So is India safe to tour or is it just a media beat-up?

[Streetwise]

Only a select bunch of players are going to that country. The IPL has contracted with the players and not the Player associations. If players have issues with security they should personally get in touch with the IPL through their franchises. The Player Associations have no right to directly approach Modi and "demand" (yes, the tone was exactly that) specifics of security. It is like the a local trade union in Botswana approaching Bill Gates and demanding him to disclose the security planning for the entire Microsoft campus because 3-4 Botswana guys happen to work there.

So if 10-15 Botswana workers did work at microsoft and threats were made against Botwanains you would expect that microsoft would not have to disclose to these workers what measures were being taken to protect tham and each worked would have to approach microsot individually to express any concerns. i.e. If they wanted to know what to do if they felt unsafe you would expect each one to individually approach microsoft for a briefing instead of the Botswanians getting together putting all their concerns on the table and dealing with them collectively.

 

[silentstriker]

Only a select bunch of players are going to that country. The IPL has contracted with the players and not the Player associations. If players have issues with security they should personally get in touch with the IPL through their franchises. The Player Associations have no right to directly approach Modi and "demand" (yes, the tone was exactly that) specifics of security. It is like the a local trade union in Botswana approaching Bill Gates and demanding him to disclose the security planning for the entire Microsoft campus because 3-4 Botswana guys happen to work there.

Actually yes, the local trade union could definitely contact Microsoft and ask for security arrangements. That's how it works. And should work. As long as the players say that they are being represented by this person and/or organization, they have every right to do it that way.

 

[Sir Alex]

So if 10-15 Botswana workers did work at microsoft and threats were made against Botwanains you would expect that microsoft would not have to disclose to these workers what measures were being taken to protect tham and each worked would have to approach microsot individually to express any concerns. i.e. If they wanted to know what to do if they felt unsafe you would expect each one to individually approach microsoft for a briefing instead of the Botswanians getting together putting all their concerns on the table and dealing with them collectively.

The threat according to IPL/MS is not credible enough to warrant such a "collective meeting".
Secondly IPL is not denying players to "clarify" their doubts about security. They are free to approach and ask, in person and through their franchises.
Thirdly, even if IPL calls for a "collective meeting", the parties should be only the players and IPL authorities. Some random groups claiming to represent the players unrecognised by them have no right to barge in the meeting.

 

[Sir Alex]

Actually yes, the local trade union could definitely contact Microsoft and ask for security arrangements. That's how it works. And should work. As long as the players say that they are being represented by this person and/or organization, they have every right to do it that way.

It never works in that way in the real world Silentstriker. The best possible reply the local trade union would get is an email saying "thank you for contacting microsoft. our representatives will read your email and get back to you" and the dialogue would end there. Unless Microsoft has agreed to "recognise" such player representatives at the time of entering into contract, which I think they seldom do, they will ignore such "demands".

 

[Streetwise]

It never works in that way in the real world Silentstriker. The best possible reply the local trade union would get is an email saying "thank you for contacting microsoft. our representatives will read your email and get back to you" and the dialogue would end there. Unless Microsoft has agreed to "recognise" such player representatives at the time of entering into contract, which I think they seldom do, they will ignore such "demands".

I think you are mistaken in believing thats how microsoft would handle the situation. I think microsoft would do everything in their power to allay the concerns of the workers instead of pulling out a big stick and belting them.

 

[Sir Alex]

I think you are mistaken in believing thats how microsoft would handle the situation. I think microsoft would do everything in their power to allay the concerns of the workers instead of pulling out a big stick and belting them.

And what is this "pulling out big stick and belting" that IPL has done? Don't go overboard with your presumptions. IPL said they are willing to accomodate any query that players have, and went to the extent that if they are still not satisfied need not participate. That's the maximum that any Company would do. To share security plans with some unknown parties is just not it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

genuine question- Aren't unions meant to be comprised of mainly employees with a stake? why would an employer be obliged to entertain a body, the majority of whose decision makers aren't even your employees? The right thing to do would have been for those actually playing to get ponting and fica to butt out and form their own union to deal with this.

 

[Sir Alex]

genuine question- Aren't unions meant to be comprised of mainly employees with a stake? why would an employer be obliged to entertain a body, the majority of whose decision makers aren't even your employees? The right thing to do would have been for those actually playing to get ponting and fica to butt out and form their own union to deal with this.

Exacly. Say something like Australian IPL Players Union but still they need to get the nod from IPL.

 

[silentstriker]

It never works in that way in the real world Silentstriker. The best possible reply the local trade union would get is an email saying "thank you for contacting microsoft. our representatives will read your email and get back to you" and the dialogue would end there. Unless Microsoft has agreed to "recognise" such player representatives at the time of entering into contract, which I think they seldom do, they will ignore such "demands".

Actually, it does work exactly that way in the real world. Under the laws of most western countries, unless you work in very specific jobs (armed forces, physician, etc), you can form a union regardless of whether you were in one at the time of your contract. It's a very fundamental right that people have. It may not be that way in India, but that's really not relevant to whether it's ethical for players to demand that the plans to ensure their safety are shared with them.

Exacly. Say something like Australian IPL Players Union but still they need to get the nod from IPL.

That is so unfair, so as a company owner, the solution to unions would be never to recognize one.

I owe my soul to the company store, eh?

genuine question- Aren't unions meant to be comprised of mainly employees with a stake? why would an employer be obliged to entertain a body, the majority of whose decision makers aren't even your employees? The right thing to do would have been for those actually playing to get ponting and fica to butt out and form their own union to deal with this.

Well, that depends really. You normally have a national union in many cases, and then a local subgroup. The Australian players would rightly consider themselves a subgroup of FICA and the Australian one. The national teachers union (for example) very well intervenes in local affairs if the members in that township ask/need their help. You don't think they'd be involved if a district was potentially dangerous and they didn't share the security plan with the teachers?

 

[Streetwise]

genuine question- Aren't unions meant to be comprised of mainly employees with a stake? why would an employer be obliged to entertain a body, the majority of whose decision makers aren't even your employees? The right thing to do would have been for those actually playing to get ponting and fica to butt out and form their own union to deal with this.

Unions represent all workers in sections of an industry, A union may have all its members from 50 different companies vote to implement that workers must have a 20 minute break each hour after working in extreme heat. A single company in an effort to save money might insist that they only need 5 minutes each hour, the union would then approach that company to ensure that the collective decision of all its members have decided that all workers are entitled to 20 minutes each hour even though only 100 of the 500 union members work or that company.

 

[Sir Alex]

Actually, it does work exactly that way in the real world. Under the laws of most western countries, unless you work in very specific jobs (armed forces, physician, etc), you can form a union regardless of whether you were in one at the time of your contract. It's a very fundamental right that people have. It may not be that way in India, but that's really not relevant to whether it's ethical for players to demand that the plans to ensure their safety are shared with them.

Please be specific. I have no issues players joining any association, I don't think IPL has either. The problem is when these Unions start interfering in IPL's activities. I don' think Microsoft would trip over their heals in eagerness to share their security plans with Communist Party of China right?

 

[silentstriker]

Please be specific. I have no issues players joining any association, I don't think IPL has either. The problem is when these Unions start interfering in IPL's activities. I don' think Microsoft would trip over their heals in eagerness to share their security plans with Communist Party of China right?

Horrible example. Actually, they'd have to share in the case if they wanted to operate in China. No one is interfering. They are asking about how their members will be protected.

 

[Streetwise]

Please be specific. I have no issues players joining any association, I don't think IPL has either. The problem is when these Unions start interfering in IPL's activities. I don' think Microsoft would trip over their heals in eagerness to share their security plans with Communist Party of China right?

Communist Party of China dont represent the workers of microsoft.

I would have no problems with IPL not wanting to deal with the New York printers union, but I think they should deal with FICA who represent their employees.

 

[Sir Alex]

Horrible example. Actually, they'd have to share in the case if they wanted to operate in China. No one is interfering. They are asking about how their members will be protected.

IPL happens in India the last time I checked. Australian Government has stake and can approach IPL via Indian Government if they have any issues. But some random player group in Australia? Gimme a break.

 

[Shri]

Unions work only when the concerned workers are dependent on a particular work for their livelihood right? The IPL is not the only source of income for the players participating in it and is just a luxury. They really are dependent on their domestic sides that employ them through the year for their income. Surely there should be some difference as far as unions are concerned in this case?

 

[Sir Alex]

Communist Party of China dont represent the workers of microsoft.

I would have no problems with IPL not wanting to deal with the New York printers union, but I think they should deal with FICA who represent their employees.

FICA is not recognised by IPL. No need to recognise either. For IPL, FICA and NYPU are of same relevance.
Re- CPC, I should have said the Trade Union wing of CPC.

 

[silentstriker]

IPL happens in India the last time I checked. Australian Government has stake and can approach IPL via Indian Government if they have any issues. But some random player group in Australia? Gimme a break.

You mean a group that the players are members of and want to communicate through? It's exactly the same as having their own union consisting of only them.

 

[silentstriker]

Unions work only when the concerned workers are dependent on a particular work for their livelihood right?

No, why? It works whenever you have a group of employees who want to pool their resources together to better negotiate terms with their employer.

 

[silentstriker]

Let me take a step back and ask two specific questions, because I think the point is being missed.

1. Do you think the players should be informed of security plans that are in place to protect them?
2. Do you think the players would have a better bargaining position if they decide together what to do?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Actually, it does work exactly that way in the real world. Under the laws of most western countries, unless you work in very specific jobs (armed forces, physician, etc), you can form a union regardless of whether you were in one at the time of your contract. It's a very fundamental right that people have. It may not be that way in India, but that's really not relevant to whether it's ethical for players to demand that the plans to ensure their safety are shared with them.



That is so unfair, so as a company owner, the solution to unions would be never to recognize one.

I owe my soul to the company store, eh?




Well, that depends really. You normally have a national union in many cases, and then a local subgroup. The Australian players would rightly consider themselves a subgroup of FICA and the Australian one. The national teachers union (for example) very well intervenes in local affairs if the members in that township ask/need their help. You don't think they'd be involved if a district was potentially dangerous and they didn't share the security plan with the teachers?

Thats not an accurate analogy. The IPL says security plans are being shared with the country boards and players concerned. An accurate analogy would be the police sharing their security plans with the schools involved and the teachers involved, but the national union ignoring all that and deciding to impose themselves anyway.