Posts
814
Joined
2/7/2009
Location
Middletown, NY
US
Edited Date/Time
1/26/2012 9:10pm
Is there any truth to that ? The riders are not allowed to form a rider's union, if they do, the AMA has the right to yank their pro license ? Villopoto touched on it in his transworld interview......what's the deal ?
http://motocross.transworld.net/1000095593/features/catching-up-withrya…
http://motocross.transworld.net/1000095593/features/catching-up-withrya…
That would only remove the option of "witholding of services" in the equation.
That doesn't exactly stop the riders from forming an association.
The Shop
concerted activity meant to stop, delay or otherwise inhibit
the start or completion of any portion of an AMA
Supercross an FIM World Championship event
Thats all I can really find on the matter, I totally agree, fuck them and their rules, I think this is what the riders are referring to when they say "we all must be on the same page" what is the AMA or FIM really going to do...hold a novice class national ??
If the withdrawal of services is the only mechanism anybody sees as "the hammer", then there is a problem. Even the biggest of the big "unions" have learned that the "strike" or "walkout" has lost a lot of the magic it once held. The consequences are imponderable. There are better ways to resolve conflicts.
I hope they continue to study the 21st century options at their disposal. If it's all about safety, there is a LOT of latitude.
Not the best choice.
Something like a Rider Safety Organization is better.
AMA Rulebook does state that they reserve the right to revoke the license of, disqualify or suspend any rider or group that tries to delay or halt an event.
Remember, AMA is a MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION, you agree to the rules by signing the application.
If you form a union, who is the employer? Riders are typically independent contractors and technically self-employed. AMA is not an employer, nor is Feld, nor is MX Sports. They provide a venue for your contractor (your team) to let you race. They're not the employer.
So, how do you form a union against people where you agree to follow their rules and are not your employers?
As for those of you who say "Screw 'em, if everyone walks, there's no show," you're wrong and the Las Vegas race proves it...someone will always race, for either the fame or money, but someone will race. The privateer who would never have a shot at big money, will race.
This is part of the problem with the whole thing....the "haves" and the "have nots"
Others may know more about his case than I do but he didn't have any luck with a riders union.
It sounds like they are talking about a riders representative committe to have a say in track layout and safety. That seems reasonable. Maybe every year or two have like 5 veteran riders volunteer or have top 50 AMA numbers vote for 5 reps? It would be a responsibility for the riders and hopefully a privilage?
Pit Row
Professional Motocross Racing Association.
Run by riders, team managers, etc.
No more AMA!
Big purses!
Sweet venues!
Make it better for riders, manufacturers, fans, tracks.
Keep all the money 'within'.
Goodbye AMA and FIM!
If Chad Reed can put together a SX series in Australia ... couldn't it work here?
to hell with the AMA
Dave Sadowski tried to form a riders union in the early '90's in US road racing. He asked for $10 per individual to become a member. He got about 30 riders and about the same number of corner workers to join.
It was far from successful.
If it is going to be called a Union, someone better have some deep pockets when litigation enters the show.
I dont get it. Whats the problem with a union? its not like it is the first sport in th US to have a union/Association.... every other major sport in the us has it......NFLPA, NHLPA, MLBPA
Whether or not it is technically a 'union', an 'association', or a social club that meets in the middle of a field or on the internet is not important. Whether or not the AMA has a rule, is an employer or not, etc, is not important. Who the riders work for is not important. What *is* important is establishing leverage and bargaining power and then using that leverage to advance a safety agenda. And that *could be* ridiculously easy to do if the right people lead it and they force the focus away from those distractions and squarely onto making change happen.
Why easy? It's a win-win-win.
The promoters are putting on a show. The "AMA", especially with its diminished role, only has that role if there is a show. There can be no show without the performers. The sponsors are advertising products. They invest in the performers to represent those products. Again, no performer, no return on the advertising dollar.
A walkout or sickout or whatever is probably not necessary, but would only highlight the very problem the riders are trying to address: What happens when you don't have any performers? Injuries are taking more and more performers out of the shows every year. Every single rider that goes down represents a fan base that won't attend and products that won't be advertised. In other words it's in EVERY stakeholder's interest to take whatever steps they can to keep the performers on the stage.
The pattern has been repeated in a number of corners of motor sport, usually more privately than out in the open. This is what happened to advance the development and installation of SAFER barriers in 4 wheel racing. Same thing with restrictor plates, shorter 1/4 miles, etc. It ALWAYS starts with the performers.
Like anything, there will be people for it and against it. But few would argue that safety advancements made in other forms of racing hurt their associations in the long run.
Post a reply to: Rider's union a no no ?