(02-07-2020 02:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: But nobody uses that strategy when the employee in question can get $17 or $18 dollars at the place across the street with a "help wanted" sign hanging in the window. The definitely don't do it when they know their best clients request this employee and are willing to pay extra when this employee performs the work.
Since there is no actual "help wanted" sign hanging up, people can easily go into these things with different view of how much the highest paid employee is worth. I recall observing from the ranks of freeway flyers at a two year for profit college the highest paid head of department responsible for putting together a new accredited degree program getting more and more demanding because of her perception of her value ... until then she was replaced by someone else (who was both less demanding and more competent so that was a partial win for this small college before their eventual closure).
And this is NOT an employer/employee relationship, this is a membership club. The manager is not the boss, the manager is working for the members ... in this case for a membership representatives board that happens to consist of each and every member.
The commissioner is treating ambit claims as Boise State keeps it's current bonus and Boise State gets a pro-rata increase in its current bonus, and talks some mushy language about a "proportional" increase which can mean multiple things to multiple people, and the membership representative board says, "oh, hang on, it's not like Boise State has been to the Access Bowl three times and turned in two Giant-Killer performances ... how about we go for an ambit claim of after this deal we are talking about, the bonus system is scratched. By that time the fading of Boise State's extra brand value will be complete."
And Boise State objects, and Boise State is voted down, and so Boise State files suit, and so we end up in between the two ambit claims ... the current bonus is in place, but it is proportionally a much smaller increment to the base distribution than it was before.
Because there really isn't a firm offer of "we'll pay someone more than they are paying you" standing behind a Help Wanted sign across the street ...
... Boise State might have a spot available in the AAC, but a spot at an FB-only affiliate fraction of one full distribution, and even if that is more than the MWC is paying, they'd likely have to spend that and more in travel subsidies if they wanted to talk the Big West into reviving the old deal ... and even at that, the Big West might say "no", leaving their Basketball and Olympic Sports in the island of misfit toys aka the WAC.
So rather than negotiating in a negotiating range, we have a corner solution, where the majority of the MWC recognize that Boise State probably CAN legally enforce their existing bonus, so let them have their existing bonus and keep their powder dry for a fight at the end of the current contract ... when it's possible that Boise State's leverage is greater, it's possible that it's weaker, and it's possible that intervening conference realignment has resolved the issue by plucking Boise State out of the MWC.