Goodenow has advised players not to

[vanlady]

Not necessarily.

Actually in the NBA situation the players had already voted and gave the executive the authority to decertify the union when they felt it was necessary. That made it very clear to the owners that they would not be able to slip in a CBA while a vote was being taken.

"(NBA) (p)layers earlier this summer gave the union's executive council the go-ahead to decertify, so a vote among the rank-and-file would not be necessary."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/1998/10/20/tuesday_lockout/

The question is was the same vote taken in June when the players met. Bob Goodenow has learned all the lessons from the other leagues, is this a lesson he learned? This is something that can be kept on the back burner until required and is not something that must be disclosed.

 

[leaflover]

If this report is true, and the rumor that there was a secret ballot from the players that said that most were in favour of a cap is true, than this could be Goodenow seeing the writing on the wall in lieu of an upcoming NHL proposal to the players.

If the majority of players were in favour of a cap they'd be playing NHL hockey.

 

[iagreewithidiots]

Yes the NHLPA is a union - in law and in fact.

Wow you sure wasted an awful lot of time on that.

And somehow still missed the whole point of what I was saying.

 

[Wetcoaster]

The question is was the same vote taken in June when the players met. Bob Goodenow has learned all the lessons from the other leagues, is this a lesson he learned? This is something that can be kept on the back burner until required and is not something that must be disclosed.

I suspect that the executive committee has this authority in their hip pocket. There is no real downside to having the authority and it gives the NHLPA a nuclear deterrent.

Goodenow is very smart and I cannot see him missing this one since the lesson was so clear during the 1995 NBA labour dispute.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Wow you sure wasted an awful lot of time on that.

And somehow still missed the whole point of what I was saying.

Your point was they are not a union - you were wrong - in law and in fact.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Yes the NHLPA is a union - in law and in fact.

In Quebec, the NHLPA is not recognized by the government (or law) as being a union. This comes straight from the government officials.

 

[iagreewithidiots]

Your point was they are not a union - you were wrong - in law and in fact.

Maybe you should question what it means to be in a union before you babble.

I wish I lived in the simple if its written in law its true, right, and fact world you live in.

You totally missed the point.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Maybe you should question what it means to be in a union before you babble.

I wish I lived in the simple if its written in law its true, right, and fact world you live in.

You totally missed the point.

In law and in FACT the NHLPA is a union - they are just not YOUR idea of a union.

I have been a labour lawyer (management and union) and a VP of a national union as well as union steward - and you?????

Unlike you I have a pretty good idea of what a union is and how it operates.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

In Quebec, the NHLPA is not recognized by the government (or law) as being a union. This comes straight from the government officials.

I assume you're talking about this :

Also, there are questions about whether the provinces recognize the NHLPA as a certified union, like the UAW or the Teamsters, which are protected from replacement workers taking their jobs.

"In Quebec, hockey players are not covered by the labor code," said Michele Poitras, spokeswoman for the Quebec Ministry of Labor.

It is uncertain when the NHL will resume playing, but it seems certain there will be a sustained need for good legal advice.

"That's why I have lots of labor lawyers," Bettman said when he triggered the lockout.

LINK

It doesn't say that they are not recognized as an union, just that they are not covered by the labor code.

Altough that might end up meaning the same thing ?

 

[Wetcoaster]

In Quebec, the NHLPA is not recognized by the government (or law) as being a union. This comes straight from the government officials.

No it is a union as defined, it is just not certified. There is a difference.

It is a union for various purposes under Quebec's labour code but not for the purpose of replacement player bans as it now stands. However all that would be required would be a certification vote by the Habs players which is pretty much "pro forma" since they are already operating as a local of union and have been recognized as such.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I assume you're talking about this :



LINK

It doesn't say that they are not recognized as an union, just that they are not covered by the labor code.

Altough that might end up meaning the same thing ?

Under the Quebec Labour Code to be recognized formally you must hold a certification vote. That is a pro forma matter since the Habs operate as a union local and are recognized as such. The Habs players could hold a certification at any time and all it requires is a bare majority of the players to vote in favour of the certification.

The Habs players are an... (a) “association of employeesâ€: a group of employees constituted as a professional syndicate, union, brotherhood or otherwise, having as its objects the study, safeguarding and development of the economic, social and educational interests of its members and particularly the negotiation and application of collective agreements;

But they are not currently... "(b) “certified associationâ€: the association recognized by decision of the Commission as the representative of all or some of the employees of an employer"

There are different legal rights and ramifications depending upon certification. On e them apparently is the right to not have replacement workers used in the workplace.

I understand during the 1994 MLB labour dispute the Expo players certified and therefore MLB could not put a replacement team in Montreal. At that time Ontario had a ban on replacement workers as well and the Blue Jays could not play in Toronto. The Mike Harris government repealed that provison several years ago.

It has been reported that Chris Bentley, the Ontario Minister of Labour is planning to re-impose the ban on replacement workers. If passed then neither Ottawa nor Toronto would be able to use scabs.

 

[SuperUnknown]

I assume you're talking about this :



LINK

It doesn't say that they are not recognized as an union, just that they are not covered by the labor code.

Altough that might end up meaning the same thing ?

It does come down to meaning the same thing. The NHLPA is not covered by labour laws which means scabs in Montreal are entirely possible. (for the Montreal Canadiens)

 

[Wetcoaster]

It does come down to meaning the same thing. The NHLPA is not covered by labour laws which means scabs in Montreal are entirely possible. (for the Montreal Canadiens)

And all the Habs players have to do is take a vote and presto no scabs.

 

[PecaFan]

This decertification stuff is hilarious. You think the union is going to decertify, then the owners are going to continue to run their business the old way, and get sued? Piffle.

They decertify, that means all the gains of the last thirty years go *poof*. The owners just contact the hundreds of players who'll accept a cap, tell 'em to form a new association, and come to the bargaining table and work out a new CBA from scratch.

If decertification is this magic land of milk and honey, why didn't the association do it years ago?

 

[SuperUnknown]

And all the Habs players have to do is take a vote and presto no scabs.

Well I'm not sure a vote would go through as I believe quite a few Montreal players would play as "replacement players" anyway.

However, as of today, they are not considered an union here under the law, which was your point...

 

[Wetcoaster]

This decertification stuff is hilarious. You think the union is going to decertify, then the owners are going to continue to run their business the old way, and get sued? Piffle.

They decertify, that means all the gains of the last thirty years go *poof*. The owners just contact the hundreds of players who'll accept a cap, tell 'em to form a new association, and come to the bargaining table and work out a new CBA from scratch.

If decertification is this magic land of milk and honey, why didn't the association do it years ago?

Because it only makes sense if the NHL owners move to declare an impasse, impose a CBA and use replacement players. It is referred to by various experts as a "nuclear deterrent" - it a weapon to be used as last resort. The MLBPA ( in tis last CBA negotiations) and the NBAPA threatened to use it and the owners backed down. The NFLPA did use it and won free agency as a result.

In 1994 the MLBPA could not use decertifcation because of baseball's judicial anti-trust exemption. That was changed by the US Congress in 1996 which removed the exemption for most purposes. In the last negotiation the MLBPA threatened to decertify and the owners folded.

See post #45 in this thread for a detailed explanation.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Anyone read Souray's weekly column ?

He confirms the TSN news :

Bob pretty much said in his message, "OK, we said this might take two years, and that's what it might take. If you guys want to go find a job this year, we encourage that. And hopefully, you'll play well enough that they'll sign you for next year."

You'd think that around this time next year would be crunch time again. And who's to say you wouldn't lose three years?

Souray's column

 

[Crosbyfan]

Anyone read Souray's weekly column ?

He confirms the TSN news :





Souray's column

Great article!

 

[thinkwild]

That was a great piece by Souray., I really enjoyed his sharing that with us. I can appreciate how he must feel and let hinm know that there are fans out here that support them. But im glad to hear the players are united. Its a shame they are being forced to go through this, but as Caber said, they'd sit out 2 years if they have to, and apparently the owners are saying they have to.

A third year would be tough, but Bettman implied it wouldnt last that long. Nature abhors a vacuum anyway, something would happen. Perhaps its not time for a competing league like the WHL, but rather the evolving of hockey into a new Super League, where people have interest in it.

The consequences of decertification could be great. Without an exemption from the antitrust laws, the owners could be sued for any collective action which threatened to reduce player salaries or mobility. Such actions would include a salary cap, a luxury tax, and any limits on free agency not contained in the individual players' contracts. Affected players could sign contracts, then sue for the difference between the salary they received and what they would have earned without the restrictions -- and under antitrust law, all such damages would automatically be tripled.

That was some very enlightening posts wetcoaster, thanks. I seem to recall Bettman had talked about moving things from the cba into standard player contracts in a way that the players seem to be suggesting would be like removing guaranteed contracts. Could they move things from a cba to the spc so that they win something that way?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

From Souray's article...

"Bob told us the PA doesn't plan to come back to the NHL with anything. What we offered them last time, a lot of players called in and said they didn't think we were going to give that much up. There are a lot of guys pissed off now by what we offered to give."

It is great to have the news confirmed that Goodenow does not intend on negotiating with the NHL. If a lot of the guys were "pissed off" then how are all 700 or so players locked out on the same page? I find it very hard to believe a word Souray or any other union backer is saying claiming EVERY single player is "united."

Then he goes on to write...

"He told us in his message that maybe the owners have to think now a little more with their pockets, that now's the time they're probably losing a little more money with the playoff races and playoffs coming up. It's going to be the same situation next year - they're not going to be tripping over themselves to get a new deal."

Somebody needs to remind the players who pays for their travel expenses, medical bills, trainers, equipment, hotels, meals, etc, etc. The players NEVER have to pay for anything outside of their own personal expenses. The owners have to think a little more with their pockets? Does Goodenow and the PA forget who signs the players paychecks? Souray said so himself that he could stand to lose $6M over the course of a 2-year lockout. These owners don't have to worry or think about their "pockets." Did the PA forget about the league's war-chest?

It was a nice article by Souray to give an inside look at how the PA thinks... and it further proves Goodenow's stubbornness.

 

[quat]

That was a great piece by Souray., I really enjoyed his sharing that with us. I can appreciate how he must feel and let hinm know that there are fans out here that support them. But im glad to hear the players are united. Its a shame they are being forced to go through this, but as Caber said, they'd sit out 2 years if they have to, and apparently the owners are saying they have to.

A third year would be tough, but Bettman implied it wouldnt last that long. Nature abhors a vacuum anyway, something would happen. Perhaps its not time for a competing league like the WHL, but rather the evolving of hockey into a new Super League, where people have interest in it.




That was some very enlightening posts wetcoaster, thanks. I seem to recall Bettman had talked about moving things from the cba into standard player contracts in a way that the players seem to be suggesting would be like removing guaranteed contracts. Could they move things from a cba to the spc so that they win something that way?

They aren't being forced to do anything. The present CBA has ended. The NHL and NHLPA are negotiating a new contract (well... sort of eh?). The players would be playing in the league earning pretty much what they did last season if they were willing to accept that their wages shouldn't rise exponentially beyond what the league as a whole can bear.

Certainly it's their choice not to bargain salaries linked to revenue, unless you believe that Goodenow is forcing the players to tow his line rather than their own.

 

[CarlRacki]

"We're not going to accept a salary cap, whether it's two years from now or five years."

Well, if anyone believed there was a rationale thought among the players, this pretty much proves there is not. Too bad. Looks like they're intent on killing the golden goose.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Just some things from Souray's article that jump out at me. Maybe Westcoaster, our local legal expert and union psycho-phant can try to explain away.

I signed a contract last summer that was great for me and my family, set us up for the future. So I don't make the money this year, which is fine. But if I don't next year, that's a total of $6 million down the tubes, and then I'll be 30. I'll have one year left on the contract, and if there are salary rollbacks. ...

Doesn't sound like a guy who is so confident in things. Sounds like he is realizing just how badly this may indeed go for the players. Or is there something lost in the translation here and there is some legal mumbo-jumbo to explain this away?

A guy you think is secure enough is hurting, and it trickles down. There's the guy who's earning much less, trying to make car payments.

And this is a guy who is going to comtinue holding out "for the good of the union"? That would be the same union that is pushing this guy under the bus so he can't make that car payment.

"We've had a few instances of guys saying things, but for 700 players, there's not a crack in the armour."

Not a crack? Dagenais and Commodore aren't speaking for the many guys that are fringe NHLers and don't have that multi-million dollar contract in their pocket? Modano's pre-NHLPA thought modification treatment was not anything to worry about? Okay. If you say so.

"It's been a great experience. You come to the rink here in jeans and a T-shirt and you leave with a tuque on, and you don't feel any different than anyone else. Since I've been here, I've signed maybe 20 autographs.

It's so much different in Montreal. Everything is so first class, they treat you tip-top. It's very glamorous. You go to the games in your suit and tie, in your nice vehicle. Here, our captain drives an older car."

Wait, you mean the people in Europe don't think the players are supermen who deserve to be worshipped? You mean its the players who actually make the players what they are, not the players super human abilities? No Sheldon, say it is so!

"I'll miss a bit of this, the realness of everything. I think that, back home, people portray you to be a hero, which you're not. Speaking for myself, you don't deserve it. Why are you making such a big deal of me?"

So self realization coming back into the picture possibly?

"But on the other hand, I really love being in the NHL. I love being treated great. I love the fact I play for the Canadiens, I'm proud of that. I love dressing up going to the games, because I feel I'm representing not only myself, but my team and my city."

That is right, you ARE representing the team and the city, not the NHLPA. So start thinking like a member of the damn community you self centered punk and get with the program. The people adored you and are the ones who made your lifestyle possible. Without them you're nothing. You're going to the rink in a touque and jeans and signing 20 autographs a season.

"I'm not in touch with management of the Canadiens, because I'm not really allowed to. I haven't talked to my trainer, Graham Rynbend. I can't ask to have a prescription filled."

I guess this completely shoots down those Cajanek rumors from Pat Hickey. I sense some apologies from a few people being due?

Souray writes a nice article, from the heart. But it is very obvious that he is very conflicted and doesn't know what to think. While he puts on a brave union member face in the first part of the column, he falls a part coming home and tells us how he really feels. Its sounds like he misses his life and being adored for what he does. He misses the lifestyle the NHL affords him. He misses the great organization that the league has. He misses a lot, but most of all he misses the point of why he is in the position he is in.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Just some things from Souray's article that jump out at me. Maybe Westcoaster, our local legal expert and union psycho-phant can try to explain away.

Sure, always pleased to help the intellectually handicapped.

Souray is very clear:

Bob Goodenow had a recorded message today on the players' site, reaffirming our position. We're informed all the time, and as a union, we're definitely solid and we have full faith in our negotiating committee. Everyone would love to be playing, but I support our position fully.

Bob pretty much said in his message, "OK, we said this might take two years, and that's what it might take. If you guys want to go find a job this year, we encourage that. And hopefully, you'll play well enough that they'll sign you for next year."

It certainly seems the owners are steadfast on having the salary cap, and that's something the players will never accept. It seems the owners' will is to have the season cancelled and guys are going to have to make plans at least for the last month and a half. It looks like a formality about the cancellation now.

We're not going to accept a salary cap, whether it's two years from now or five years.
....................

But I can tell you, having been on our Web site today, that everyone's on the same page. Some guys are e-mailing in, commenting on it. We have a little forum where guys can express any opinion they have. Everyone sees it, there's nowhere to hide. The one thing, and I'm telling you it's overwhelming when you read it, is that the guys are together.

We've had a few instances of guys saying things, but for 700 players, there's not a crack in the armour. It's good, it's positive, but on the other hand, who's going to blink first?

Hope that helps.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

...

That's exactly how I interpreted the whole thing too.

If you guys appreciated the read, go on the habs board. There's a thread there where you have links to the 8 or 9 pieces he's written. The others are a pretty good read too, Sheldon is a funny guy.