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