Can a player play without being in the NHLPA

[GernerPSU]

This thing came up in a discussion with my friend about Crosby's next contract. His obligation to the NHLPA is definitely a factor in this decision. At the same time, the NHLPA can only benefit from him. I don't see him as the kind of person that just jumps out of the NHLPA, but does one need to be in the PA? I seem to remember Mario and Gretz both not in it at one time or another. Jordan the same in the NBA along with other minor players here and there throughout history. Most recently, I can think of Bonds as one who isn't in the association.

Basically, is there any stipulation in the CBA or anywhere else that would say a player must be in the PA to play for an NHL team?

Click to read more...

 

[kdb209]

This thing came up in a discussion with my friend about Crosby's next contract. His obligation to the NHLPA is definitely a factor in this decision. At the same time, the NHLPA can only benefit from him. I don't see him as the kind of person that just jumps out of the NHLPA, but does one need to be in the PA? I seem to remember Mario and Gretz both not in it at one time or another. Jordan the same in the NBA along with other minor players here and there throughout history. Most recently, I can think of Bonds as one who isn't in the association.

Basically, is there any stipulation in the CBA or anywhere else that would say a player must be in the PA to play for an NHL team?

Players are not forced to join the NHLPA, however they are still bound by all the terms of the current (and any future) CBA negotiated by the NHLPA and pay the same dues as players who join the union.

ARTICLE 4
UNION SECURITY AND CHECK-OFF

4.1 Membership. Every Player has the option of joining or not joining the NHLPA;
provided, however, that as a condition of employment as a Player for the duration of this
Agreement and wherever and whenever legal:

(a) any Player who is, or later becomes, a member in good standing of the
NHLPA must maintain his membership in good standing in the NHLPA; or

(b) any Player who is not a member in good standing of the NHLPA must, on
the 30th day following the beginning of his employment as a Player, pay, pursuant to
Section 4.2 below or otherwise, to the NHLPA an annual service fee in the same amount
as the periodic dues.​

 

[puck57]

Players are not forced to join the NHLPA, however they are still bound by all the terms of the current (and any future) CBA negotiated by the NHLPA and pay the same dues as players who join the union.

Wow- that is real democratic- they have to still pay dues to the union even though they may not want to join. How can they get away with that- especially those teams that are in right to work states in the US- can anyone explain.

 

[kdb209]

Wow- that is real democratic- they have to still pay dues to the union even though they may not want to join. How can they get away with that- especially those teams that are in right to work states in the US- can anyone explain.

This is true of all unions in the US.

Even though a worker may not officially be a member of a union, they are still deemed to benefit from the existance of the union, and are treated by management just like any other union member. They may be required to pay dues which support the operation of the union. They do, however, have the option to opt out of the portion of their union dues which are used for political purposes - lobbying, etc.

I have never heard of any NHL players who opted not to join the NHLPA. There were a number of baseball players who are not members of the MLBPA - any replacement players who crossed the picket lines in 1995 were banned from the MLBPA for life.

 

[kdb209]

Wow- that is real democratic- they have to still pay dues to the union even though they may not want to join. How can they get away with that- especially those teams that are in right to work states in the US- can anyone explain.

And to give you more info than you cared to know - here is the decision in Communications Workers v. Beck - where the Supreme Court rules that non-members could withold the portion of their dues not directly related to collective bargaining activities.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=487&invol=735

U.S. Supreme Court
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS v. BECK, 487 U.S. 735 (1988)
487 U.S. 735

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA ET AL. v. BECK ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 86-637.

Argued January 11, 1988
Decided June 29, 1988

Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) permits an employer and a union to enter into an agreement requiring all employees in the bargaining unit to pay union dues as a condition of continued employment, whether or not the employees become union members. Petitioner Communications Workers of America (CWA) entered into a collective-bargaining agreement that contains a union-security clause under which all represented employees who do not become union members must pay the union "agency fees" in amounts equal to the dues paid by union members. Respondents, bargaining-unit employees who chose not to become union members, filed this suit in Federal District Court, challenging CWA's use of their agency fees for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment (hereinafter "collective-bargaining" activities). They alleged that expenditure of their fees on activities such as organizing the employees of other employers, lobbying for labor legislation, and participating in social, charitable, and political events violated CWA's duty of fair representation, 8(a)(3), and the First Amendment. The court concluded that CWA's collection and disbursement of agency fees for purposes other than collective-bargaining activities violated the associational and free speech rights of objecting nonmembers, and granted injunctive relief and an order for reimbursement of excess fees. The Court of Appeals, preferring to rest its judgment on a ground other than the Constitution, ultimately concluded, inter alia, that the collection of non-members' fees for purposes unrelated to collective bargaining violated CWA's duty of fair representation.

 

[puck57]

And to give you more info than you cared to know - here is the decision in Communications Workers v. Beck - where the Supreme Court rules that non-members could withold the portion of their dues not directly related to collective bargaining activities.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=487&invol=735

Thanks- that is reall interesting and appreciated taking the time to post that!!

 

[Crazy_Ike]

It's not a coincidence that unions tend to resemble communist regimes.

 

[tinyzombies]

It's not a coincidence that unions tend to resemble communist regimes.

Yeah, some communists when the average worker is making over a million a year.

 

[rj]

This thing came up in a discussion with my friend about Crosby's next contract. His obligation to the NHLPA is definitely a factor in this decision. At the same time, the NHLPA can only benefit from him. I don't see him as the kind of person that just jumps out of the NHLPA, but does one need to be in the PA? I seem to remember Mario and Gretz both not in it at one time or another. Jordan the same in the NBA along with other minor players here and there throughout history. Most recently, I can think of Bonds as one who isn't in the association.

Basically, is there any stipulation in the CBA or anywhere else that would say a player must be in the PA to play for an NHL team?

From my understanding, if the players voted to decertify the union, there could be no collective bargaining. If there was no collective bargaining, that could mean no salary cap.

The unions exist because it is better for the owners in my eyes. I've yet to figure out why the players don't realize this in any North American sport. Granted, if there were no unions, there would be no retirement plan, health insurance, etc. But you'd have to think the extra money the players would make could cover that, at least for the smart ones.

 

[Midnight]

From my understanding, if the players voted to decertify the union, there could be no collective bargaining. If there was no collective bargaining, that could mean no salary cap. The unions exist because it is better for the owners in my eyes.

Huh? If there was no collective bargaining, the owners would pretty much be able to unilaterally impose whatever economic terms they see fit. In all likelihood, you'll see a much lower and less variable salary cap if the NHLPA weren't around.

 

[GSC2k2*]

From my understanding, if the players voted to decertify the union, there could be no collective bargaining. If there was no collective bargaining, that could mean no salary cap.

The unions exist because it is better for the owners in my eyes. I've yet to figure out why the players don't realize this in any North American sport. Granted, if there were no unions, there would be no retirement plan, health insurance, etc. But you'd have to think the extra money the players would make could cover that, at least for the smart ones.

You're kidding, right?

 

[kurt]

You're kidding, right?

Why do you think he's kidding? Historically, unions were a necessary tool for protecting rights of employees. Today, the role of the union is greatly diminished, due to the development of employment standards, etc.

Especially in an industry like professional hockey, where elite players are extremely skilled and basically irreplaceable, there is very little need for a union.

 

[st5801]

From my understanding, if the players voted to decertify the union, there could be no collective bargaining. If there was no collective bargaining, that could mean no salary cap.

Actually, it would mean about a $30 million salary cap. Or whatever else the owners wanted.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Why do you think he's kidding? Historically, unions were a necessary tool for protecting rights of employees. Today, the role of the union is greatly diminished, due to the development of employment standards, etc.

Especially in an industry like professional hockey, where elite players are extremely skilled and basically irreplaceable, there is very little need for a union.

Without an NHLPA, sure some players would still be comfortably paid. Others would be playing for $150,000 or have to go to Europe.

The NHLPA pension? You think the owners would fund something like that for the players? A health care plan? Counseling services? Payments when guys get called up/sent down/traded?

Heck, let's just go back to some other stuff. Free agency? It sure as heck wouldn't be as liberal as it is now. Arbitration? Gone. Qualifying offers? Gone. Entry-level system? Again ... great players would still get paid well, but that kid who was a 7th round pick would be getting the $150,000 offer. Contract negotiations? the owners wouldn't have to recognize the players' agents, it could be, "Screw you, buddy - I'll deal with the player myself" or even better/worse, "Yeah ... and in that contract, you allowed me to put in other clauses as I wish - and one of them is that you're under contract for the next 12 years at $150,000 per year, even if you've won the Hart Trophy the last 6 years running."

Currently, I have listed in my files 1282 players signed to contracts for 2007-08, for a total value of $1,647,367,772. The top 22 salaries for 2007-08 make up just over 10% of that total; the top 195 make up 50% of the pot. 29% of the players are slated to earn 66% of that total - and mind you, that total is based on the assumption that everyone currently under contract makes their full NHL salary; most of those guys in the bottom end of the pay scale won't make much (if any) of their NHL salary, which is going to tilt the amount those 22 (and 195) guys make relative to the total salaries paid even higher.

You really think with a union, the pay wouldn't be even more skewed toward the top end?

If you think the players would be nearly as well off without a union, ... for the vast majority of them, not hardly.

 

[Masao]

This is true of all unions in the US.

And it's been true for a long time.

 

[rj]

Actually, it would mean about a $30 million salary cap. Or whatever else the owners wanted.

That is called collusion, which is mainly illegal in the U.S. (and I assume Canadian) marketplace.

Also, competition, the true spirit of the free market, would take hold. What's to stop a team from outbidding another team for their star player in the hopes of increasing revenue by winning more games?

Also, in one instance already been displayed with the NFL, the players ended the union and the league tried to bring it back because the way of life that they had created would have ended.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2387218

But later in 1989, the lower court's decision in the suit -- Powell vs. the NFL -- was reversed by a federal appeals court, which ruled that antitrust laws could not apply because the NFLPA was a labor union. Upshaw was in Albany, making a speech at a drug awareness seminar, when he received the news via telephone from general counsel Richard Berthelsen.

"We're going to decertify," Upshaw said after only a few seconds. "Let's go."

"It was the only alternative we had," Upshaw explains today. "The union is in place to protect the players, not the owners. If the union isn't doing its job, it shouldn't be there."

Dismantling the union is now seen through the lens of history as one of the boldest strokes ever by a labor leader.

"It was a roll of the dice, an all-or-nothing bet," Allen said. "The interesting thing? The harder it gets, the simpler it gets. We had two choices: surrender or fight. As a staff, we were betting not just our jobs but our careers, Gene most of all."

With no union dues coming in, there was a negligible cash flow. The non-union was not able to engage in collective bargaining, but it was free to pursue its legal battles. Its only major source of income: group licensing money the union had fought for that amounted to millions and helped pay for the lawyers. In labor relations, capital equals leverage, and this incoming cash was just enough to sustain the effort.

Meanwhile, the NFL was thought to be behind an effort by Hall of Fame fullback Larry Csonka to re-unionize the players. This forced the remnants of the NFLPA to become an anti-union, lobbying the players, fighting for survival. Somehow, Upshaw held things together.

As the players' litigation began to wind through the court system, the dynamic at the top of the NFL changed. Pete Rozelle, the commissioner for 29 years, was succeeded in late 1989 by Tagliabue. Raiders owner Davis, a pariah in many NFL eyes, gave him some valuable advice.

"[It was] about how to change the relationship with the players' association and to make it less adversarial and less confrontational, and build a relationship of respect and trust," Tagliabue said recently in an NFL Network interview. "We've tried to do that over the years, Gene Upshaw and I, and the owners and the Players Association Executive Committee. He and I have always been on the same page when it comes to trying to make this system work fairly."

From 1987 to 1993, about 20 lawsuits were filed by the NFLPA against the NFL. The most important involved Jets running back Freeman McNeil, who -- with seven other players -- challenged the league's restrictions on free agency, and defensive end Reggie White, who was part of a class action suit.

In 1991, Judge David Doty ruled that the NFL was no longer exempt from antitrust laws after the NFLPA's decertification, spurring the league to consider a deal. In November 1992, the league and the union began bargaining in earnest. In January 1993, the two sides came to a resolution. Players would get unprecedented free agency and a percentage of gross revenues; owners would get a salary cap.

A player's viewpoint:

This has been a long and sustained battle and once we got unionized, the NFLPA continued to get smarter every step of the way. It was the 1987 strike that eventually led the players and NFLPA to the smartest move of all. Decertification of the union! This step effectively forced owners to obey the Anti-Trust Laws. Of course we know what happened.......they did not follow the law and we sued them. They knew they were going to lose the court battle and that would have cost them hundreds of millions in damages and would have changed the face and structure of the NFL forever. The owners knew it would be total chaos if they did not eventually settle in 1993. The draft would have been a thing of the past. It would be a free-for-all in signing players. They wouldn't be able to share TV revenues. Some teams that didn't generate enough local revenue would have folded. All of this would have happened because of Anti-Trust Laws designed to protect the worker and the public in general.

The only professional sports league that has an anti-trust exemption is Major League Baseball, dating from 1922.

Without an NHLPA, sure some players would still be comfortably paid. Others would be playing for $150,000 or have to go to Europe.

What's wrong with that?

 

[davemess]

I seem to remember Mario and Gretz both not in it at one time or another.

I know that Mario wasnt allowed to re-join the Union when he came out of retirement while owner of the Penguins.

Believe he did pay his dues though...... and the NHLPA had to sign off on any contract Mario agreed to as a Player.

 

[hockeyhomer99]

This is true of all unions in the US.

Even though a worker may not officially be a member of a union, they are still deemed to benefit from the existance of the union, and are treated by management just like any other union member. They may be required to pay dues which support the operation of the union. They do, however, have the option to opt out of the portion of their union dues which are used for political purposes - lobbying, etc.

I have never heard of any NHL players who opted not to join the NHLPA. There were a number of baseball players who are not members of the MLBPA - any replacement players who crossed the picket lines in 1995 were banned from the MLBPA for life.

First, depending on the state you live in , you may not have to pay union dues or serving fees and must be afforded all the rights as paying members, unfortantely TExas is one of them. Texas along with many other states are "Right to Work" states, are as we call it the Right to Mooch. Beck applies to states that are not right to work or where certain industries are governed under different acts of the NLRA, ie Airlines, Railroads, have "CLosed Shops". Closed shops may be governed under Beck.

Second, it is against Federal Law for any Union dues to be used for political purposes. Monies give by Unions to political parties and individual are done from seperate PAC commitees.

And as for the NFLPA we can see how Gene's idea went there.. Things are the same and he's still President.. Got to love that. Not real sure how that works for the sporting industry....

I guess most people think that what benefits Union members enjoy, they enjoy because the company they work for just love them sooooooo much..

Sorry I get a little carried away with the Union, especially anything even remotely negative.

 

[hans]

What's wrong with that?

Nothing is "wrong" with that, but it does explain why the union won't be decertified. The majority of players in the NHLPA aren't stars. Those are exactly the guys who would be going off to Europe or playing for substantially less here. Those guys would have no incentive to decertify the union and harm themselves. Remember, the union exists to benefit the majority. And there's a lot more lesser players than elite ones.

 

[Clarence Beeks]

Yeah, some communists when the average worker is making over a million a year.

Care to show where in the definition of "communist" one would find a monetary amount? It's the basic philosophy, not the amount of money.

 

[kdb209]

The only professional sports league that has an anti-trust exemption is Major League Baseball, dating from 1922.

Actually, MLB's anti-trust exemption - at least having to do with labor issues - was repealed by the Curt Flood Act of 1998:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN00053:@@@L&summ2=m&

S.53
Title: A bill to require the general application of the antitrust laws to major league baseball, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 1/21/1997) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 105-297 [GPO: Text, PDF]
Senate Reports: 105-118
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments
SUMMARY AS OF:
7/30/1998--Passed Senate amended. (There are 2 other summaries)

Curt Flood Act of 1998 - Amends the Clayton Act to declare that the antitrust laws apply to the conduct, acts, practices, or agreements (conduct) of persons in the business of organized professional major league baseball relating to or affecting employment of major league baseball players to play baseball at the major league level to the same extent that such laws apply to such conduct of any other professional sports business affecting interstate commerce.

Grants standing to sue under this Act only to a major league baseball player, as defined by this Act.

Specifies that in cases involving conduct that directly relates to or affects both employment of major league baseball players to play baseball at the major league level and any other aspect of organized professional baseball, only those components, portions, or aspects of such conduct that directly relate to or affect employment of major league baseball players to play baseball at the major league level may be challenged under this Act.

MAJOR ACTIONS: l©@

1/21/1997 Introduced in Senate
10/29/1997 Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-118. Minority views filed.
7/30/1998 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
10/7/1998 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
10/27/1998 Signed by President.
10/27/1998 Became Public Law No: 105-297 [Text, PDF]

 

[SomeDude]

What's wrong with that?

You do realize that pro-athletes only play into their mid 30's on average, if their lucky. Pretty much everyone else works up until their 60's. A player's pay window is much smaller then the rest of us. Yes, most of them get paid enough to more then compensate for that, but if average NHL players were only making $150,000 a year then they'd be screwed after they retired, especially with no pension.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Without an NHLPA, sure some players would still be comfortably paid. Others would be playing for $150,000 or have to go to Europe.

The NHLPA pension? You think the owners would fund something like that for the players? A health care plan? Counseling services? Payments when guys get called up/sent down/traded?

Heck, let's just go back to some other stuff. Free agency? It sure as heck wouldn't be as liberal as it is now. Arbitration? Gone. Qualifying offers? Gone. Entry-level system? Again ... great players would still get paid well, but that kid who was a 7th round pick would be getting the $150,000 offer. Contract negotiations? the owners wouldn't have to recognize the players' agents, it could be, "Screw you, buddy - I'll deal with the player myself" or even better/worse, "Yeah ... and in that contract, you allowed me to put in other clauses as I wish - and one of them is that you're under contract for the next 12 years at $150,000 per year, even if you've won the Hart Trophy the last 6 years running."

Currently, I have listed in my files 1282 players signed to contracts for 2007-08, for a total value of $1,647,367,772. The top 22 salaries for 2007-08 make up just over 10% of that total; the top 195 make up 50% of the pot. 29% of the players are slated to earn 66% of that total - and mind you, that total is based on the assumption that everyone currently under contract makes their full NHL salary; most of those guys in the bottom end of the pay scale won't make much (if any) of their NHL salary, which is going to tilt the amount those 22 (and 195) guys make relative to the total salaries paid even higher.

You really think with a union, the pay wouldn't be even more skewed toward the top end?

If you think the players would be nearly as well off without a union, ... for the vast majority of them, not hardly.

Don't forget the big one, IB ...

Guaranteed contracts? Other than the top ten or twenty players, bye bye.

Career-ending injury? Consider yourself cut.


Actually, for anyone who is not a high first round calliber talent coming into the league, it would be a one-year contract with a perpetual team option. Free agency is thus effectively over for all but the guys who could have the leverage to refuse a perpetual team option coming out of junior.

THe 650 guys in the NHL who are interchangeable would discover just how interchangeable they really are.

 

[Fugu]

It would work just like any other system where employees and employers would need to impress each other to some extent. Certainly a high end talent would get whatever he wanted, but at some point, attracting a good player would also mean insuring him a good team was being built. The fillers would probably get a lot less and the higher end talent would get a lot more. Also don't forget that the NHL isn't the only league in the world. If pay and benefits became so low, why on earth would Europeans leave their 'tax free' and/or socialist environments where healthcare and education for their families were already covered?

There sure are a lot of companies in North America that have to hire a lot workers, many of whom have no union to speak for them and certainly no antitrust laws hovering over their employers. Yet I don't see slave wages (ha ha) or a complete lack of benefits in that environment.

 

[solipsta]

The lack of a union would be bad for both parties. Players would enjoy less benefits and security. The role players would particularly be hurt. Owners would see a splitting of the pie because a rival league would most likely pop up trying to scoop up the disgruntled players. It would create a great situation for some, but it would be horrible for the game on the whole.