Fan590 NLRB

Status
Not open for further replies.

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Wetcoaster said:
That is my considered opinion as well but then I have seen NHL executives, owners and GM's do some incredibly stupid things over the years. (See brian Burke antics for example).

It is only my opinion so I could be wrong - I have been before once - it was 1976 and I got married - that one cost me over a million. :joker:

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
mudcrutch79 said:
They could declare an impasse tomorrow if they wanted, although I suspect they'd want to do things like tabling an actual offer before doing so.

I thought it was an interesting interview, but I wish the guy had qualified this opinion. He did in answer to other questions, but not specifically in the NHL situation. He was explaining something I have heard Burke explain, but it sidesteps the more important issues. It may have been the way that McCown asked the question.

He was saying that an employer could establish a position and stick to it through thick and thin and still be bargaining in good faith. They don't have to be willing to compromise a core position to be at impasse. That was the point he was trying to make, the point McCown wanted to get across to the listeners. That was fair enough, but I was already aware of this.

What I want to know is what the NHL has to show in order to justify that core position. I think the NHLPA probably has a much better case than was presented on this program. The owners can stick to a position relentlessly as long as they have explained and justified it. Have they explained and justified it? Precisely what problems are they trying to solve with cost certainty? How, exactly, does their proposal address those problems? Why can't those specific problems be addressed in a way that does not specifically link salaries to revenues?

Surely the NHL has to clarify these issues for the union, if not for the public, before they will get a favourable impasse judgement. Goodenow was clear about how the NHL had defined the problems in the CBC interview:

"Number one, there's four or five, six teams that spend more than other teams and create problems. Two, our teams are having trouble in the entry-level system because they're drafting the wrong players, they're signing the wrong players, they're signing them to the wrong contracts. Three, we think that the overall level and burden of player compensation is too high."

Obviously, there are many ways to address these problems. Later the NHL started talking about arbitration, so the players addressed that, too.

What problems are the NHL trying to fix with a salary cap? How? Why only a cap? I think it is fair to expect the NHL to offer reasonable answers - and whatever supporting information necessary - to these questions before they can argue they have negotiated cost certainty to impasse.

They can't just hold fast to any position, can they?

Tom
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Tom_Benjamin said:
They can't just hold fast to any position, can they?

Of course you can. The players can say "We absolutely 100% demand that per diems be included in any CBA, and we will never ever negotiate that." Reality is, they don't need per diems anymore, but if that's their position, then they're allowed to stick to it. As long as you have other issues you're not so firm on, then everything's fine.

I still say the whole impasse thing is a red herring. The league has said *from the beginning* that it was not a route they want. Even if they win, it's still a terrible solution for them.

No, the NHL only wants the threat of impasse out there, to aid in bargaining. It's exactly the same as de-certifying the union, the PA doesn't want that to ever happen, but they like it to exist as a threat.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
PecaFan said:
Of course you can. The players can say "We absolutely 100% demand that per diems be included in any CBA, and we will never ever negotiate that." Reality is, they don't need per diems anymore, but if that's their position, then they're allowed to stick to it. As long as you have other issues you're not so firm on, then everything's fine.

I still say the whole impasse thing is a red herring. The league has said *from the beginning* that it was not a route they want. Even if they win, it's still a terrible solution for them.

No, the NHL only wants the threat of impasse out there, to aid in bargaining. It's exactly the same as de-certifying the union, the PA doesn't want that to ever happen, but they like it to exist as a threat.

No, that is not correct.
 

Go Flames Go*

Guest
NHL would win if they went to the NLRB. The players have not been negotiatiing in good faith, and accepting the facts. If the NHL offers a soft cap idead, and the NHLPA rejects it saying its a cap well theres the NHLPA's biggest mistake. They have said lets get common ground, well what is a compromise to a hard cap and salary taxes? Soft cap with salary taxes.
 

Son of Steinbrenner

Registered User
Jul 9, 2003
10,055
0
Go Flames Go said:
NHL would win if they went to the NLRB. The players have not been negotiatiing in good faith, and accepting the facts. If the NHL offers a soft cap idead, and the NHLPA rejects it saying its a cap well theres the NHLPA's biggest mistake. They have said lets get common ground, well what is a compromise to a hard cap and salary taxes? Soft cap with salary taxes.
what do you call a 24% rollback of salaries?

The NHL could have come up with some sort of response to that offer. The NHL could have put some teeth in the luxary tax.

My question to you is what if the NLRB backs the players? You do realize the owners will have to pay the players for all the lost salary they have missed this season. Do you honestly think the owners are going to let bettman take a chance they are going to lose?
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Wetcoaster said:
Perhaps the real nail in the coffin is the immigration laws of Canada and the US.
Because it operates in two countries and many of its players are neither Canadian nor American, immigration laws in Canada and the US will determine who can play as a replacement player.

Bear in mind an impasse declaration and use of replacement is considered only a temporary measure and therefore the labour dispute continues. Under Canadian immigration law for a foreign player to play in Canada (Europeans and Americans) they must have a work permit issued from Canada Immigration unless they have been admitted an immigrant previously. Under US immigration law for a foreign player to play in US (Europeans and Canadians) they must have a work permit issued from Canada Immigration unless they have been admitted an alien resident previously.

Under the immigration laws of both countries, a work permit cannot be issued to a foreign national where there is a labour dispute in progress. So only Canadian citizens and permanent residents can play for Canadian based teams and only US citizens and alien residents can play for US based teams - no European players at all.

Just a thought, since there's no way stopping these US/Canadian/European players entering both countries on tourist visas, in most cases visas are not needed at all, I believe due to international agreements between countries, maybe there's a chance they would deliberately break the law and play as replacements, work permit or not?

How long does it take to process the applications (hundreds of them?), would they get some priority treatment? What are the penalties for working as a tourist anyway, deportation and a fine, perhaps? And what is considered as work, if there appears to be no work contract between alleged employer and employee (there must be many ways to pay for foreign players/tourist e.g. through offshore companies).

And wouldn't police/other relevant authorities in Canada/US have more pressing concerns than to track down whether a few hundred tourist work during their stay?

All I'm trying to say, from owners point of view it might serve it's purpose to have a few replacement players to break immigration laws for a few weeks or months, which might lead to more actual NHL-players come in to play in the imposed CBA-league as well.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
gary69 said:
Just a thought, since there's no way stopping these US/Canadian/European players entering both countries on tourist visas, in most cases visas are not needed at all, I believe due to international agreements between countries, maybe there's a chance they would deliberately break the law and play as replacements, work permit or not?

How long does it take to process the applications (hundreds of them?), would they get some priority treatment? What are the penalties for working as a tourist anyway, deportation and a fine, perhaps? And what is considered as work, if there appears to be no work contract between alleged employer and employee (there must be many ways to pay for foreign players/tourist e.g. through offshore companies).

And wouldn't police/other relevant authorities in Canada/US have more pressing concerns than to track down whether a few hundred tourist work during their stay?

All I'm trying to say, from owners point of view it might serve it's purpose to have a few replacement players to break immigration laws for a few weeks or months, which might lead to more actual NHL-players come in to play in the imposed CBA-league as well.

Wow you have got to be kidding with this.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
gary69 said:
Just a thought, since there's no way stopping these US/Canadian/European players entering both countries on tourist visas, in most cases visas are not needed at all, I believe due to international agreements between countries, maybe there's a chance they would deliberately break the law and play as replacements, work permit or not?

How long does it take to process the applications (hundreds of them?), would they get some priority treatment? What are the penalties for working as a tourist anyway, deportation and a fine, perhaps? And what is considered as work, if there appears to be no work contract between alleged employer and employee (there must be many ways to pay for foreign players/tourist e.g. through offshore companies).

And wouldn't police/other relevant authorities in Canada/US have more pressing concerns than to track down whether a few hundred tourist work during their stay?

All I'm trying to say, from owners point of view it might serve it's purpose to have a few replacement players to break immigration laws for a few weeks or months, which might lead to more actual NHL-players come in to play in the imposed CBA-league as well.

They would be arrested immediately. How hard would it be to track down players without work permits playing in the NHL? You actually think the NHL players on strike would not be complaining?

"Hi guys nice dressing room, here is my badge I am a Canada Immigration enforcement officer, can I see your work permit? No? Please face the wall, etc."

Also the owners and managers could be prosecuted for knowingly employing foreign nationals without a work permit.

In addition to the arrest and removal from Canada they can also face:

124. (1) Every person commits an offence who

(a) contravenes a provision of this Act for which a penalty is not specifically provided or fails to comply with a condition or obligation imposed under this Act;
.......
(c) employs a foreign national in a capacity in which the foreign national is not authorized under this Act to be employed.

125. A person who commits an offence under subsection 124(1) is liable

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both; or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.

I do not think the NHL would be employing illegal players any time soon.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,346
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
WC, let me ask. Can players who are already here with work visas (AHL players and other minor leagues) play as replacement players, would they not be the ones considered alien residents?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
triggrman said:
WC, let me ask. Can players who are already here with work visas (AHL players and other minor leagues) play as replacement players, would they not be the ones considered alien residents?
No. Alien residents are people who have immigrated lawfully to the US but not yet become US citizens. Canada uses the term "permanent resident".

They are on different work permits. The minor leagues are on H2-B visas which are subject to quotas and the quota has already been exhausted. Also the work visas are invariably team specific. If you move to another minor league team you need an amended work permit.
http://www.echl.com/cgi-bin/mpublic.cgi?action=show_news&cat=1&id=3658

To play in the NHL would require a P-1 visa be issued and that would be prohibited because of the ongoing labour dispute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->