It took a total of 99 days, but the Major League Baseball lockout has finally ended. The players and owners agreed on a new labor deal, and the season is set to start on April 7th. With a delayed start to the season and multiple deadlines having to be pushed back, it definitely took some time for the two sides to agree on something that satisfies both parties, but hopefully it will be a good example for others to follow on how to make executives and employees stand up for their rights. Some of the changes in the new agreement consist of financial changes as well as in-game pace of play measures. The financial changes will allow for young players to get a little bit more money and the in-game measures will positively affect the duration and excitement of the game for general fans. All the changes are beneficial for owners and players, so maybe organization executives and employees can agree with each other after all.
Although this example pertains to a professional sport, I think it translates across corporate America as well. There are always going to be motivational differences between levels of a hierarchy within an organization, but it is important for the two sides to agree, since, after all, they are in fact working for the same company. If the goal of an organization is to "win" (which I hope is the goal for every company in every industry) then it should not be hard for executives and employees to both be on the same team. Whether it's financial, political, or social reasons for disagreeing, there needs to be conversations within organizations to settle their differences and fight for the same cause, and sometimes, things might just never be able to change. For example, a young MLB player fighting to get more money relates to an entry level employee wanting to get salary or higher wages. Things like this are inevitable because that's how corporate structure is set up, but there are other differences that can be fixed. In a quote from Bradford Doolittle in an ESPN article, he says:
"The owners got an expanded postseason format, preserved the basic economic structures that loomed over the past couple of CBAs and have more leeway to change on-the-field rules. In other words, the owners won. Sure, the players received a couple of mechanisms to get more money to younger players. The tweaking of CBT levels and penalties might loosen up some of the top-end spending. If the deal on the international draft comes together, and thus qualifying offers are removed, that's good for high-end free agents. And maybe the new draft lottery will help boost midlevel free agency if it results in fewer teams entering full-scale rebuilds. Probably not. Still, the gains for the MLBPA seem modest, and anything resembling the status quo is good for the owners. If the MLBPA's bottom-line goal was to increase the players' aggregate share of a revenue pie that is likely to keep growing, then it's not clear this agreement furthers that goal."
Through tough discussions and a labor lockout, both parties benefited from the new agreement. Each side probably gave some and took some, but a compromise is not a bad thing. I think that in order for people to help themselves as well as help others, compromising is sometimes the best option. If executives and employees across America can handle conflict in an appropriate and timely matter like the MLB did, then I think it is important that these tough conversations are had so that differences can be worked out efficiently and effectively.
I do agree with your statement that this follows beyond sports and into business. I think many people argue that MLB players and professional sports athletes in general already make enough money so how can they even begin to complain about needing more. I do not know all the details, but I think a lower status employee of a company is probably making close to minimum wage, whereas the baseball players are (i'm assuming) making plenty of money. So in some ways, I think having these conversations is important, but in other ways someones it can be greedy.