Labor

PHOENIX — Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman went into the offseason expecting outfielder Kyle Tucker to sign elsewhere.

Sure, Friedman was confident in what the Dodgers could provide on and off the field to the 29-year-old four-time All-Star. And Tucker was a rare hitter who could actually elevate an already star-powered Dodgers lineup. But with the team unwilling to offer a super long-term deal, their chances at landing the best free-agent hitter available this past offseason felt “incredibly low.”

“I can’t remember a time where a player has taken a shorter-term, higher-AAV deal when they’ve had an actual long-term contract on the table,” Friedman said Wednesday.

The Dodgers, however, had already pulled off a bigger surprise when closer Edwin Díaz chose them over returning to the Mets this past December.

The team’s pitch, which included a conversation with the Dodgers’ director of family programs Patricia Romero, discussions about preparation and player resources, and a championship track record, helped land both top-tier free agents.

Of course it didn’t hurt that though Tucker’s contract was only four years, it was worth $240 million. Taking deferrals into account, the net-present day value set an MLB record at about $57 million per year.

The Dodgers’ aggressive offseason, coming off consecutive World Series titles, once again makes them the favorite entering the 2026 season.

They wrap up their Cactus League schedule this week, as World Baseball Classic participants trickle back into camp, and baseball operations leadership make final opening day roster decisions.

Before Friedman headed back to Los Angeles, he spoke with The Times on a range of topics. Here’s part of that conversion, edited for length and clarity.

Q: When it comes to the WBC, there’s variance on how supportive teams are. You have Shohei Ohtani participating as a position player, Yoshinobu Yamamoto pitching after an extra-short offseason, Kiké Hernández supporting Puerto Rico in person while rehabbing. How have you landed in being highly flexible?

Friedman: Obviously everything is case by case. But in a vacuum, we are incredibly supportive of the World Baseball Classic and what it does for our game worldwide. We saw it in ‘23, we saw it this past year, with just how important this is to the players, the staff, the fans — and just how exciting it is for baseball.

So that part’s easy. Now you layer on our situation, us trying to win a World Series. For position players, it’s easier to justify. For pitchers, it’s way harder. Throwing at that intensity in March is really, really challenging. And so we feel like our role is to work with each of our players and have conversations and share our thoughts, listen to their thoughts, and then answers kind of fall out of that.

Q: It’s such a cliche to say you can never have too much pitching, but with this group, are you close?

Friedman: I’ve learned my lesson to never say that we have enough pitching. But I do feel like we are breaking camp with the most talented one through 20 arms — which gets at, obviously, who we’ll break with, and then depth behind it — that we’ve ever had.

Q: Between Díaz, who’s part of that equation, and Tucker, you signed two players this offseason who you didn’t necessarily expect to land. What does that say about this organization and what you’ve done the last few years?

Friedman: Our biggest, most overarching goal is to be a destination spot, where our own players don’t want to leave, where players on other teams are looking longingly, because we feel like championships fall out of that. By having the right environment, having the right culture, that helps your star players want to stay, it helps in the recruitment of others. So we’re way better at it today than we were five years ago. But it’s like a living organism that we have to continue to foster and nurture and develop. And we hope we’re way better at it five years from now.

Q: On that note, the Dodgers are very much caught in the middle of CBA posturing with the current agreement expiring this year. You hear a lot of players saying the Dodgers are doing it the right way and other teams could be doing something similar. On the other hand, the league appears to be floating a salary cap, and plenty of fans are accusing the Dodgers of “ruining baseball.” What’s it been like to see those conflicting narratives?

Friedman: Obviously see it, come across it, hear it quite a bit. But we’re just not that focused on it. We’re a really healthy organization, and the partnership we have with our fans is our guiding light. And we’re doing everything we can to put a team out there that our fans really connect with, and that they feel that partnership with all that they pour into us, and don’t really think about it in any other terms.

And so obviously, there’s a lot of narratives that get extrapolated from that. But our sole focus is on ourselves and the partnership we have with our fans and the rest of it to us, it’s kind of just noise.

Q: You guys raised the bar years ago to, “We’re going to be in the postseason every year.” But there were clear frustrations from the fan base when that wasn’t consistently leading to championships. Is it fair to say that this continued push is almost a response to that frustration?

Friedman: Each year we’ve poured everything we have into winning. And in October, you need a really talented roster, and you need some good fortune. And there’s years where we haven’t been as talented as we wanted to be, whether it’s injuries or lack of performance. There’s years we’ve had really bad fortune, there’s years we’ve had good fortune. And a lot of that is the game, and it’s what I both love and hate about it.

I wouldn’t say our mindset is all that different. But obviously, when you’re in a moment in time with an incredibly talented roster, I think the mindset is, ‘Don’t sit back on your heels, be aggressive, and don’t be nonchalant about the opportunity that we have in front of us.’ And so it’s more the idea of pressing an advantage and being aggressive on that front.

Q: I’m sure when you were pursuing Ohtani, you looked into the revenue ramifications of signing him. Has this been about what you expected? Has it exceeded your expectations?

Friedman: Oh, it’s far exceeded. I don’t think the human brain could have comprehended it correctly. It’s been a perfect storm on a lot of levels, and something that has definitely far exceeded our expectations.”

Q: A three-peat seems to be the goal. Is there such a thing as a successful season without winning a championship, or has this team gotten to a point where you really have to win a World Series in order to claim success?

Friedman: Everything for us, all of our energy and focus, is on doing everything we can to win a championship this year. And our first goal is to win the division and be in position to have a bye. Last year, we added to the degree of difficulty [by winning the division but having to play in the wild-card round] in a way that I’d like to avoid this year.

So that’s the first goal. And then obviously that puts you in the best position to accomplish our ultimate goal, which is winning a World Series. So that’s what all of our energy and focus is on.

And, obviously, if we win the World Series this year, it will be a three-peat. But it’s not how my brain processes it. We’ve won back-to-back, and those are in the bank. And now it’s, do everything we can to win this year, and it’s its own unique, disparate year.

SEOUL, March 20 (UPI) — Korea Zinc’s incumbent management and its major shareholder, Young Poong, are locked in a fierce showdown ahead of a regular shareholders’ meeting Tuesday.

The world’s largest non-ferrous metal producer said Friday that it posted record sales and profits last year, which led to high dividends and other shareholder-friendly policies.

Citing the strong performance, Korea Zinc has called for the leadership continuity, as the 2026 shareholders’ meeting would select at least five board members out of 15 seats. The term of Chairman Yun B. Choi is also set to expire.

“We believe that our continued efforts to improve corporate governance and expand shareholder returns have laid the foundation to steadily grow our business and operate our organization in a stable manner,” the firm said in a statement.

But, Young Poong argued that proxy advisers and the National Pension Service, another key Korea Zinc shareholder, have effectively supported its position by opposing the reappointment of Choi as an inside director.

According to Young Poong, such decisions suggest that “this is no longer merely a management control dispute, but judgment over potential structural flaws in corporate governance and failures of oversight.”

Since early 2025, Korea Zinc has been fighting to repel an aggressive takeover bid from Young Poong, which has teamed up with the country’s leading private equity firm, MBK Partners.

The battle came to a head at the March 2025 shareholders’ meeting, and another high-stakes clash is looming at this month’s gathering.

Each side reportedly controls roughly 40% of the voting shares, while NPS holds a 5.2% stake.

Meanwhile, the labor union at Korea Zinc expressed strong support for the current board, urging the NPS to immediately reverse its decision.

“We will fight to the end to prevent the dark hand of speculative capital from tainting our sacred workplace at this shareholders’ meeting,” the union said in a statement.

“If our warning is ignored and the company is undermined, we will mobilize all possible means, including a general strike, to wage an all-out struggle,” it said.

Seattle Storm forward Nneka Ogwumike (3), president of the WNBA players’ union, said for the first time, player salaries will be tied to a meaningful share of league revenue.

(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

The league and players association have not made the terms public yet, but the salary cap will start at $7 million, up from $1.5 million in 2025, and the supermax will start at $1.4 million, up from $249,244 in 2025, a person with knowledge of negotiations not authorized to discuss them publicly told The Times. ESPN was the first to report the figures.

The total salary cap will jump by around 4.64 times the previous amount. The super maximum salary will be elevated by 5.61 times the previous amount. It means the top players will be eligible for larger raises than the league’s middle class.

The average salary will be $600,000, a bump from the previous average of $120,000, and the minimum salary will be more than $300,000, up from $66,079.

“For the first time, player salaries are tied to a truly meaningful share of league revenue, driving exponential growth in the salary cap, increasing average compensation beyond half a million dollars and raising the standard across facilities, staffing and support,” union president Nneka Ogwumike told reporters.

The main sticking point during negotiations was revenue sharing, and that number will be around 20% for the entirety of the multi-year deal. The league had previously offered 15.5%, a source told The Times, and players went down from their 40% ask to around 26% at the end of February, and then reached the agreement around 20% on Wednesday morning. The Athletic first reported the shift in revenue sharing figures.

Players had been negotiating for a percentage of overall revenue without factoring in expenses while the WNBA was seeking sharing tied to net revenue, mirroring the NBA’s structure that deducts expenses before sharing 50% of profits. The players secured a gross revenue deal, which gives them a cut of WNBA revenue without factoring in expenses, a person with knowledge of the deal not authorized to discuss it publicly told The Times.

“This deal is going to be transformational, and you’ll see all the details hopefully soon,” WNBPA vice president Breanna Stewart told reporters on Wednesday. “But it’s gonna build and help create a system where everybody is getting exactly what they deserve and more from on the court and off the court aspects.”

As the U.S. wades even deeper into the conflict with Iran, some Democratic and progressive political figures are trying to figure out how to connect the public’s wariness about war with concerns about affordability and the widespread reaction against President Trump’s xenophobic immigration policies.

If you’re looking for a template to do it well, one can be found in the words and actions of a political figure who recently passed away: the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

For while attention after his death has rightfully focused on Jackson’s long involvement with the civil rights movement, the more telling lesson for this moment is how his presidential campaigns connected a concern for addressing domestic disenfranchisement with a resolute stance against U.S. military adventures — a message that built on and echoed the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s landmark 1967 speech against the Vietnam War, economic exploitation and racial injustice.

Jackson’s candidacies in 1984 and 1988 emerged at a moment when the social compacts forged by the labor, civil rights and women’s movements of the 20th century were being systematically undone. Deindustrialization was hollowing out working-class communities. Reaganism was consolidating power around tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation and attacks on unions. A new corporate consensus was hardening — one that increasingly shaped both major parties — prioritizing financial elites while disciplining labor and shrinking the public sphere.

Sound familiar?

Jackson refused to accept that such a right-wing and corporate realignment was inevitable. His Rainbow Coalition was far more ambitious than a candidate-centered campaign. It was an attempt to build an organized, multiracial, cross-class political front capable of contesting the direction of the country itself.

The Rainbow brought together constituencies that conventional political wisdom said could not unite — Black voters in the South, industrial workers in the Midwest, family farmers in crisis, Latino and Native organizers, Arab American activists, peace advocates, labor insurgents and progressive whites.

Jackson’s platform did not treat these groups as symbolic additions to a coalition; it linked their material interests. Farmers facing foreclosure were not an afterthought — the farm crisis was up front. Deindustrialized workers were not rhetorical props — trade, jobs and industrial policy were central. Civil rights were braided together with economic justice.

And crucially, Jackson insisted, as King had, that economic populism could not be separated from anti-militarism.

At the height of the Cold War, amid Reagan’s military buildup and interventionist doctrine, Jackson argued that bloated Pentagon budgets were not abstract line items. They were resources diverted from schools, healthcare, housing and jobs. He connected the violence of abandonment at home to the violence of intervention abroad — and his campaign called for redirecting military spending toward human needs and for diplomacy over escalation.

When Jackson thundered that we should “choose the human race over the nuclear race,” this was not a simple turn of phrase. It was integral to the Rainbow’s moral and economic logic. A government that prioritizes war over welfare, weapons over workers, cannot sustain democratic life.

That clarity feels especially salient today, as the United States continues to pursue military interventions and proxy conflicts whose legality and human cost are deeply contested. Once again, defense budgets swell while public goods strain. Once again, dissent against war is treated as disloyalty. Jackson rejected that false choice decades ago. He understood that militarism abroad reinforces inequality and immorality at home.

Jackson’s 1988 campaign captured millions of votes, won primaries and caucuses across the country and forced issues into the Democratic Party that party elites preferred to sideline. He demonstrated that a progressive program grounded in the lived experiences of ordinary people — rural collapse, urban disinvestment, plant closures, racial injustice and war — could assemble a national constituency.

Unfortunately, after Jackson’s last campaign, the Rainbow’s experiment in independent organizational life was folded too tightly into the mainstream Democratic Party. While that seemed a strategy to achieve a broader front, it meant that the progressive anchor was unmoored — and the effort dissolved before it could truly mature.

But the lessons of that era may be more relevant than ever.

Today, we again confront an ever-ascendant rightward turn buttressed by concentrated corporate power and normalized militarism. As in Jackson’s day, some leaders seek to deflect our attention, blaming economic challenges on the proximate “other” — in his era, Black women taking welfare, in our era, immigrants taking jobs — rather than those with power.

Jackson understood that defeating reactionary politics required isolating it — not only morally, but structurally — by assembling a coalition larger than the right’s base and rooted in shared material demands. He understood that hope had to be organized and that peace had to be part of prosperity. His campaigns showed that racial justice, labor rights, rural survival, gender equality and anti-war politics were not competing claims but interlocking ones.

Protest has surged in the United States, particularly after the excesses in Minnesota. But protest alone does not prevent consolidation. Nor do narrow electoral bargains that leave the underlying corporate and military consensus intact.

At a time when both parties remain deeply entangled with corporate and defense interests, remembering the promise of the Rainbow is not nostalgia. It is instruction.

Rishi Awatramani is a postdoctoral scholar in sociology at USC, where Manuel Pastor is a professor of sociology and the director of the Equity Research Institute.

March 8 (Asia Today) — A senior labor official said South Korea’s revised labor law should be implemented carefully, emphasizing precise enforcement rather than rapid expansion when it takes effect Monday.

Ryu Je-gang, head of Policy Division 2 at the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, said the success of the legislation will depend largely on how enforcement decrees and interpretation guidelines function in practice.

“The success of the system depends less on the articles themselves and more on how enforcement rules work in the field,” Ryu said in an interview with Asia Today. “Refining the scope of application, criteria and support systems should take priority over expanding the law too quickly.”

The legislation, commonly known as the “Yellow Envelope Law,” revises Articles 2 and 3 of South Korea’s Trade Union Act and will take effect Monday.

Supporters say the amendment expands the concept of employer responsibility, allowing subcontracted workers to demand negotiations with a principal contractor even without a direct employment contract.

Ryu described the change as opening “the door for negotiations with the primary employer.”

Previously, restructuring measures such as mergers, divisions or asset transfers were often excluded from collective bargaining on the grounds they were management decisions, he said. The new framework could help address disputes related to layoffs and restructuring.

Business groups have warned the legislation could increase labor disputes by limiting corporate claims for damages or asset seizures against unions during strikes.

Ryu rejected those concerns, saying the provisions largely reflect existing court precedents rather than introducing entirely new rules.

“I do not expect a dramatic increase in labor disputes simply because of this change,” he said.

However, he acknowledged the law may face practical limitations. Workers will still need to prove employer responsibility, and procedures such as unified bargaining channels and requests to separate bargaining units could make negotiations difficult.

“The procedural barriers remain high,” he said. “If negotiations themselves are difficult, expanding labor disputes will not be easy.”

Ryu also warned the amendment may not fully protect some categories of workers, including special employment and platform workers who often lack traditional labor contracts.

In the short term, he said the law could lead to increased demands for negotiations with companies previously seen as responsible but not directly engaged in collective bargaining.

Over the longer term, however, the changes could help ease tensions created by complex subcontracting systems.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260309010002098

The Writers Guild of America West has canceled its awards ceremony scheduled to take place March 8 as its staff union members continue to strike, demanding higher pay and protections against artificial intelligence.

In a letter sent to members on Sunday, WGA West’s board of directors, including President Michele Mulroney, wrote, “The non-supervisory staff of the WGAW are currently on strike and the Guild would not ask our members or guests to cross a picket line to attend the awards show. The WGAW staff have a right to strike and our exceptional nominees and honorees deserve an uncomplicated celebration of their achievements.”

The New York ceremony, scheduled on the same day, is expected go forward while an alternative celebration for Los Angeles-based nominees will take place at a later date, according to the letter.

Comedian and actor Atsuko Okatsuka was set to host the L.A. show, while filmmaker James Cameron was to receive the WGA West Laurel Award.

WGA union staffers have been striking outside the guild’s Los Angeles headquarters on Fairfax Avenue since Feb. 17. The union alleged that management did not intend to reach an agreement on the pending contract. Further, it claimed that guild management had “surveilled workers for union activity, terminated union supporters, and engaged in bad faith surface bargaining.”

On Tuesday, the labor organization said that management had raised the specter of canceling the ceremony during a call about contraction negotiations.

“Make no mistake: this is an attempt by WGAW management to drive a wedge between WGSU and WGA membership when we should be building unity ahead of MBA [Minimum Basic Agreement] negotiations with the AMPTP [Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers],” wrote the staff union. “We urge Guild management to end this strike now,” the union wrote on Instagram.

The union, made up of more than 100 employees who work in areas including legal, communications and residuals, was formed last spring and first authorized a strike in January with 82% of its members. Contract negotiations, which began in September, have focused on the use of artificial intelligence, pay raises and “basic protections” including grievance procedures.

The WGA has said that it offered “comprehensive proposals with numerous union protections and improvements to compensation and benefits.”

The ceremony’s cancellation, coming just weeks before the Academy Awards, casts a shadow over the upcoming contraction negotiations between the WGA and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the studios and streamers.

In 2023, the WGA went on a strike lasting 148 days, the second-longest strike in the union’s history.

Times staff writer Cerys Davies contributed to this report.