Re(1): In Fairness to the Striking Players Posted on July 29, 2019 at 05:08:36 PM by chordo
To respond to this and other “anti-management” posters, I agree that players had the right to strike, that business was declining already and that the players had good reason to organize. The players were (are) mostly wonderful people with good intent. I do not agree; however,that anyone had a legal nor moral right to spit at anyone, throw Molitoff cocktails, throw nails in the road, threaten people with violence or scream at CUSTOMERS- “whore”..... many other expletives used also. This behavior was wrong and hastened the death of jai alai. These actions were counter - intuitive to the goal, pushed management to the other side of the negotiation and were borne out of a mindless gang mentality. Anyone who thinks this was a victory, I believe , is sadly mistaken. King Pyrrhus’ army defeated the Romans in 280 bc and the king boldly claimed victory against Rome. Unfortunately for his people, the losses sustained were so great that it was equivalent if not worse than a loss and the aftermath was awful - poverty etc. History has remembered him as a fool and coined the expression a Pyrrhic victory (definition below ). It was less than “there was a strike” and more of “how did they strike” that delivered the killing blow to jai alai. This ijapa leader and his family will , in my opinion, be remembered equally as narcissistic fools. Just as the players had a right to strike, management had a right to counter the action - but in accordance with the law and human respect.
Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/ ( listen) PIRR-ik) is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has also taken a heavy toll that negates any true sense of achievement or damages long-term progress. Replies: