I need to see the details of the "West Indies Compensation Structure 2014 2018 in particular, the subsection on ICC events.
This would help clarify whether the players' assertion that there have been significant reductions to the pay is in fact correct or not factual.
Over to you PR personnel at the WICB, WIPA or the dissatisfied players.
BTW, I have been attempting to get the document quoted above which seems to be a cloaked with a veil of secrecy.
Message Board Archives
To help clear my mind on this ugly impasse.
I have to say this though: In Industrial Relations, which Independent Contractor accepts such substantial reductions in pay?
This is a no-no in IR.
If this new measure (pay structure) is to be implemented, it certainly should not apply to existing Independent Contractors.
In that regard, the WICB's decision to impose the new structure on players who appear to have earned substantially more last time around is crass.
WICB you had better compromise on this one.
Softhead, you had better come better than this foolishness you are asserting.
In any event, the WICB should have known that the proposed new payment structure was at least no acceptable to Dwayne Bravo.
Dwayne made it pellucidly clear to the media as to why he was not considering any offers to pay test cricket.
In reply to Courtesy
Independent contractor? Which union would accept it?
Wavell Hinds should be able to address the reasoning behind this
In reply to imusic
This is really the crux of the matter. The players are not members WIPA and as such WIPA and the WICB should have proceeded along another path of negotiations where those players are concerned.
There can be no collective bargaining on behalf of such players.
WIPA and the WICB ought to have known this.
In reply to Courtesy
Sounds like a revenge play from Cameron and his board after so often left holding the short stick regarding arbitration decisions in the past.
In reply to Courtesy
Well I suspect we will never publicly find what you are looking for. My guess is you have privately found what you are looking for.
A relevant except from a letter sent to the President of WIPA during the Indian tour debacle signed by Mr. Dwayne Bravo on behalf of players.
Thank you for your letter dated October 8th in response to our letters sent to you between October 3rd to October 8th 2014.
....In light of the above, it should be no surprise to you that we have lost all confidence in you and the WIPA Board and we reiterate that you are no longer authorize to represent us in any matter whatsoever. This decision has been conveyed to the President and the CEO of the WICB. Please note that we intend to address the other inaccuracies and any misrepresentations in your letter of October 8th 2014. We reserve all rights...
Repeat:
"This decision has been conveyed to the President and the CEO of the WICB".
Is this not clear to the WICB and WIPA?
In reply to imusic
Di reasoning is very simple - call it di K cabal owned by hell
In reply to nick2020
Not this time Nick. I have tried in vain but other persons are now attempting to get it for me.
In reply to Courtesy
What is think is mystifying is the WICB giving contracts to players that are not unionized if they only negotiate with the union in contract matters. Seems like something needs to change.
Breaking News: A new replacement team has been selected and is on standby.
What a cock's nest.
In reply to Courtesy
time for DD and his cabal to go?
In reply to sudden
It appears that they have stymied the process to vanquish their positions.
They are exhibiting renewed bravado...but "bearlike we must fight the course".
Same letter:
In reply to Courtesy
what a blighted bunch.
In reply to Courtesy
This is the group that Chrissy ushered in with a celebratory dance.
In reply to nick2020
In fairness to Chrissy, while she expressed orgasmic pleasure (if this is at all possible from Chrissy) in seeing the backs of HHG&S, she did express strong reservations about their replacements.
In reply to Courtesy
Looks like the Prof only look at one side of the coin?
In reply to Courtesy
If that was Poker she celebrated exchanging an 8 only to be dealt a deuce.
Hope she can bluff her way out of the hand.
In reply to nick2020
...or the hatred for HHG&S clouded any objectivity to such an extent that she chose any port for a storm.
But let's not stray.
In reply to Courtesy
Well I would hope the WICB followed this document that you are looking for.
Hopefully they did not misplace the document.
In reply to nick2020
IMHO, the WICB should make public the document or at least the section on compensation for ICC events.
The WICB would still have the hurdle mind you, of explaining why it of applied the WIPA/WICB negotiated pay deal to a group of independent contractors who are claiming that they enjoyed more lucrative contracts for ICC events.
In reply to Courtesy
Whomever claiming they lost all confidence in the WIPA board, why they don't decertify the union. Call a meeting and vote out the union head. Dissolve the board. They should have done that a year ago. At least have that dialogue with the other 95% of the union and put it to a vote. If they lost, then you move to the next step.
Instead they all went and play their 20/20 all over the world and earn their millions. Was either disinterested or never bothered to follow the arbitration proceedings. Now when it's time to play for WI despite (if what is stated is true)having the contract or being aware for more than a year its now an issue-again. With the same statements being made about the union, despite having the power to fix the union situation, instead they have opted out.
If anything else this shows the disparity between the domestic player and those who have the opportunity to play outside the region. Cuz they would benefit from their lucrative 20/20 contracts and still return to reap the lions share of the ICC event, while local players starving. I don't think that's sustainable if you want to improve WI cricket.
In reply to carl0002
There can be no collective bargaining on behalf of such players.
WIPA and the WICB ought to have known this.
Your expert opinion on the above please.
Point hasn't shown up?! probably still having tea!
In reply to BeatDball
I honestly wish he would not show up here.
Let him go elsewhere please.
In reply to Courtesy Now, now, now....lets extend some courtesy n politeness towards Point!
In reply to BeatDball
I am sorry if I was not polite...let me be as courteous as possible:
Mr. Spammer, I will appreciate if you will leave this thread spam free.
How's dat?
In reply to Courtesy
Think Cleg, Jacksprat and Co can locate the documents?
In reply to Courtesy
I am no lawyer, however in the workplace I have the right to opt out of the union if I so desire. I still enjoy the benefits as any paying union member but not its protection as a regular union member.
In the presence of a collective bargaining agreement, which you have opted out, the organization is not obligated to negotiate outside of what the group, who number more than I, agree on. So I am not sure what this other path of which they speak. Its nice to write about another path without stating what it could/should be. But there is no other path, as the other path would render the collective agreement useless.
The players when they had the flawed MOU in their favor, used it to their full advantage. They could have choose that "other path" but they did not. Why?
What I am sure is that you cant opt out of the union then claim that last year your pay was 135k and this year its 31k, well sorry. If I am dissatisfied with the agreement, I need to either decertify my union or vote out its leadership.
In reply to carl0002
good question. why did this come to a head right about when the tournament about to start? maybe the timing is right for the players
In reply to sudden
Men call an emergency meeting.
Travis Dowlin and Dale Richards get match kits via DHL.
In reply to carl0002
In the presence of a collective bargaining agreement, which you have opted out, the organization is not obligated to negotiate outside of what the group, who number more than I, agree on. So I am not sure what this other path of which they speak. Its nice to write about another path without stating what it could/should be. But there is no other path, as the other path would render the collective agreement useless.
The players when they had the flawed MOU in their favor, used it to their full advantage. They could have choosen that o"ther path" but they did not. Why?
With all due respect...normally where you are governed by a country's labour laws the members who opt out of WIPA would have to be decertified.
In this particular case, WIPA/WICB/Players, there is no avenue for decertification. However the players wrote to WICB and WIPA indicating that they are no longer members of WIPA and as such cannot bargain on their behalf.
Also, in such a situation there needs to be sufficient proof that the players who attended the negotiations had the endorsement of the players.
I can only hope that the WICB has sufficient proof that the four players who attended were authorized to represent the group of fourteen.
Let the WICB throw some light on this then the argument can continue.
In reply to sudden
If Muirhead is correct that they had it for a year, then it would seem that its the players who trying a thing now. But who knows if that is even true.
In reply to Courtesy
Well I am not sure what you mean by "the members who opt out of WIPA would have to be decertified" Not sure how you or even if there is such a thing as decertifying members. So explain that.
If you have unions there should be a process to decertify them so i don't understand that either. In most cases you need a minimum of 30% of members to declare a no confidence in the union representation to begin decertification proceedings. Well the international players may a=have a little trouble getting the 30%.
So this is the most ridiculous statement of it all. As I said while if you opt out of the union you enjoy all the benefits of the collective agreement, you enjoy no protection.
So in essence they are right, WIPA cant bargain for them cuz they left the protection of the union. But the organization has no obligation to bargain with you as you are on your own and only contract law can save you at that point. You either take it or leave it.
Anyway I am no lawyer so you may need to ask someone else for a better response on that.
Me not sure bout that one either. One man, one vote. Unless you can vote by proxy. Either way a certain percentage of the membership has to vote for it to pass. That vote is the proof. Not that Bravo agrees. Perhaps I should have asked what negotiations r u talking about.
In reply to carl0002
If you don't understand decertification of union members forget it.
In reply to Courtesy
I'm no lawyer either but I'm following what Carl0002 is saying
and.... to me it making sense
In reply to Courtesy
I am not familiar with the decertification of a union member. Sorry, Maybe there is another term that is used for such a thing.
In reply to Cuter
In most Caribbean jurisdictions if a group of persons being members of a union are unhappy with their union represention and want to opt out and have another union, individual or another body represent them they need to be decertified from their union by the Labour Commissioner.
In the case of a regional body like WIPA this is impractical...so the letter signed by the players wishing to opt out of WIPA should suffice. They then become independent contractors or they may wish to stay as a group and be represented by the another party.
In reply to Courtesy
But that dont make sense if a member get himself decertified from the union, how will he then be able to initiate decertification proceedings against the union and he is no longer a member
In reply to carl0002
The group wishing to opt out of a union sends a letter to their union stating that they no longer wish to pay their union dues and do not wish to be represented by the union but this in itself is not complete. They need to be decertified if they want another body to represent them.
If they are not decertified they cannot be legally represented by another body. The decertification is proof that they are no longer members represented by that union.
The Labour Commissioner oversees the decertification process.
The scenario above is new territory without the involvement of a Labour Commissioner because of the WICB and WIPA being regional bodies and without the supervision and involvement of a Labour Commissioner...can WIPA continue to be the sole bargaining body in a scenario like this?
How does the letter sent by the affected players to WIPA and the WICB terminating membership of WIPA play in the scheme of things.
Can someone help me out here with an answer? What obligation does the WICB has in hiring the Sammy, Bravo, Gayle et al of this world?
Can a techie demand a job from Google?
In reply to XDFIX
None whatsoever. You don't sign the contract you don't have a job.
This is why Softhead can say with much heavy pounding on his chest "I am a big fish long tail, take it or leave it".
In reply to Courtesy
Ok, thank you, so I don't see y the huffing and puffing!
Guys don't want to sign the contract - move on!
In reply to XDFIX
Guys don't want to sign the contract - move on!
If that's what you get of the issues discussed on this thread. Sorry.
In reply to Courtesy
In reply to XDFIX
Agreed. Don't sign the contracts and let WICB make the next move.
Wavell bunker down in WIPA and Dave same at WICB both ignoring calls for them to go.
This may be the straw that forces Caricom to stop the talk and act re the governance of WI cricket.
In reply to rubberd
In God we Trust that this bunch of WICB need to go.
In reply to moneybrain
It's all clear now.
Dear Leader $ammy folded.
The WICB and its current administration continue their existance.
In reply to Courtesy
ink done dry
wah the chubble now?
In reply to doosra
Anti-climax.
In reply to Drapsey
let's try a few puns
courtesy come too quick
courtesy a come
In reply to doosra
Much ado about nothing.
In reply to Drapsey
The players were flying a kite
They did not have a case
Kindly note that the terms on offer were negotiated and agreed between WICB and WIPA with the assistance of representatives from the ICC and FICA (International Cricketers Association) during a mediation process last year, and all parties agreed that they were fair and equitable and acceptable to be offered to the members WI team selected for the relevant ICC event.
In reply to XDFIX
They did not have a case
My big disappointment here is in the Dear Leader $ammy, who seemingly finally earned the adulation of the messageboard's masses (if not that of the entire cricketing world), only to turn around and belly-flop.
Who knows, he might just lead his troops on a kite flying exercise during the WC opening ceremonies. After all, he has experience.
This thread needs a bump
Comrade LL wha ah gwanne
Dem man sign up!!! .Di maximum leeda on di retreat?
In reply to ponderiver
There was no impasse?
The cake is a lie.
In reply to nick2020
Yuh think??
In reply to ponderiver
I am pretty OK, Dr. Shit.
In reply to Courtesy
The harsh reality is this has not gone away. Just gone silent.
In reply to Courtesy
If the players play poorly on purpose...
In reply to nick2020
They play commensurate with their pay.
Or in proportion to what they receive in other leagues.
Well, I suppose...
In reply to Courtesy
That would be the justification.
In reply to Courtesy
Will someone please help me! Did WIPA not get a tribunal to compel WICB to recognise it? If that is so WIBC has no discretion in matters dealing with players
Search
Live Scores
- no matches