HERNDON, Va. -- Union and management bargaining teams met for about three hours yesterday to discuss ownership's latest contract proposal, but again there was no real movement toward a settlement in baseball's protracted labor dispute.
The meeting was another question-and-answer session in which union officials tried to get a complete grasp of the complicated 102-page taxation proposal that the owners presented Thursday. The talks will resume today at the Dulles Airport Hyatt Regency Hotel.
"It's a process of attempting to evaluate the proposal, raise ideas and understand the import of what they have proposed," said Major League Baseball Players Association director Donald Fehr. There is a lot of work to do, and unfortunately, this is one of those times when there isn't really a lot to say."
The plan proposed by the owners would levy progressive financial penalties on clubs that exceed a negotiated salary limit -- in this case, the average payroll of the 28 clubs. According to a report in the New York Times, clubs exceeding the soft ceiling would pay 1 percent of their total payroll for every $500,000 over the limit, with the tax accelerating to 1 percent for every $250,000 after the overage reaches $5 million.
The players have reserved judgment, but the initial numbers might be even more restrictive than the salary cap proposal that the owners started with. If it had been in effect last season, it would have cost the team with the highest payroll -- the New York Yankees -- about $20 million.
"It's obvious that they are punitive rates," said union general counsel Gene Orza. "The numbers will not fly, but the question is whether there is a system there that will allow for future talks."
The owners would like to think so. The proposal was a response to a union taxation plan that was presented in early September, but that plan called for a very small tax (1.6 percent) on both payrolls and revenues of the top 16 revenue-producing teams.
"Management made a significant counterproposal," said Boston Red Sox general partner John Harrington, who was appointed chairman of the ownership negotiating team last week. "We have crossed a philosophical barrier and we feel the players have accepted it in a positive light. There were a lot of good questions and we look forward to more questions tomorrow."
It is true that the owners crossed the ideological divide that had separated them from the players since they presented their salary cap proposal in June, but they left themselves a lifeline. They contend that they still will be able to implement the cap if the players do not accept the taxation plan.
The owners hope to get a counterproposal before the talks adjourn this weekend, but the union was noncommittal.
"At some point, we'll obviously make a counterproposal," Orza said. "Whether we have the time to make an intelligent one remains to be seen. If the framework is acceptable, we will make a counterproposal."
Special mediator William J. Usery continues to characterize the discussions as constructive, but he apparently does not intend to keep the two negotiating teams together beyond this weekend. He said last week that he hoped to keep these talks going indefinitely, but indicated yesterday that he did not hold out hope of a settlement before they adjourn.
"I would not predict that at all," Usery said. "I did not go into the weekend thinking we would achieve an agreement. I hoped that we would come out of it with an idea of how to reach an agreement."