Yeah, because owners should just be able to throw things into a CBA without negotiating it with the union. Forget about the whole collective, or bargaining, or agreement part - just jam it in. Why not unilaterally impose a salary cap?
The owners got rich off players using steroids too, they can deny it all they want, they didn't see fit to institute drug testing in 2002 for some reason. Never mind the open use of methamphetamines that Jim Bouton jokes about in Ball Four, a book written in 1970.
No more than the players should have the right to demand 'full' wages from a shortened season when they made no honest attempt to negotiate before the lockout began either. They don't just want 100% of prorated salary, they want 100% of salary, period. Even if we're talking about a 60-game season as opposed to 82. If Fehr's going to demand that then the baseball players who struck in '94 should reimburse the owners for lost revenue there.
There's a big difference between not caving in to outrageous demands, as opposed to turning around and making your own outrageous demands in response.
And yeah the baseball owners didn't want drug testing for a long time either, but when they finally did Fehr and company were still being obstructionist about it. It took years before they got a real program in place.
You're incorrect, although not caring is a good and healthy move. The sides want to make it look like they are nowhere close to an agreement but they are way, way closer than they were on September 15th
That's not entirely true either, the players have thrown out numerous leaks publicly that they're close to a deal. Why? Because they want to make the owners look bad when negotiations inevitably break down again. Just about EVERYthing that gets said publicly is calculated, the phrase 'actions speak louder than words' applies more here. If they were really close to a deal they'd still be in a room as opposed to lobbing mortar shells at each other yet again.