Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Stirred, Not Shaken

Wow! This has been quite the exchange for a still-green blog like ours. I’m excited that seasoned blog vets and busy people like Michael McCann and True Hoop’s Henry Abbott took the time to respond. It’s great when basketball fans move outside the box, and box scores, to discuss meaningful issues that fall below the usual hardwood radar. To me, our conversation thrills more than any regular “who’s-the-next-Jordan” debate, and I’m thankful the Internets act like techno-bartenders and help to facilitate our discussion in arenas beyond where the usual debates are confined. In the spirit of bartenders, I’d like to clink glasses again and continue our conversation by offering a response to the responses. Call it a meta-response on player autonomy but don’t try whistling at the same time.

I want to begin with the last point McCann makes, mostly because True Hoop also took issue with it. Both disagree with the following comment I made in my review of McCann’s article: “I find it off-putting to employ the discourse of labor rights in a conversation about multi-million dollar athletes. I prefer to save the efficacy of that language for underpaid blue-collar laborers, undocumented immigrants, and sex workers—just to name a few.”

True Hoop responds by writing, “There is not a rate of pay that makes exploitation OK. Wrong is wrong, and if it's wrong for an employer to test an employee's DNA, then it's wrong for the Bulls to test Eddy Curry's DNA, right?”

Well, sort of. I agree that exploitation is exploitation no matter which way the cheese is dealt. And I’m wrong to suggest that articulations of labor rights should be saved only for certain workers—as though labor rights were somehow like oil and in danger of running out if used too extravagantly.

That said, I also believe exploitation takes many different forms, and it doesn’t always mean the same thing. Exploitation, like autonomy, is situational, I suppose. For example, if my boss demanded I drop and give him twenty, I’d phone the EEOC; Eddy Curry probably wouldn’t. If my boss demanded celibacy, I’d cry foul; for others, celibacy is merely the flipside of living closer to God.

Which is all to say, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to test Curry’s DNA just because it’s wrong to test the DNA of telemarketers or cabbies or cat-sitters. The distinction here is the crux of McCann’s argument about the dress code, right? It’s why some in the sports world petition to wear suits and others protest them.

McCann responds to my point about labor rights by writing, “You are basically saying that the fact that these guys make a lot of money means their autonomy is not really a concern for you. Aren’t they still people or do they somehow become less human because they make a lot of money?”

Definitely still people, Professor—on that much, we agree.

In fact, I agree with you on the other point as well: the autonomy of NBA players isn’t really a concern for me. Luckily for them, it doesn’t have to be. The millions they make means they have access to resources most of us do not. These resources include lawyers, justice advocates, foundations, academics, Al Sharpton, the mainstream media—you name it.

What bothers me is that those folks most in danger of being exploited (e.g., blue-collar laborers, undocumented immigrants, sex workers, etc.) are also the people who lack the resources to prevent their exploitation. They don’t even have assistant coaches or trainers or ball boys, let alone legal counsel. That’s the reason why I think it’s socially irresponsible to discuss the labor rights of multi-million dollar athletes without considering the human rights of people on minimum wage.

McCann also asks, “is it their wealth as much as who they are that bothers you: would you feel the same way about Bill Gates as you do about Allen Iverson?”

Yes, I do feel the same way about Bill Gates—billions of times more so, in fact. That much wealth in the hands of one person, whether Paul Allen or Malik Allen, irritates me to no end. Frankly, I’m surprised you don’t agree with me.

The autonomy of all of us is eroded when wealth is distributed unequally, Professor, especially in a country where health care is directly tied to how much money you make. Fixing the problem is structural (which is why Gates and the NBA can donate so much cash and so many sneakers, and still dissatisfy me), of course, but it also demands that Gates and Iverson take pay-cuts.

Next time you’re in Los Angeles, Professor, take a ride by the old Forum in Inglewood. Don’t you think there are material connections between the spectacular economy of the Showtime Lakers and Inglewood’s economy of unemployment and blight? My man Magic knows this. Cassius realized and became Muhammad. Even Iverson has come to understand.

As much as I root for the Lakers, I save my advocacy for those who don’t play under lights. You dig?

McCann also corrects me by saying that his statistics were verified by the dudes in suits at ESPN. Fair enough. I care more about the stats of my fantasy basketball team anyway.

As for McCann’s definition of the term “autonomy,” well, it still remains hazy (or “amorphous,” as McCann puts it). I suppose it has to for his argument to have traction.

McCann cites another example of the erosion of player autonomy in his response: the rookie draft. To be fair, I’ll quote the paragraph in full before I respond: “First off, consider that some would argue the draft itself is an infringement on player autonomy. Players have to play for a particular team in a particular city, neither of which they may like, and the only alternative would be to play minor league hoops or play in Europe; it’s like being a law student at UCLA and planning to practice in L.A., but then there is a law firm draft and you get picked by a law firm in Bismarck North Dakota, and have to stay there for at least four years or you can’t practice law in the U.S. (or at least practice law in the U.S. without having to give up 95% of your salary). For related commentary on this, check out Alan Milstein’s post Reggie Bush Sweepstakes from last December.”

If I follow his point correctly, the fact some players call Staples home while others are forced to live near Charlotte is proof the players are losing their autonomy. Dude, you stagger me.

Many high-profile jobs require that employees live in certain areas. For instance, if a college student from Bismarck really wants to work in publishing, he’ll probably have to say goodbye Dakota, hello New York. That’s the breaks. Part of choosing a profession requires decisions like these. I’m guessing most ballers decide early on that the perks of cheerleaders and paychecks outweigh the bummers of relocation. Autonomy has nothing to do with it.

When we choose career paths, we also make decisions about the desirability of the lifestyle (sorry, I hate that word too) that comes with the job. That’s why not everyone with charisma and smarts wants to be a law professor. And not everyone with size wants to be a bodyguard or a cop.

Ideally, I suppose, we’d all have our choice of profession, region, dress code, wage, and qualifications. It kind of just seems like that’s not really possible, no? And if it is, Scalabrine’s contract probably isn’t moving us any closer, right? Might even be setting us back.

McCann’s argument about the erosion of autonomy implies that all social contracts reduce the autonomy of those who enter into them. McCann would have us believe that signing million-dollar deals doesn’t realize or empower player autonomy but erodes it. I find that difficult to believe. Just as Ben Wallace knew about Skiles’s rules before he signed with the Bulls, athletes know about Stern’s when they declare their dreams.

Yes, Marcus Camby might hate wearing a suit, and sure, he didn’t bargain for it when he picked up the ball long ago. But, wearing a suit to work doesn’t mean he’s up against the Leviathan—especially with $9.3 mil in his double-breasted pockets.

Question: How many sweatbands must an NBA athlete buy before he goes bankrupt?
Answer: I’m more concerned with the people in sweatshops making all of those sweatbands.

Aren’t you?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tragic-

You're really upset that some people are rich and others aren't? (I'm an NBA blogger, and should not touch one of the most expansive of all topics with a ten foot pole. But I'm a sucker for a good discussion, so...)

I'm upset that some people are taller than others, too. If I were a foot and a a half taller, I'd be the white Yao Ming.

Life is short, and compared to Yao Ming, so am I. I believe that if you want to do the most possible to help the most needy, the best thing is not to waste time and precious emotional energy pissed off at rich people. More effective, I believe, to figure out what it would take--education, better medical care, freedom from violence and drugs, an end to prejudice, whatever it is-- to maximize the likelihood of everyone achieving their maximum potential. In many cases, this would undoubtedly mean becoming rich! In terms of money, friends, family, and everything else.

It's not the worst system out there, that's for sure. One of its features is that demanding rich people, with those lawyers you mentioned, can serve an important role for all Americans by establishing standards.

In terms of the DNA test--if you're an autoworker who doesn't want to be DNA tested, the best possible thing that can happen to you is that a deep-pocketed celebrity like Eddy Curry fights it out in the courts and sets the legal precedent that establishes employees can not be treated that way. That way you can do test free with a legal bill of zero.

The same thing happens in medicine all the time, where, essentially, big budgets in some parts of the system establish a high standard of care that is then extended to all patients.

Similarly, rich people are paying big prices to establish markets for stuff like solar energy and hybrid cars that benefit everyone with cleaner air and the like.

And on another point, you dismiss the notion that the NBA draft deprives players basic kinds of autonomy bu writing:

"Many high-profile jobs require that employees live in certain areas. For instance, if a college student from Bismarck really wants to work in publishing, he’ll probably have to say goodbye Dakota, hello New York. That’s the breaks. Part of choosing a profession requires decisions like these."

Now imagine every big-budget publishing company in North America banded together and agreed to share employees. And they spread out across the nation. And then they started trading employees, willy nilly, from city to city. And told them what to wear every day. And fined them or sent them home if they used foul language. And published the negative results of employee drug tests. And on and on and on.

I'm not saying all those publishing employees, with those fat publishing industry salaries (ok, this is the weak part of my analogy) would all be at the top of my list of people to worry about, but that doesn't mean it would be inappropriate, or in any way an affront to the impoverished, for a lawyer or two to take up their cause.

Tragic Johnson said...

Thanks for the comments,Henry. I'm a sucker for a good discussion as well.

"if you're an autoworker who doesn't want to be DNA tested, the best possible thing that can happen to you is that a deep-pocketed celebrity like Eddy Curry fights it out in the courts and sets the legal precedent that establishes employees can not be treated that way. That way you can do test free with a legal bill of zero."

Hmmm. This is the "best possible thing" that can happen to the autoworker? Seems to smack of the same paternalistic alley that makes the dress code so problematic, doesn't it? The best thing that can happen to low-income people is that their lives are made better by basketball players?

That doesn't seem like a system running smoothly to me.

What if the attorneys deep-pocketed celebrities like Eddy Curry can afford chose to litigate on behalf of the autoworker? Wouldn't that be an even better "possible thing"?

That's part of the reason I think it's socially irresponsible for an attorney like McCann to devote his time to the autonomy of Curry and not the autoworker.

I don't even think the legal system necessarily works in the trickle-down fashion you describe. Jane Roe wasn't exactly selling out Madison Square Garden when she altered the course of women's rights in the '70s.

"Similarly, rich people are paying big prices to establish markets for stuff like solar energy and hybrid cars that benefit everyone with cleaner air and the like."

Pity the sacrifices rich people must make for the good of the world. They go to such great lengths to open up markets in the Amazon for hybrid cars and to build solar-powered houses on the banks of the Ganges.

C'mon, man, think outside the parameters of the peso. The world doesn't have to spin from the movement of capital. The fact it does only goes to show how the autonomy of the few is tilled on the backs of the many. Let's imagine otherwise and work for it. I'll prepare a bibliography and get back to you.

"Now imagine every big-budget publishing company in North America banded together and agreed to share employees. And they spread out across the nation. And then they started trading employees, willy nilly, from city to city. And told them what to wear every day. And fined them or sent them home if they used foul language. And published the negative results of employee drug tests. And on and on and on."

Not too difficult to imagine this; most major publishing companies in the States are already subsidiary groups of larger media corporations in Europe.

Furthermore, nobody in the NBA is getting traded "willy nilly," as you put it. I don't even think anybody has been dealt this season. And even if they were, that seems like one of the terms and conditions of playing in the NBA. Farmers live in one place; the guys in tank-tops don't.

As for the demands of attire and decorous language, show me the professions that don't have similar requirements of their employees. I can't imagine showing up to work at Vintage in a Donovan McNabb jersey, Chuck Taylors, and jeans--let alone dropping four letter words when my boss makes me revise a spreadsheet.

ChrisH said...

i think you should get together with basketball jones, and this guy http://dwil.wordpress.com, Along with Mccalum himself and have a online discussion. so far you've written some of the smartest analysis and it would be great to hear the whole thing fleshed out by clear headed writing instead of the usual overly emotional take.

ChrisH said...

sorry, Mccann, not mccalum

Anonymous said...

Good discussion. While the money involved does skew things, some of the things the NBA is doing are shaky labor practices. The age limit is a major one and I think it's only a matter of time before someone sues the NBA.

I think what's at the heart of the matter is dehumanizing athletes. Shut up, produce and obey. Having served in the Army, I know firsthand about sacrificing autonomy for one's profession. However if someone fails a drug test in the army it isn't published in the media, the same media which make the players stars. Changes to the dress code (AR 670-1) aren't imposed, there is an approval process and there is an adjustment period. Changes to equipment require testing and approval. The same thing goes for adjustments in protocol.

The NBA is the same as any business and the way they treat their employees sets a precedent. Their wages shouldn't blur that fact. Plus most of these people aren't rich before pro sports so I see no need to hold any animosity toward them. I know tons of musicians and music fans who are shocked by the treatment of artists by record labels. Sure some people get crazy paid but those who struggle without health insurance, who get ripped off on royalties and who have to tour incessantly say more about the entire system than the big wages.

When someone specializes in a particular field, they shouldn't be criticized when they feel they are being treated unfairly. This is their livelihood and they have a right to protect it. One last point, on the draft. The draft is screwed up if you compare it to a parallel situation in baseball. Look at the Japanese pitchers who are coming over and teams are paying just to talk to them. A college player is not given to the same opportunity to accept offers for his services. Then if players express displeasure with their destination, they are smeared in the media. That doesn't happen in any other industry. Being well paid doesn't mean you should have to accept things other American workers don't.

Tragic Johnson said...

Maha10k, your points are well said and well received. Thank you for the comments.

I need to think and read more about the drug testing issue. Although in principle I don't think testing results ought to be published in the media, I'm tempted to think there's more that might be said on that point.

I should also say that I direct no animosity at the players of the NBA. I watch as many games as anyone else, root like anyone else, talk talent like anyone else, etc. If I held animosity for the players, I'd stop watching.

I think basketball reflects American culture at a microcosmic scale--kind of like the Aleph in Borges's story. As a result, my animosity is directed at a culture that pays its gamers and not its teachers, its point guards and not its janitors. That's all I'm saying.

Anonymous said...

Tragic:

You're correct that McCann ignores the fact that players voluntarily choose to work in a profession that is monopolized by an entity with the power - subject to collective bargaining - to enact regulations like the dress code. As I noted in my comment to his post, when examined at this level of generality, there is no autonomy loss for the players.

(Note also a similar issue to the NBA's dress code: young Muslim women wearing the veil. Some would argue that preventing young women from wearing the veil is an infringement of their autonomy. But a higher level of generality, one can argue that they've never made an autonomous choice to wear the veil because their either forced to wear it by their parents or indoctrinated into believing that wearing the veil is proper without having an opportunity to hear counterarguments. Which level of generality is the correct one?)

Perhaps more interesting is your comment about the psychic costs of wealth inequality. As you note, large wealth imbalances irritate you. Most economists, however, would say that you shouldn't be bothered about wealth inequality per se, rather what's important is only whether your absolute (rather than relative) standard of living is increasing. But this argument ignores one of the real costs associated with wealth inequality, namely the anger people feel about it.

Ignoring these types of costs is common in other areas as well. For instance, J.S. Mill's defense of free speech in On Liberty implicity denies the psychic costs that free speech imposes, namely that what you say can really annoy others, which is costly to them.

McCann's autonomy argument makes a similar assumption about costs. He argues that what an NBA player wears is "costless" to the rest of society, therefore, regulating dress is an unreasonable invasion of the player's autonomy. But there are costs here, such as when parents want their child to dress a certain way and the child refuses, choosing instead to dress like Allen Iverson. (Query: how does McCann's autonomy argument apply to the child's choice of clothing?) Thus, there are real costs associated with the players' activity, but you only have a slamdunk argument from autonomy if you ignore them.

Anonymous said...

Tragic

I was putting out the animosity comment because the money the players make often skews the conversation away from the issue of labor practices. I think your points are well developed. I tend to agree with you but I like to stir up a good discussion too. One thing that gets me is seeing players all iced out with diamond studded jewelry when more than likely someone in Africa has died to bring it to them. Don't get me started on the shoe game.

A friend (of course his website is long gone) wrote a nice paper where he calculated a true wage for the services teachers, saints, mothers, etc offered to society. The people who offer us the most, we take for granted. I think what the crazy wages in sports say about our society is that we're complicit to say "good for them." Jim Carrey makes $20 million a movie, good for him. Then we wonder why we're shelling out $9.50 at the multiplex. Kevin Garnett $125 million, good for him. Can't afford to take my family to the game anymore. I'll watch on TV. So I sit in front of the TV for 2.5 hours three night a week and get bombarded by Bud Light, McDonalds and 'This Is Our Country.' We say good for them, but we pay those wages either with our butts in seats or with our advertising prone eyes.

If Harvard was an exclusive high definition satellite station and all the professors wore Nikes, gave lectures that couldn't be reproduced without the express written consent... and drank Powerade between their verbose and convoluted speaking points, teachers would be banking.

I'll keep reading your stuff, I like it.

Tragic Johnson said...

PK: "Level of generality"? I could spend the rest of my life on Atkins and still not train myself to understand that phrase. It sounds almost mystical--as though Buddha had to penetrate several "levels of generality" before reaching Nirvana.

As far as your point about psychic costs, I prefer to discuss these things in terms of morality. I save my psychic costs for the couch. Know what I mean?