Conway :Pro hockey's ultimate betrayal continues

Status
Not open for further replies.

mooseOAK*

Guest
Weary said:
The teams do employ NHLPA members. In fact, teams have contracts with many of those members. I'm sure most of the players would return to work immediately to start collecting their paychecks. It's the league that doesn't want to pay those paychecks.

How can the league avoid paying players with contracts who would readily play? Lock them out.
So, teams signed players before the season would have started as some sort of practical joke on them?
 

Atlas

Registered User
Sep 7, 2004
3,355
1
gc2005 said:
Dude, give up. It wasn't triggered equally by the players and owners, the players would have been more than happy to continue playing under the expired CBA. It was triggered by the owners, who did so completely within their rights. It is a lockout. End of story.


And the earth is flat.

It makes no difference what agreements the players would have been more than happy to play under because once the last CBA expired there was no agreement. No agreement exists. That fact supercedes the rest.

There are plenty of NHLPA members employed by other leagues around the world but none are currently employed by the NHL. If the NHL folds will we say that Joe Sakic worked for the Avs for the 2004-2005 season? No because Sakic had no contact with them during that time and he won't unless there is a new CBA.

My point in all this is not to dissect words for the sake of dissecting words. My point is that the NHLPA and the NHL (and the media and fans) ought to recognize that the old CBA means absolutely nothing today. If both sides take a fresh look at the reality of their market they ought to be able to come to a reasonable new CBA. But that's not what they are doing. The players are trying to hold on to a past that doesn't exist. Both sides are playing politically-correct word games in an attempt to pressure public opinion. Both sides are dancing around and the result is no hockey.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
JohnGalt said:
And the earth is flat.

It makes no difference what agreements the players would have been more than happy to play under because once the last CBA expired there was no agreement. No agreement exists. That fact supercedes the rest.
Except that's not a fact -- it's a falsehood. The term of the last CBA expired, but he agreement remains in place. Both sides are bound to abide by the last agreed upon CBA. If the workers don't like the terms, they go on strike. If the owners don't like the terms, they lock out the workers. It's as simple as that.
 

NHLFanSince2020

What'd He Say?
Feb 22, 2003
3,092
4
Visit site
JohnGalt said:
If both sides take a fresh look at the reality of their market they ought to be able to come to a reasonable new CBA. But that's not what they are doing. The players are trying to hold on to a past that doesn't exist.
Very well put.

The players are trying to hold on to something that is no longer there.

... but I wonder in a court of law how the CBA/individual contract issue would be judged. Is there a precedent?
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
AM said:
Basically, you have to do something when its available. Sometimes thats at the same time you should be whacking down millionaire players.... oh well. The owners decided to give the players a huge gift. That dosnt mean that they should continue to do that.
And the owners passed the chance when the chance was available. They chose to renew instead of rework. That is purely their own fault.

Well, you should read the boards closer. Most peeps arnt blaming the owners for the lockout.
If those "peeps" are right, why do some feel the need to apply logical fallacies -- like an Appeal to Popularity -- in order to argue their point?
 

NHLFanSince2020

What'd He Say?
Feb 22, 2003
3,092
4
Visit site
Weary said:
And the owners passed the chance when the chance was available. They chose to renew instead of rework. That is purely their own fault.
OK, how many times does the following point have to be made? The owners are now determined to not make the same mistake again.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
JohnGalt said:
Originally Posted by gc2005
Dude, give up. It wasn't triggered equally by the players and owners, the players would have been more than happy to continue playing under the expired CBA. It was triggered by the owners, who did so completely within their rights. It is a lockout. End of story.
And the earth is flat.

It makes no difference what agreements the players would have been more than happy to play under because once the last CBA expired there was no agreement. No agreement exists. That fact supercedes the rest.

There are plenty of NHLPA members employed by other leagues around the world but none are currently employed by the NHL. If the NHL folds will we say that Joe Sakic worked for the Avs for the 2004-2005 season? No because Sakic had no contact with them during that time and he won't unless there is a new CBA.

My point in all this is not to dissect words for the sake of dissecting words. My point is that the NHLPA and the NHL (and the media and fans) ought to recognize that the old CBA means absolutely nothing today. If both sides take a fresh look at the reality of their market they ought to be able to come to a reasonable new CBA. But that's not what they are doing. The players are trying to hold on to a past that doesn't exist. Both sides are playing politically-correct word games in an attempt to pressure public opinion. Both sides are dancing around and the result is no hockey.

I don't know why I keep arguing with this poor mis-informed troll.

Under both US and (as far as I understand it) Provincial Labor law the expired CBA most definitely does NOT "means absolutely nothing today". It's terms remain in force until superceded by a new negotiated or imposed CBA. That was why the league was able to play an almost entire season in 1992 without any CBA in place.

And your argument that players under contract (and those under recent expired contracts) are not employees is equally completely off base. Players under contract are still employees and if the lockout were lifted would be required to complete the terms of their contracts (barring a PA strike). If they were not employees, they would have no legal standing to even be collectively negotiating with the NHL.

If players were not still employees (absent a CBA), then tell me why injured players on IR were still receiving medical care from their teams during the lockout and some players on IR were still even getting paid.

Just because they are temporarily working in another league during the lockout does not change their status as employees of the the NHL teams. It is perfectly legal for a locked out employee to seek employment elsewhere during the course of a lockout - and despite your ill informed protestations to the term, this is a lockout. If the lockout were lifted, and the PA voted to strike, those players under contract playing overseas would no longer be eligible to play there.

Your philosophical point that a new CBA can be a clean break from the past is valid, but your understanding of labor law leaves something to be desired.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
kdb209 said:
I don't know why I keep arguing with this poor mis-informed troll.

Under both US and (as far as I understand it) Provincial Labor law the expired CBA most definitely does NOT "means absolutely nothing today". It's terms remain in force until superceded by a new negotiated or imposed CBA. That was why the league was able to play an almost entire season in 1992 without any CBA in place.

And your argument that players under contract (and those under recent expired contracts) are not employees is equally completely off base. Players under contract are still employees and if the lockout were lifted would be required to complete the terms of their contracts (barring a PA strike). If they were not employees, they would have no legal standing to even be collectively negotiating with the NHL.

If players were not still employees (absent a CBA), then tell me why injured players on IR were still receiving medical care from their teams during the lockout and some players on IR were still even getting paid.

Just because they are temporarily working in another league during the lockout does not change their status as employees of the the NHL teams. It is perfectly legal for a locked out employee to seek employment elsewhere during the course of a lockout - and despite your ill informed protestations to the term, this is a lockout. If the lockout were lifted, and the PA voted to strike, those players under contract playing overseas would no longer be eligible to play there.

Your philosophical point that a new CBA can be a clean break from the past is valid, but your understanding of labor law leaves something to be desired.
In Canada both provincial and federal (yes there is federal) labour law has the same effect. The CBA exists during the term of the lockout but the obligation for the employer to pay and the employees to provide services are suspended.

In many cases negotiations go on with an expired CBA. In British Columbia the Registered Nurses went almost three years with an extended CBA and continued to operate under the previous CBA.

During the 1994 MLB dispute, the owners declared an impasse, imposed a CBA, used replacements and were on the way to opening the season when the NLRB intervened and set aside the impasse declaration and ordered the MLB owners to play for two years more under the previous CBA.

As you point out if disputes arise over such things as injured reserve status, they are dealt with under the terms of the CBA last in effect.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Wetcoaster said:
Originally Posted by kdb209
I don't know why I keep arguing with this poor mis-informed troll.

Under both US and (as far as I understand it) Provincial Labor law the expired CBA most definitely does NOT "means absolutely nothing today". It's terms remain in force until superceded by a new negotiated or imposed CBA. That was why the league was able to play an almost entire season in 1992 without any CBA in place.

And your argument that players under contract (and those under recent expired contracts) are not employees is equally completely off base. Players under contract are still employees and if the lockout were lifted would be required to complete the terms of their contracts (barring a PA strike). If they were not employees, they would have no legal standing to even be collectively negotiating with the NHL.

If players were not still employees (absent a CBA), then tell me why injured players on IR were still receiving medical care from their teams during the lockout and some players on IR were still even getting paid.

Just because they are temporarily working in another league during the lockout does not change their status as employees of the the NHL teams. It is perfectly legal for a locked out employee to seek employment elsewhere during the course of a lockout - and despite your ill informed protestations to the term, this is a lockout. If the lockout were lifted, and the PA voted to strike, those players under contract playing overseas would no longer be eligible to play there.

Your philosophical point that a new CBA can be a clean break from the past is valid, but your understanding of labor law leaves something to be desired.
In Canada both provincial and federal (yes there is federal) labour law has the same effect. The CBA exists during the term of the lockout but the obligation for the employer to pay and the employees to provide services are suspended.

In many cases negotiations go on with an expired CBA. In British Columbia the Registered Nurses went almost three years with an extended CBA and continued to operate under the previous CBA.

During the 1994 MLB dispute, the owners declared an impasse, imposed a CBA, used replacements and were on the way to opening the season when the NLRB intervened and set aside the impasse declaration and ordered the MLB owners to play for two years more under the previous CBA.

As you point out if disputes arise over such things as injured reserve status, they are dealt with under the terms of the CBA last in effect.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew that that was the case under US labor law and was pretty sure it held up north too.

One small nit to pick. I just elaborated more on this in another thread, but in the 95 MLB lockout, no impasse was actually declared, MLB just unilaterally made changes in what they deemed to be non-mandatory subjects of negotiation which they held could be changed without an impasse. The NLRB disagreed, hence the ULP charge and injunction.
 

Atlas

Registered User
Sep 7, 2004
3,355
1
kdb209 said:
I don't know why I keep arguing with this poor mis-informed troll.

Your philosophical point that a new CBA can be a clean break from the past is valid, but your understanding of labor law leaves something to be desired.



First of all I am the furthest thing from a troll. If you care to, have a look at my other posts and you will find that I am one of the nicest people around.

I have not mentioned a word about labor law. Laws are executed by Man and the language of laws are subject to the same mistreatment as the language of Bettman and Goodenow. Last time I checked, in fact, both Bettman and Goodenow were lawyers.

Government intervention into Man's business transactions are notoriously arbitrary and often have little to do with justice. A few million dollars finding its way to a certain political party has been known to sway the verdicts of judges and other government officials.

If this gets to the NLRB they might conclude anything at all. They have no better grasp on justice than the majority of posters here.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
JohnGalt said:
I have not mentioned a word about labor law. Laws are executed by Man and the language of laws are subject to the same mistreatment as the language of Bettman and Goodenow. Last time I checked, in fact, both Bettman and Goodenow were lawyers.

Sure you did. You claimed that this was not a lockout. You said:
Everyone, even the owners have been calling this thing a lockout but that's not the right word for what this is. A lockout would mean that a deal was in place and the owners broke it by locking the doors on the players and keeping them away.

What has happened here is that the old agreement ended. Neither side currently has a contract to work under. The players are not being locked out of anything because there is no agreement for them to be locked out of.

It is a lockout as defined under the labour laws which apply to this dispute and you were incorrect under labour law principles when you claimed there was no longer a CBA to work under. In the past the NHL has operated with an expired CBA.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
JohnGalt said:
Originally Posted by kdb209
I don't know why I keep arguing with this poor mis-informed troll.

Your philosophical point that a new CBA can be a clean break from the past is valid, but your understanding of labor law leaves something to be desired.
First of all I am the furthest thing from a troll. If you care to, have a look at my other posts and you will find that I am one of the nicest people around.

I have not mentioned a word about labor law. Laws are executed by Man and the language of laws are subject to the same mistreatment as the language of Bettman and Goodenow. Last time I checked, in fact, both Bettman and Goodenow were lawyers.

Government intervention into Man's business transactions are notoriously arbitrary and often have little to do with justice. A few million dollars finding its way to a certain political party has been known to sway the verdicts of judges and other government officials.

If this gets to the NLRB they might conclude anything at all. They have no better grasp on justice than the majority of posters here.

The troll comment came from your continuing false claims:
- this isn't a lockout
- a strike happens during the period of a valid CBA
- the expired CBA has no more legal meaning
and the fact that you continued your claims even in the face of refutaion by many posters. This could lead some to beleve that you were just intentionally being obstinate - hence the troll charge.

No mention of Labor Law??? You made all three claims above - that sounds alot like labor law to me.

I won't comment on the whole governement and law vs justice point, since it's pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

And the NLRB??? They may have "no better grasp on justice"? Doesn't matter - they do have a very well defined grasp on law and precedent (and are bound by such and subject to review by the courts) so there decisions are far from arbitrary.

Now, what I think may have been your main underlying philosophical point - that a new CBA can be a break with past practices (if so negotiated) - is valid, but your repeated patently false claims have severly undercut your credibility.
 

jratelle19

Registered User
Jul 3, 2004
358
9
New York
If both sides are not concerned about losing fans when the league comes back, it's because the fans, instead of showing their anger towards both sides equally, have chosen sides, playing right into their hands.

Look on any message board out there (especially this one) and what do you see? Pro-PA vs Pro-Owners has replaced Habs vs Leafs or Calgary vs Edmonton. When it looks like the owners have won a battle, pro-owner people seem like they are high-fiving one another, the same for the pro-PA people out there. Meanwhile, both sides are observing all this and smiling, knowing that they have the fans hook, line and sinker. That is why they know they can do this to us and get away with it.

Every time I read posts by fans who have taken sides insulting one another and following their "leader", be it Bettman or Goodenow, I can't help but think what blind fools they are and that maybe I was wrong. Maybe some fans really do deserve what they've been getting since Sept 15?
 

Atlas

Registered User
Sep 7, 2004
3,355
1
jratelle19 said:
If both sides are not concerned about losing fans when the league comes back, it's because the fans, instead of showing their anger towards both sides equally, have chosen sides, playing right into their hands.

Look on any message board out there (especially this one) and what do you see? Pro-PA vs Pro-Owners has replaced Habs vs Leafs or Calgary vs Edmonton. When it looks like the owners have won a battle, pro-owner people seem like they are high-fiving one another, the same for the pro-PA people out there. Meanwhile, both sides are observing all this and smiling, knowing that they have the fans hook, line and sinker. That is why they know they can do this to us and get away with it.

Every time I read posts by fans who have taken sides insulting one another and following their "leader", be it Bettman or Goodenow, I can't help but think what blind fools they are and that maybe I was wrong. Maybe some fans really do deserve what they've been getting since Sept 15?



Very well said. The NHL and NHLPA are playing tug of war and we fans are watching it like a soap opera and with as much interest as the Stanley Cup finals.


kdb, you are accepting what other people have said about terms like "lockout" and "strike" and "justice" without thinking it all through for yourself. You say that I am wrong about all these things...remember that other people can also be wrong about things. It is entirely possible that these words (among many others) are sometimes used as obscurities of the truth rather than as agents for the truth.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
JohnGalt said:
It is entirely possible that these words (among many others) are sometimes used as obscurities of the truth rather than as agents for the truth.
Self-referential post?
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
JohnGalt said:
kdb, you are accepting what other people have said about terms like "lockout" and "strike" and "justice" without thinking it all through for yourself. You say that I am wrong about all these things...remember that other people can also be wrong about things. It is entirely possible that these words (among many others) are sometimes used as obscurities of the truth rather than as agents for the truth.

I am accepting what other people are saying about terms like "lockout" and "strike" (but have steered clear of the nebulous term of "justice") because those terms have very specific legal meanings in the context of the whole NHL (and other) labor dispute. Your own definitions of "lockout" and "strike" and "justice" will get you nothing where it counts - in the CBA negotiations, before the NLRB, or in the courts. Other people can be wrong about many things - who can dispute such a grand sweeping generalization (your apparent forte) - but if other people (especially those people with institutional power - the NLRB and the courts) seem to have a consistent view backed by decades of consensus (and legal precedents), I think I'll take there word over yours. No Offense.

It is entirely possible that others are using (mis-using) these words (among many others) as obscurities of reality rather than dealing with the practicalities of the current labor situation.
 

Atlas

Registered User
Sep 7, 2004
3,355
1
kdb209 said:
I am accepting what other people are saying about terms like "lockout" and "strike" (but have steered clear of the nebulous term of "justice") because those terms have very specific legal meanings in the context of the whole NHL (and other) labor dispute. Your own definitions of "lockout" and "strike" and "justice" will get you nothing where it counts - in the CBA negotiations, before the NLRB, or in the courts. Other people can be wrong about many things - who can dispute such a grand sweeping generalization (your apparent forte) - but if other people (especially those people with institutional power - the NLRB and the courts) seem to have a consistent view backed by decades of consensus (and legal precedents), I think I'll take there word over yours. No Offense.

It is entirely possible that others are using (mis-using) these words (among many others) as obscurities of reality rather than dealing with the practicalities of the current labor situation.


We here have no dealings with the practicalities of the CBA negotiations. We are watching a circus. We aren't allowed at the bargaining table and we would be out of our element if we were. Your implication is that these CBA negotiations make sense. They do not. These men are crazy.

By way of defending myself I must add that it is you are using the term "lockout" in a general and sweeping way, without focusing on the essence of its meaning.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
JohnGalt said:
Originally Posted by kdb209
I am accepting what other people are saying about terms like "lockout" and "strike" (but have steered clear of the nebulous term of "justice") because those terms have very specific legal meanings in the context of the whole NHL (and other) labor dispute. Your own definitions of "lockout" and "strike" and "justice" will get you nothing where it counts - in the CBA negotiations, before the NLRB, or in the courts. Other people can be wrong about many things - who can dispute such a grand sweeping generalization (your apparent forte) - but if other people (especially those people with institutional power - the NLRB and the courts) seem to have a consistent view backed by decades of consensus (and legal precedents), I think I'll take there word over yours. No Offense.

It is entirely possible that others are using (mis-using) these words (among many others) as obscurities of reality rather than dealing with the practicalities of the current labor situation.
We here have no dealings with the practicalities of the CBA negotiations. We are watching a circus. We aren't allowed at the bargaining table and we would be out of our element if we were. Your implication is that these CBA negotiations make sense. They do not. These men are crazy.

By way of defending myself I must add that it is you are using the term "lockout" in a general and sweeping way, without focusing on the essence of its meaning.

But we are dealing with the practicalities of the CBA negotiations - as spectators of this piece of sports-economics theatre. And to fully appreciate it, you must more fully understand the context behind it - the history of NHL labor relations, the experiences of other professional sports leagues, and yes the framework of US (and Canadian) labor law that constrain the process and it's potential outcomes.

And actually, I do think these CBA negotiations make sense (up to a point). I've found the actions of GB and the league quite rational and defensible. It's the actions of BG that I find much harder to fathom.

And no, I have never used the term lockout in "a general and sweeping way". I have been quite specific in its application under accepted labor law terminology. I have just been calling a spade a spade - you have been the one trying to call the current situation something other than a lockout and defining a lockout as something other than it's generally accepted definition.

You may be obsessed with the "essence of it's meaning", but that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee before the NLRB or the courts.
 

Atlas

Registered User
Sep 7, 2004
3,355
1
kdb209 said:
I've found the actions of GB and the league quite rational and defensible. It's the actions of BG that I find much harder to fathom.


We agree on this much at least. In the context of the current run of CBA negotiations the owner's demands for a reaonable agreement make sense.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
JohnGalt said:
We agree on this much at least. In the context of the current run of CBA negotiations the owner's demands for a reaonable agreement make sense.
Instead of demanding a reasonable agreement, perhaps they should draft one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->