with the best CBA in sports (outside MLB) all these years. That's too damn bad. This economy is awful and teams are in the red. Changes needed to be made; radical ones. They were made. Players said no, we'll sue you and try to win our freedom. Too bad no court would ever rule in their favor.

Childs2Dudley wrote:How many times are we going to discuss the same exact thing over and over again?

The current business model is broken. It needed to be changed. The owners wanted to change it. They did. The players don't like it because of being spoiled with the best CBA in sports (outside MLB) all these years. That's too damn bad. This economy is awful and teams are in the red. Changes needed to be made; radical ones. They were made. Players said no, we'll sue you and try to win our freedom. Too bad no court would ever rule in their favor.

exactly, it is pretty simple... not hard to grasp at all....

Childs2Dudley wrote:How many times are we going to discuss the same exact thing over and over again?

The current business model is broken. It needed to be changed. The owners wanted to change it. They did. The players don't like it because of being spoiled with the best CBA in sports (outside MLB) all these years. That's too damn bad. This economy is awful and teams are in the red. Changes needed to be made; radical ones. They were made. Players said no, we'll sue you and try to win our freedom. Too bad no court would ever rule in their favor.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the players from the start had conceded salary and at the end had accepted a 50/50 share!!! Nevermind the fact that the owners always win these CBA battles and they agreed to the 57% share for the players and did so with no arm twisting by the players. The owners agreed to that CBA with all the financial info and predictions good or bad! Remember the owners are the businessmen in this relationship. Now they're going at the players with anger and threats as if it was the players that somehow tricked them into creating the last CBA! Come on man, you can't be that anti worker that you refuse to see this! Please don't tell me that it's jealousy or you resent the players making good money!

Are we to shed a tear when billionaire businessmen mess up a business that they control and dictate the rules in? Plus how can u characterize these billionaire owners as "losing their shirts"? Do you realize how silly that sounds? 300 mil spread over 30 teams won't bankrupt billionaires!!! And I remind you they did this to themselves.

SupremeCommander wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:Too bad no court would ever rule in their favor.

I have no idea if this is true or false... source?

NBA hasn't violated any labor or anti-trust laws.

Past cases involving this.

NFL went the way of disclaimer of interest and tried to get a judge to lift the lockout. It was eventually decided that the judge did not have the power to end the NFL lockout. This caused the players to return to the bargaining table and an agreement came together quickly after the players had lost the last leverage they had. This will play out the same.

Childs2Dudley wrote:How many times are we going to discuss the same exact thing over and over again?

The current business model is broken. It needed to be changed. The owners wanted to change it. They did. The players don't like it because of being spoiled with the best CBA in sports (outside MLB) all these years. That's too damn bad. This economy is awful and teams are in the red. Changes needed to be made; radical ones. They were made. Players said no, we'll sue you and try to win our freedom. Too bad no court would ever rule in their favor.

I think that's a good summary. The lawsuits will be expensive to both sides but eventually more damaging to the players. Only the lawyers make out in this arrangement.