A request for the pro-NHLPA

[degroat*]

1) It allows for crappy teams to remain crappy teams. They're going to use the excuse about being close to the cap as a reason to not improve their team. It allows for continued mediocrity while hiding behind the stance of fiscal sensibility.

There's a reason why that problem doesn't exist in the NFL. Teams make more money when they win.

2) The rich teams are still going to be rich. What does a salary cap do for teams that make money anyways? It's going to allow them to make even more money. Say what you want about revenue sharing, but you can bet that owners are going to pillage away more money for their own coffers.

Umm... it allows them to a) share some of it and b) make more money. I'm not sure why it's a bad thing.

3) Next bargaining agreement. You can almost guarantee that when it comes time for the next agreement, owners will look towards a lower salary cap, claiming that the current cap is too rich for them. The books are always going to be doctored in favour of the owners and until a TRUE independent third party looks at the books they'll continue to be doctored. Hey, Arthur Levitt may be respected in terms of Finances and he might be a Chief Economist, but he had a guideline going into the audit. That was already admitted. Once again, no free reign, but he was given the "Under the following guidelines of revenue...." speech that we've had to listen to.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with, well, anything.

4) Why should owners who mismanage their franchises be rewarded for their own stupidity? C'mon. These teams get shots at the top draft picks available and that is even more than enough of a reward. But to then be rewarded with a profit and then tell the fans that they are doing this for the future is farce and a slap in the face. Being someone who owns season's tickets, I can tell you that if the salary cap comes into place, there is no way that the price of tickets will do. They will still remain high and the product will still remain the same.

Umm.. sure.

5) We've heard what the players have offered, but the only thing we've heard from the owners is about 6 different types of proposals that tie salaries to revenue. I don't have an issue with that, but what else were the owners offering. To me, if that doesn't speak in volumes that there was never anything other than a salary cap on the owner's minds, then shame on you for believing the OWNER'S propoganda machine.

Why am I supposed to be concerned with what else the owners were offering? It's not their job to offer any concessions. It's the PA's job to ask for them. That is how negotiations work.

6) Hey, if there is a true revenue sharing plan in place, it will work. Do you honestly think that Ed Snider wants to have a 60 million payroll and then pay an additional 20 to 30 million in luxury tax? Do you think the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan (who OWNS the Toronto Maple Leafs) would want the same? C'mon, these people/organizations didn't get the way they are by being stupid. To suggest that these teams would continue to pay an exoborant amount of money on payroll and then pay a tax on top of that and lose out on revenue is assinine to say the least. They are smart business people who want to make money. So the notion that these teams would continue to lose money to keep a high payroll is completely ludicrous and can be thrown out the window.

The NHLPA's plan would have no where near a 20-30 million tax for a 60 million payroll.

7) The fact that Gary Bettman has banned ANY owner from speaking shows that there is something to hide. Do you not find it suspicious that Bobby Clarke or Glen Sather or Kevin Lowe or Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux haven't said anything? These guys know hockey and they know how the league operates. Fear of being fined a million bucks while Gary plays a game of chicken just shows how out of touch Bettman is. Bettman isn't well liked and there have been incidents in the past where guys like Lou Lamorello and Harry Sinden have questioned Gary's hockey sense. When you have Lou, who is probably the best GM in the game, questioning the comissioner's hockey knowledge and sense, you know that your league is in trouble.

If Bettman wasn't well liked by the owners, he'd be fired. Period. Bettman has his job because he has performed admirally in terms of increasing revenue. The owners expect him to get the salaries down now and if he does it, he's going to be the comissioner of a very healthy NHL when my newborn son reaches high school.

So, you can respond anyway you want to this Stich. I'm sure you'll probably call of us lackeys, make your attack personal and then hide behind a moderator when your crap gets called on. You're nothing more than a punk and troll who attacks people when they disagree with you. Just crawl back under the rock you came out from. Better yet, crawl back into the hole that came from. Nobody here will miss you.....

As PecaFan already pointed out in this thread, it is you, not I, that is doing nothing more than attacking people.

 

[ctfan]

Teams are pressured to spend more and more money because losing teams rarely draw well. Yeah, the Islanders tried to live within their budget and field $15 million dollar teams in the late 90's and attendance dwindled to about 50% capacity even with fairly low ticket prices. Every team gets pressured to add that one expensive player that might add some wins and increase attendance. However the few wealthy teams keep upping the cost by overpaying. Soon the third and fourth liners are making big salaries and one star is making 30% of a teams total budget.

Everyone's blasting the owners for losing money by signing overpriced players to try and make their team competitive. If they didn't do it these same fans blast the owners for not caring and being cheap. Go back to last seasons board and read some of the threads. This isn't your normal industry with free movement of personnel and companies competing against one another. These teams are in essence the same company competing against itself in different cities. If you allow a couple of franchises to spend whatever they want you force the other franchises to either lose money in attempt to stay competitive or forever have losing second rate teams.

I think giving the players a certain percentage of defined revenues is a decent solution. And of course their dollars go up or down each season as revenues do. The fight should be over what the defined revenues are, what the percentage is, and what leeway each franchise has. Should Toronto be constrained to the same hard dollar amount as Pittsburgh? I don't think so, but both should be under some kind of general formula which would allow some competive balance without forcing both teams to have the same exact payroll.

The two sides should at least be trying to talk about a system that could work instead of throwing spitballs at each other. Stop using labels like salary cap and luxury tax and just talk about coming up with a decent system.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

dumb

So it is your belief that Ottawa can hold on to Chara, Redden, Volchenkov, Hossa, Havlat, Alfredsson and Spezza under the current CBA? I don`t care if they win the cup for the next 4 years, in their market they cannot, I repeat cannot hold onto those key players for very much longer under the current system. Winning the cup might actually make it harder, since those players would be asking for even more with playoff success.

Do you even realize that the Sens ticket prices are among the highest in the league? And that we have the 3rd most suites? Or that we have one of the most hockey-dense markets in the NHL? Or that I actually purchase tickets to the games and am in a far better position to gauge whether the Ottawa market, in which I reside, can afford to keep these players?

Ottawa can hold onto its players just like any NHL market that experiences success. If teams have success in the playoffs, they should be more expensive and fans will be willing to pay to see them. Similarly if they suck year after year, then it is obvious that the core that was being used is not working and thus a dismantling or retooling of that core is the only logical thing to do.

Ottawa won the President's Trophy in 2003. They had no trouble keeping their players, and it has nothing to do with Melnyk. They generated at least 15 million or more in the 2003 playoff run.

 

[chara]

That's quite funny. Perhaps if Ottawa chokes in the first round for the next two years, then there might be some dismantling. But there would be no problem holding onto the core if they succeed - and that's the way it should be.

Precisely. Ownership is very strong in Ottawa with Eugene Melnyk at the helm. He's committed to winning and is living out a dream of owning an NHL team plus he's a billionaire to boot. His position has always been that he doesn't mind losing a few bucks. But just a few bucks...

As long as attendance is good and this team performs, the Sens will not only stay intact they may actually take a look at a free agent or two.

 

[SENSible1*]

Ottawa can hold onto its players just like any NHL market that experiences success. If teams have success in the playoffs, they should be more expensive and fans will be willing to pay to see them.

Like Calgary was able to keep Conroy after going to the finals last season?

How do you know fans will be willing to pay more to see them?

Ottawa is a solid NHL market, but the money tree you've been lucky enough to experience growing up simply isn't realistic for the vast majority of Sens supporters. At some point (many would say we've already passed it by) the Sens will price their tickets at the absoloute limit for the market, no matter what on-ice success they have. The only possibility of the team winning and being kept together lies in Melnyk's ability to absorb losing money. Could happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

The owners have not moved from their hard cap stance because they players have done nothing to force them to. If the owners stay on their current position, (hypothetically) an impasse is declared and a hard cap is implemented. I honestly believe that the owners and players want a season, everyone involved in the situation is losing money and deep down everyone wants to have a season. If the players would make a proposal with a stiff luxury tax you can bet that the owners would listen, however the union has publicly stated that they will never accept any type of luxury tax that acts as an artificial barrier on salaries. That is the problem. Until the players show a willingness to negotiate a hard tax there is no point for the owners to come off their hard cap stance.

Alot of people, including myself, think that a stiff luxury tax is the middle ground in this situation, and where a deal will eventually get done. The pro-player people, however, seem to think that the players have already made an offer in this middle ground, but this is simply not the case. The players are refusing to accept any luxury tax that places a significant drag on salaries. IMO that is just as bad as the owners refusing to budge from their hard cap stance.

I agree with you about what you said here (particularly I'm in agreement over the stiff luxury tax) but I think that the situation is that both sides have inadequate leadership. The owners have Bettman and the players have Goodenow. Their pig-headedness is causing us to be missing hockey right now moreso than the owners or players themselves.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The owners have not moved from their hard cap stance because they players have done nothing to force them to. If the owners stay on their current position, (hypothetically) an impasse is declared and a hard cap is implemented. I honestly believe that the owners and players want a season, everyone involved in the situation is losing money and deep down everyone wants to have a season.

The owners can't win the dispute this way this year. No impasse will be declared. The owners have not made an offer that can even remotely be considered their final best offer because they have not made an offer. They have to table a complete CBA with all the rules spelled out and negotiate that to an impasse. They have not presented a CBA that can be implemented, and they can't implement one that the players have not have the opportunity to reject.

This impasse - implementation - strike - replacement player scenario can't happen until next season at the earliest. The NHL wants all this to take place in training camp when they can have replacement players. Anybody who is hoping for the Gary Bettman designed NHL has to also be hoping for no season this year.

(Or hoping the owners cave in January and play the second half of the season under the old CBA before restarting the fight next September.)

If the players would make a proposal with a stiff luxury tax you can bet that the owners would listen, however the union has publicly stated that they will never accept any type of luxury tax that acts as an artificial barrier on salaries. That is the problem. Until the players show a willingness to negotiate a hard tax there is no point for the owners to come off their hard cap stance.

The players will not accept a tie between revenues and salaries. Period. End of story. As a result, the NHL is going to lose this dispute. The handwriting is on the wall. There won't be a tie between salaries and revenues. There will probably be a token luxury tax that the owners throw as a sop to the fans who stood by them.

Alot of people, including myself, think that a stiff luxury tax is the middle ground in this situation, and where a deal will eventually get done. The pro-player people, however, seem to think that the players have already made an offer in this middle ground, but this is simply not the case. The players are refusing to accept any luxury tax that places a significant drag on salaries. IMO that is just as bad as the owners refusing to budge from their hard cap stance.

If it isn't clear to you, what we think doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether you think the players are greedy pigs. It doesn't matter whether you understand why they are doing it or what you think of their reasons. They don't believe the NHL is doomed if the owners don't get cost certainty. They don't believe the owners will walk away from the billions in investments and the rinks. They don't care if no cost certainty eliminates a few teams.

They know there is no game without them. They know they can't lose if they stand firm and so they are standing firm. They are reconciled to losing the season. The ball is in the owner's court and they had better play something, or the league is going to drift away from them.

I'm still optimistic the owners will come to their sense and cave.

Tom

 

[degroat*]

If the NHL loses this dispute, we'll be watching a new league within a decade.

 

[SENSible1*]

What a load of crap

The players will not accept a tie between revenues and salaries. Period. End of story. As a result, the NHL is going to lose this dispute. The handwriting is on the wall.

The players will lose this dispute because of their refusal to tie revenue to salaries. Period. The handwriting is on the wall.

They don't believe the NHL is doomed if the owners don't get cost certainty. They don't believe the owners will walk away from the billions in investments and the rinks.

What the players believe will end up costing them millions of dollars. The owners won't walk away from their investments and rinks. They'll just open the doors again, offer the highest pay in the world and watch the players cave.

They don't care if no cost certainty eliminates a few teams.

Most unions are smart enough to try and protect jobs, not actively work towards the elimination of a significant portion of their membership. Too bad the NHLPA is appallingly stupid.

They know there is no game without them.

The NHLPA is NOT "the game". There are thousands of elite level hockey players in the world and more being developed each and every year.

They know they can't lose if they stand firm and so they are standing firm. They are reconciled to losing the season. The ball is in the owner's court and they had better play something, or the league is going to drift away from them.

They have already lost, they just haven't figured it out yet. The owners have won the most important battle--public opinion. Unless the players figure out that the ball is in their court and attempt to have a say in how revenues and salaries are tied, they'll end up playing under a very owner friendly system.

I'm still optimistic the owners will come to their sense and cave.

I'd be more optimistic that the players will come to their senses and cave if they had shown even a modicum of intelligence to this point. I guess there is always some hope though.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If the NHL loses this dispute, we'll be watching a new league within a decade.

So what? The league in 1970 was so different from the league in 1960 it was a new league. We're always watching a new league within a decade.

Tom

 

[degroat*]

So what? The league in 1970 was so different from the league in 1960 it was a new league. We're always watching a new league within a decade.

Tom

"So What?" just about sums up your entire argument on the CBA. You don't care if the NHL ceases to exist. You don't care if all the owners go bankrupt. You don't care about the welfare of the league. And, hey, that's fine. But maybe it's time for you to realize that you opinion is not based on anything logical but instead based on the fact that you don't care if players are getting 76% of the revenue.

The owners will get a cap. Period. They'll either get it now or they'll get it after the NHL folds.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

What the players believe will end up costing them millions of dollars.

They certainly seem willing to pay the price.

The owners won't walk away from their investments and rinks. They'll just open the doors again, offer the highest pay in the world and watch the players cave.

They can hope. And if the players don't cave? Think Corey Hirsch and Lonnie Bohonos can hold our attention long term? The NHLPA doesn't.

Most unions are smart enough to try and protect jobs, not actively work towards the elimination of a significant portion of their membership. Too bad the NHLPA is appallingly stupid.

So what? I think the NHLPA is smart enough to know that if they hold firm, they win. They are planning to win at all costs.

The NHLPA is NOT "the game". There are thousands of elite level hockey players in the world and more being developed each and every year.

About the best 50 or so of these thousands and thousands of players is good enough to play in an NHL game. A handful of them are good enough to become stars in the world's best league. That handful - and a couple of handfuls more from each year - are the guys locked out. They have very rare hockey talent.

That very rare hockey talent is why we pay billions to watch. They are the game.

They have already lost, they just haven't figured it out yet. The owners have won the most important battle--public opinion. Unless the players figure out that the ball is in their court and attempt to have a say in how revenues and salaries are tied, they'll end up playing under a very owner friendly system.

Why do you think public opinion matters? It means dick. All the hatred directed at the players on these boards has meant exactly nothing in relation to resolving this dispute.

Tom

 

[shakes]

Why do you think public opinion matters? It means dick. All the hatred directed at the players on these boards has meant exactly nothing in relation to resolving this dispute.

Tom

Funny how fast people forget this. Do any of you honestly think that a player in the NHL who on a nightly basis gets verbally attacked by fans and press alike could give a rats ass about public opinion? And even if they did care, do you honestly think they would just give up just because someone doesn't like them? This isn't high school people.. I'll admit peer pressure goes a long way but generally doesn't affect labour negotiations.

 

[SENSible1*]

They certainly seem willing to pay the price.

Just further evidence of their stupidity. They are losing a billion dollars for a principle that has no chance of being accepted by owners and which has dubious support from their membership.

They can hope. And if the players don't cave? Think Corey Hirsch and Lonnie Bohonos can hold our attention long term? The NHLPA doesn't.

As long as the NHL is the highest paying hockey league in the world, the players will come back. Hirsch and Bohonos will do fine in the meantime, as long as the product is cheap and competitive.

So what? I think the NHLPA is smart enough to know that if they hold firm, they win. They are planning to win at all costs.

Unions don't "win" by intentionally shrinking their membership. There is absolutely no chance that they will ever make back the money this "no cap" stance is costing them and in the end the owners will get cost certainty.

Calling the NHLPA "smart" is simply laughable. They have been outmanouvered every step of the way so far. While they are out displaying ignorance and dissension, the owners have been having a field day in the PR dept.

About the best 50 or so of these thousands and thousands of players is good enough to play in an NHL game. A handful of them are good enough to become stars in the world's best league. That handful - and a couple of handfuls more from each year - are the guys locked out. They have very rare hockey talent.

That very rare hockey talent is why we pay billions to watch. They are the game.

The NHL existed long before this group of players was involved and will do so long after they are gone. The players are NOT the game, they are simply the ones lucky enough to be playing it at this time.

The vast majority of fans cheer for the franchise, not the individual players. Most can't tell elite talent from the rest, except for their ability to stand out. Well guess what, even in replacement hockey, some players would still stand out.

Martin St. Louis barely got a shot at the NHL and ended up as the league MVP last year. How many other "St. Louis" are out there, just needing a chance?

Why do you think public opinion matters? It means dick. All the hatred directed at the players on these boards has meant exactly nothing in relation to resolving this dispute.

Tom

Seems you suffer from the same misperception that is rampant in the PA. Why do you think the owners are spending so much time on PR? Maybe you and the PA should try and figure that out.

Public opinion will decide if replacement hockey is sellable. As long as the owners have the public on their side, they're sitting pretty. Unfortunately for the players, they continue to ignore this crucial factor.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

"So What?" just about sums up your entire argument on the CBA.

No, it pretty much sums up my entire argument about Gary Bettman's case for embarking on this disastrous course of action.

You don't care if the NHL ceases to exist.

No, I think anyone who believes the league is going to cease to exist is either nuts or stupid.

You don't care if all the owners go bankrupt.

No, I think anyone who believes all the owners will go bankrupt is either nuts or stupid.

You don't care about the welfare of the league.

No, I think anybody who confuses the welfare of the league and the welfare of the owners is either nuts or stupid.

You don't care if players are getting 76% of the revenue.

You got one right!

The owners will get a cap. Period. They'll either get it now or they'll get it after the NHL folds.

Oops, back to nuts or stupid.

Tom

 

[degroat*]

Here's an idea, instead of insulting me how about you actually make a case for the NHL surviving under the current CBA?

 

[gary69]

Teams are pressured to spend more and more money because losing teams rarely draw well. Yeah, the Islanders tried to live within their budget and field $15 million dollar teams in the late 90's and attendance dwindled to about 50% capacity even with fairly low ticket prices. Every team gets pressured to add that one expensive player that might add some wins and increase attendance. However the few wealthy teams keep upping the cost by overpaying. Soon the third and fourth liners are making big salaries and one star is making 30% of a teams total budget.

Everyone's blasting the owners for losing money by signing overpriced players to try and make their team competitive. If they didn't do it these same fans blast the owners for not caring and being cheap. Go back to last seasons board and read some of the threads. This isn't your normal industry with free movement of personnel and companies competing against one another. These teams are in essence the same company competing against itself in different cities. If you allow a couple of franchises to spend whatever they want you force the other franchises to either lose money in attempt to stay competitive or forever have losing second rate teams.

I think giving the players a certain percentage of defined revenues is a decent solution. And of course their dollars go up or down each season as revenues do. The fight should be over what the defined revenues are, what the percentage is, and what leeway each franchise has. Should Toronto be constrained to the same hard dollar amount as Pittsburgh? I don't think so, but both should be under some kind of general formula which would allow some competive balance without forcing both teams to have the same exact payroll.

The two sides should at least be trying to talk about a system that could work instead of throwing spitballs at each other. Stop using labels like salary cap and luxury tax and just talk about coming up with a decent system.

Labels as such may not a bad idea generalizing what kind of system is being proposed.

As for not forcing teams to have the exactly same payroll, you have a point there, unfortunately in many succesful leagues this has been taken care of by sharing TV contract money, which apparently there isn't enough for all the NHL teams.

I think what some people here (whom others label as pro-NHLPA) are trying to point out, is that if there isn't enough money to go around, maybe there are too many franchises and players sharing the pot. There number of teams shouldn't be written in stone, if they can't make ends meet and be competitive. Maybe in the future if the financial situation gets better (like with a new improved TV contract), they can reconsider bringing more teams in.

But until then, I don't think it's the best solution trying to force too different cities (or hockey-markets) into the same league. Certainly the cap isn't the ONLY solution to do this, like Bettman argues.

 

[quat]

Here's an idea, instead of insulting me how about you actually make a case for the NHL surviving under the current CBA?

Because the further little Tom gets backed into a corner, the sharper his indignation and the shabbier his comments. heh. it's funny because it's real.

 

[PecaFan]

So what? I think the NHLPA is smart enough to know that if they hold firm, they win. They are planning to win at all costs.

Reminds me of my uncle's plumbing business. They unionised because they were only making $50 an hour. They refused to settle for a year, He pleaded with them, showed them the books, no offer was good enough.

So he had no choice but to close the business. And then they made $0 an hour.

The owners are all independently wealthy, and when it comes right down to it, can afford to have the league go under. Most of the players will be flipping burgers just to survive.

In this Mexican standoff, time favours the owners big time.

That very rare hockey talent is why we pay billions to watch. They are the game.

They are *not* the game. Wipe out those players in a plane crash tomorrow, and the game ceases to be? Hardly.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Seems you suffer from the same misperception that is rampant in the PA. Why do you think the owners are spending so much time on PR? Maybe you and the PA should try and figure that out.

Public opinion will decide if replacement hockey is sellable. As long as the owners have the public on their side, they're sitting pretty. Unfortunately for the players, they continue to ignore this crucial factor.

I'd like to quote an article from the local paper down here in south FL,

It would be one thing if this sport could survive a one- or two-year lockout.

But nobody cares. OK, few care, but could the Panthers in particular be more irrelevant in this market right now? And the Dolphins aren't even winning!

"I think the owners are taking a big chance if they're willing to scrap a full season and maybe even another," McLennan said. "As players we want to work to find solutions. The owners aren't willing to negotiate. It's too bad that it all comes down to two words -- salary cap -- because there are so many more issues than cap or no cap."

Maybe in Canada the public actually cares that there's no hockey (or maybe in the major American markets in the northeast) but for most of the remaining teams (a majority), the sports markets have other alternatives than hockey. Down in this area, it was usually the Miami Dolphins taking precedence but now it will be basketball and the Miami Heat with Shaq now. You seem to be suffering the delusion that the fans could care enough to impact negotiations one way or the other. If the league is under the delusion that replacement players would draw fans even at severely reduced prices, then they should have their heads examined.

Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...07,0,1728530.column?coll=sfla-sports-panthers

 

[PecaFan]

I'd like to quote an article from the local paper down here in south FL,
Maybe in Canada the public actually cares that there's no hockey (or maybe in the major American markets in the northeast) but for most of the remaining teams (a majority), the sports markets have other alternatives than hockey. Down in this area, it was usually the Miami Dolphins taking precedence but now it will be basketball and the Miami Heat with Shaq now. You seem to be suffering the delusion that the fans could care enough to impact negotiations one way or the other. If the league is under the delusion that replacement players would draw fans even at severely reduced prices, then they should have their heads examined.

Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...07,0,1728530.column?coll=sfla-sports-panthers

That article *supports* replacement players more than it debunks it. If the Florida fans don't even care that the players are locked out right now, suddenly they're all going to refuse to go to games when they start up because it's not their same ol' beloved "real" Panthers?

If the fans don't care about the current players, logic says they would watch replacements. In fact, many probably wouldn't even know they were replacements.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

That article *supports* replacement players more than it debunks it. If the Florida fans don't even care that the players are locked out right now, suddenly they're all going to refuse to go to games when they start up because it's not their same ol' beloved "real" Panthers?

If the fans don't care about the current players, logic says they would watch replacements. In fact, many probably wouldn't even know they were replacements.

Your logic is GREATLY flawed. The article doesn't say the fans don't care about the current players or watching the current players. What the article says is the fans don't care that the league is locked out...same thing around most of the US that the average hockey fan (aka not die-hards) doesn't care that the NHL isn't playing. The article in fact doesn't support replacement players...if anything it supports the current players as evident by this quote by the writer,

But negotiating is a two-way street, and the owners, who are to blame for the league's economic problems, must prove to the fans, who have shelled out for so long, that they genuinely are trying to save the season.

Owners are banking on players giving up, and maybe they will. But a few players speaking out doesn't signal the busting of the union.

Living in the area, I can vouch that there is little difference between last yr with hockey and this yr without hockey. Now if the team is winning, that's when the interest in the team & sport changes in the area...that's the only thing that matters to most fans, a winning team. You can call them bandwagoners or front-runners or whatever else but for the most part, they are the reason some teams around the league will make or lose money.

 

[YellHockey*]

Reminds me of my uncle's plumbing business. They unionised because they were only making $50 an hour. They refused to settle for a year, He pleaded with them, showed them the books, no offer was good enough.

So he had no choice but to close the business. And then they made $0 an hour.

So you're saying that none of the employees could find jobs afterwards?

If plumbers were making $50 an hour under your uncle then plumbers must be in great demand in your area. I know they are in mine. Surely if plumbers are in great demand they must be able to make some pretty good money working elsewhere.

However, how much does your uncle make now that his business was closed? He's probably significantly worse off then his former employees are. Afterall, he lost a business while all they lost was an employer.

 

[PecaFan]

So you're saying that none of the employees could find jobs afterwards?

Nobody said that. But they all flushed away at least a years salary. As well as however long it took to find another job after that. This was in a recession, so who knows how long that took. And of course, they started over at the bottom rung, probably making less than before, and flushing away years of seniority as well.

However, how much does your uncle make now that his business was closed? He's probably significantly worse off then his former employees are. Afterall, he lost a business while all they lost was an employer.

He was a multi-millionaire, so it was no skin off his nose. All of his other businesses were fine. And he just started up a new plumbing business a couple of years later, with guys who had no problem being highly paid non-unionised labour.

 

[Brisson11]

Why don't the pro-owner people tell me why a hard cap is better than a soft cap?

A hard cap will protect the players' heads more effectively