3 ways the lockout was different than the 1994 strike for the Chicago White Sox

Reason 2: The Chicago White Sox players did not walk off the job this time around.

The players in 1994 feared the owners would try to impose a salary cap. On August 12th, 1994, the players walked off the job. That led to a bitter labor fight. The players came across as greedy and the villains in that labor dispute.

This lockout was imposed by the owners.

The owners said it was a defensive lockout after the collective bargaining agreement expired but the players never threatened to strike. The lockout was meant to get the players to bend the owners every demand.

It did not even need to come to this.

The players made reasonable demands. They wanted the owners to…

1. Raise the competitive balance tax threshold as the owner keep using that as a de-facto salary cap.
2. Raise the league minimum pay.
3. Stop service time manipulation.
4. Have a bonus pool for pre-arbitration players.
5. Stop owners from tanking to get better draft picks, or use tanking as a reason to save money rather than spend it to field a competitive team.
6. Universal designated hitter.

It looks like the players mostly got what they wanted.

In this labor dispute, the owners were clearly the greedy ones . The owners are enjoying record revenues and profits but were trying to claim a need for more funds.

The owner kept citing the losses of the 2020 season as if they were the only industry to lose money during the pandemic.

Plus, the 1994 strike was caused in part because the owners kept trying to find ways to control players’ salaries. The owners were found to be in collusion in the 1980s for trying to keep players salaries down.

These labor issues have always been caused because the owners create distrust with the players. It comes to a head and there is a major blow up. This time the players did not walk off the job and let the owners be the evil actors.