N.

Dinner And A (Bad TV) Movie
Awards Gala Drama Not What NASCAR Needs
12/15/2005 12:01 am
Trust me, I didn't trudge 25 blocks through Manhattan's finest slush on
a Friday morning so I could see how cute Jeff Gordon looked in a Santa
hat.

Jeff Gordon thinks NASCAR is playing Scrooge. But there he was on Dec.
9, red felt on his cranium, shilling his new Tag Heuer watch at
Tourneau and signing autographs. His handlers graciously allowed me all
of two minutes and seven seconds with him. But Gordon's speed is not
limited to the track. He's pretty quick about letting you know when
he's ticked off, too.

Fact: On Dec. 2, Gordon didn't show up at the Awards Gala at the
Waldorf-Astoria.

Fact: On Dec. 6, an AP story ran in which NASCAR spokesman Jim Hunter
criticized Gordon and other drivers for not showing up.

Fact: Three days later, Gordon told me that NASCAR excused him with its
blessing so he could compete in the Race of Champions all-star event in
Paris, and that he was "disappointed" in what had been said.

"When the conflict came up [about showing up to accept the award as the
highest-finishing non-Chase competitor], I talked to the higher-ups in
NASCAR," Gordon related to me, "and they told me, 'Hey, we understand.
You've got a commitment and you can't be here this year.'"

So, whom do you believe?

Before posting my story on Longislandpress.com Friday afternoon, I
called NASCAR for a comment. An employee there had no official
response, but did make a subtle suggestion that perhaps the AP report
implicated Gordon by error.

That's possible, I guess. But if that were true, why did NASCAR not
immediately refute the story? And why, three days later, had no NASCAR
official called Gordon to let him know that he was not the target of
their wrath? After all, NASCAR is sponsored by a company that makes
phones.

Why am I still writing about this? Because on Dec. 2, NASCAR crowned
Tony Stewart, who has the talent (and finally, the temperament) to be
the greatest champ since Dale Earnhardt, Sr. On Dec. 7, NASCAR
announced an eight-year, $4.5 billion TV contract that will further
fill its overflowing coffers.

Why in the middle of all that success would NASCAR start a public
pissing match with Gordon and three other non-Chase drivers (Dale
Earnhardt, Jr., Kasey Kahne and Elliott Sadler) over not showing up in
New York for cocktails?

Champions Week in the Big Apple is an important marketing tool. But the
drivers who make the Chase driving their cars through the city is what
it's all about. Non-Chase drivers have almost zero publicity
opportunities that week, so why shouldn't they get a chance to rest at
home in the little free time they have? Daytona testing starts next
month.

Gordon said that NASCAR is "not very considerate towards [drivers] when
it comes to the [season's] schedule." Being so demanding of competitors
who are already making NASCAR a gazillion dollars (especially when
drivers get such a measly percentage of the overall revenues) is
arrogance run amuck.

Problem is, the harsh-handed behavior of its powers-that-be hasn't been
challenged-yet. Wouldn't it be something if 10 young drivers said
"union" at the same time?

That might be the one thing to get NASCAR to stop pulling on the leash.

I think NASCAR is using nothing more than intimidation to avoid
driver unionization. A union is inevitable if NASCAR doesn't
lighten up and be more considerate of the drivers wishes, needs.

On 15 Dec 2005 14:00:57 -0800, "Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu>
wrote:

On 15 Dec 2005 14:00:57 -0800, "Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote:

....SNIP...


GADS Nancy! Don't even suggest UNIONS!

While I believe the drivers and owners need something to stick into the side of
NASCAR officials I would never want to see a union! Unions have destroyed
professional sports for me. Maybe that is why I turned to NASCAR this year.

I am sick to death of professional sports figures making MILLIONS of dollars a
year going out on strike! How dare they! They show me that they are not there
to entertain me (and make a buck also). They are there for themselves only.
They don't need me ---- I don't need them. Imagine someone making 5 million a
year going on strike because he is "underpaid."

That is something I really would not like to see happen to NASCAR.

I wouldn't mind, however, seeing the drivers and owners starting their own race
organization like NASCAR.

"Paul" <ME (AT) MYISP (DOT) COM> wrote

those 'other' sports are very different. these guys are like an
owner/operator, the driver contracts with the car owner, not Nascar.


here its the sanctioning body making the millions'


<snip>

NASCAR would crush any effort to assemble a competitive alternative. Still
think NASCAR is not wielding a heavy hand?

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:57:36 GMT, "jerry" <ohah (AT) nowhere (DOT) com> wrote:





I can't see where I suggested that NASCAR wasn't wielding a heavy hand but if I
said something that made you think that, no, not at all. That is why I said I
wouldn't mind if the owners and drivers started their own organization; because
NASCAR WAS too heavy handed.

I have even said in other posts that I keep looking for the swastika on NASCAR's
emblem.

"Alan Jones" <alan (AT) alanjones (DOT) us> wrote

economical and political environment are gasping for air right now. If I'm
not mistaken, per-capita union membership is at an all time low. It
certainly doesn't have the political power it once had (thank God for that).
And it is also the LAST thing that the drivers want. More of your cutting
edge insight? Oh, and keep me kill filed. You won't have to answer the
tough questions that way.

Carey in Manvel

Carey Akin wrote:

If I'm
If it weren't for that political power in the old days of the unions,
U.S. workers today would be enjoying sweat shop conditions, locked exit
doors during the work day, 18 hour work days, child labor, no sick
leave, no benefits whatsoever, totally unsafe working conditions, etc.
I will agree that they don't have the same usefulness as they did when
there was a good reason to have a union to belong to, but that doesn't
mean that they are all bad, and they certainly did a LOT of good for
the U.S. workforce.

N.

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote

unions) I still don't see how they would benefit the drivers. What I can
say about unions is that they set a low common denominator, and at least for
the common trade unions, do not tend to promote excellence. I do know that
on a personal level, I did far better for my self in the maritime business
by working non-union, not being restricted by compensation plans agreed to
in collective bargaining agreements.

Carey in Manvel

"Carey Akin" <cmakin (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote


Maybe not a union per se, but some type of CBA to insure these guys are not
locked out of the bigger picture (TV money)

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote;
The drivers are independent contractors who negotiate their deals without
the approval or knowledge of Na$car with their individual owners.
If the drivers have a bitch about scheduling, treatment, ect., they should
go to the owners, & in turn the owners should go to Na$car.
Na$car has built the mechanism to make most who are involved in the sport
reasonably wealthy, so why shouldn't they make & enforce their rules?
If the drivers do not like the hand they are being dealt, they always have
option "B": LEAVE THE SPORT.
Considering that this option is already available to the drivers, and no
one is using it, I guess is really isn't as bad as some are inclined to
believe.
Na$car's position on the rules is: "Take it, or leave it."
There is no shortage of takers currently in the sport.

While I don't care for many of the things that Na$car does, it is their's to
do with it as they choose.
Inserting a drivers union would make about as much sense as putting a snow
plow on a bicycle.


Michael E