I always thought the term referred to an objective intermediary individual, rather than a representative of owners or big business against players or employees. I can't find a good definition of commissioner that logically explains why David Stern is representing only one side. I think when a lot of people here what the "NBA commissioner" is saying, they think it's some objective intermediary individual.
Thanks; to me that seems contradictory. A "Chief Executive" should be an objective intermediary IMO, not an advocate for one side. I don't get why the players and Players Association have no say in who the Chief Executive is. I see that it's done the same way in baseball too though.
I think the commissioner is more of an intermediary between the owners, and he represents the oweners when it comes to the players and the union..
A Commissioner: "A Honey Badger"
Bonn1997 wrote:Thanks; to me that seems contradictory. A "Chief Executive" should be an objective intermediary IMO, not an advocate for one side. I don't get why the players and Players Association have no say in who the Chief Executive is. I see that it's done the same way in baseball too though.
This is a little naive. A CEO has no interest in sides. He has a responsibility to shareholders to ensure profitability. Whatever you may think, the players are simple employees. The owners are the shareholders. Therefore, Sterns responsibility is to ensure the owners and the NBA as a whole make a profit. That involves innumerable things, one of which is payroll and HR management ie, dealing with the players.
The complication comes in when the employees are also the irreplaceable assets of the company, which makes Sterns job a far more political one. But regardless, Sterns job is to represent the interest if the NBA shareholders. The owners. Objective intermediary doesn't come into it. His role's objectivity lies towards ensuring profitability.
firefly wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Thanks; to me that seems contradictory. A "Chief Executive" should be an objective intermediary IMO, not an advocate for one side. I don't get why the players and Players Association have no say in who the Chief Executive is. I see that it's done the same way in baseball too though.
This is a little naive. A CEO has no interest in sides. He has a responsibility to shareholders to ensure profitability. Whatever you may think, the players are simple employees. The owners are the shareholders. Therefore, Sterns responsibility is to ensure the owners and the NBA as a whole make a profit. That involves innumerable things, one of which is payroll and HR management ie, dealing with the players.
The complication comes in when the employees are also the irreplaceable assets of the company, which makes Sterns job a far more political one. But regardless, Sterns job is to represent the interest if the NBA shareholders. The owners. Objective intermediary doesn't come into it. His role's objectivity lies towards ensuring profitability.
So by your definition Stern has been a failure for quite a while! He's been the one coming up with most of these CBA proposals and the last CBA was supposed to usher in profitability for the owners. NO one forced the owners to sign a deal paying the players 57% if they couldn't do it! Sounds like buyers remorse. The owners made the deal cuz they thought they had outsmarted the players, not cuz they had no choice. The owners have the ultimate authority in every negotiation and yet they've failed to solve their problems with the things they've come up with over the years. Now they're back again and they'll try to tell everyone that THIS TIME they've got the answer to the leagues problems.
nixluva wrote:firefly wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Thanks; to me that seems contradictory. A "Chief Executive" should be an objective intermediary IMO, not an advocate for one side. I don't get why the players and Players Association have no say in who the Chief Executive is. I see that it's done the same way in baseball too though.
This is a little naive. A CEO has no interest in sides. He has a responsibility to shareholders to ensure profitability. Whatever you may think, the players are simple employees. The owners are the shareholders. Therefore, Sterns responsibility is to ensure the owners and the NBA as a whole make a profit. That involves innumerable things, one of which is payroll and HR management ie, dealing with the players.
The complication comes in when the employees are also the irreplaceable assets of the company, which makes Sterns job a far more political one. But regardless, Sterns job is to represent the interest if the NBA shareholders. The owners. Objective intermediary doesn't come into it. His role's objectivity lies towards ensuring profitability.
So by your definition Stern has been a failure for quite a while! He's been the one coming up with most of these CBA proposals and the last CBA was supposed to usher in profitability for the owners. NO one forced the owners to sign a deal paying the players 57% if they couldn't do it! Sounds like buyers remorse. The owners made the deal cuz they thought they had outsmarted the players, not cuz they had no choice. The owners have the ultimate authority in every negotiation and yet they've failed to solve their problems with the things they've come up with over the years. Now they're back again and they'll try to tell everyone that THIS TIME they've got the answer to the leagues problems.
Yes, by my definition, Stern has been a failure during this past CBA. The question is whether, during this monster recession, the league would have been better off with someone else. That's debateable, but the owners seem comfortable, cuz they haven't fired him. Personally I think that Stern is a huge asset to the league and that is indicated by the fact that despite the massive global slow-down, the NBA has remained steady and financially secure if not profitable over the past few years while everything else is in the toilet.
Oh, and it's not my definition. It's indisputably what a CEO's job is. A CEO takes the company line in labor negotiations because he runs the company. The employees are an asset of the company.
firefly wrote:Oh, and it's not my definition. It's indisputably what a CEO's job is. A CEO takes the company line in labor negotiations because he runs the company. The employees are an asset of the company.
As opposed to the employees BEING the company. NBA. National Basketball Association. It's a league of teams, which players happen to work for. I'm sure the auto workers unions would love to decide who the next CEO of GM will be, but apparently, it doesn't work that way.
There will be no talking by the game pieces! 
