Major league baseball and their players union recently announced that the practice known as the “Ramirez Provision“, because of a clause in the LA Dodgers’ contract with Manny Ramirez, is no more. What the Ramirez Provision stated was that a player was contractually required to donate a certain amount to the ball club’s charities and apparently 20 other Major League teams had similar contract language with as many as 109 players.
As part of the $45-million contract he signed in March, Manny Ramirez agreed to donate $1 million to the Dodgers’ charitable foundation.
Owner Frank McCourt said he would implement the “Ramirez Provision,” asking players to make a donation in an amount of their choosing as part of all future Dodgers contracts.
Putting aside for the moment the absolute ridiculousness of employers wanting to contractually obligate their employees to donate to charities not necessarily of their choosing, the fact that the players union now considers that this issue is closed is almost as bad. Why is their “resolution” to this still considered bad in my opinion?
In one sentence You hear this:
The Dodgers — and all other major league teams — cannot mandate that a player donate to club charities as part of his contract, the commissioner’s office and players’ union have agreed.
Ok, so far so good. But then shortly thereafter you have this: (emphasis mine)
Under the settlement agreement, which resolves the grievance, clubs can demand such donations from players signing as free agents or signing long-term contracts that buy out one or more years of free agency, according to a management official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the agreement has not been officially announced.
Am I missing something here? So no longer making short term contracted players donate while making long term signee’s still do so is a good thing? Is it really charity if one is forced to give or is it just a tactic designed to make the team owner look more charitable at the expense of his employees?
I’m voting for the latter.