inflationary system

[Brent Burns Beard]

how come the rest of us monkeys are allowed to work in a system where our wages are allowed to inflate at the pace we set and the players arent ?

dr

Click to read more...

 

[CarlRacki]

how come the rest of us monkeys are allowed to work in a system where our wages are allowed to inflate at the pace we set and the players arent ?

dr

You set your own raises? Please PM the place of your employment.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

how come the rest of us monkeys are allowed to work in a system where our wages are allowed to inflate at the pace we set and the players arent ?

dr

And where is this fantasy workplace? You get minimum 10% raises no matter how bad your performance? You get opportunities to see your base salary double or triple? You get to challenge the company to go to arbitration to settle for a huge raise? I don't think so. The Calgary economy is reportedly booming, but not to the level where these things happen.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

And where is this fantasy workplace? You get minimum 10% raises no matter how bad your performance? You get opportunities to see your base salary double or triple? You get to challenge the company to go to arbitration to settle for a huge raise? I don't think so. The Calgary economy is reportedly booming, but not to the level where these things happen.

fair enough, but i also am not drafted by my company.

however, if one of my staff feel that they are worth more than we pay them, they are free to walk into my office and demand a raise.

doesnt mean they will get it, but the fact remains they are not excluded from asking.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

You set your own raises? Please PM the place of your employment.

you dont ?

if you are in the top % of what you do, you can set your price.

dr

 

[Luc Labelle]

if you are in the top % of what you do, you can set your price.

And this would still be the case for NHL players under a hard cap. Individual players at the top end of the performance scale could still ask for a higher rate. I am sure that your company quite likely is operating under a cap, I have never worked for a company and that had no limits attached to employee payroll. Any properly organized company works under a budget that establishes cost certainty to all of the elements needed to create revenues.

 

[CarlRacki]

you dont ?

if you are in the top % of what you do, you can set your price.

dr

This, of course, is not true. The best garbage collector in the planet cannot command a $1 million salary. The best CEO in the country cannot command a $1 billion salary.
Everything is tied to revenues. Except in hockey and baseball, that is.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

fair enough, but i also am not drafted by my company.

however, if one of my staff feel that they are worth more than we pay them, they are free to walk into my office and demand a raise.

doesnt mean they will get it, but the fact remains they are not excluded from asking.

dr

And if your staff walk in demand a raise what do you normally do? Look to see if you have budget space (space capped by your accounting department and board of directors I might add ) and then decide if their performance merits the raise. You also have to balance out what this raise will do to the rest of your salary structure and the ripple effect as you get a long line of other employees coming in looking for raises as well when they hear "Bob" got a raise.

Odds are you are going to take the company stance, since you really don't have the authority nor the power to grant raises yourself, and say that the issue will be reviewed by HR and that, unless a change in position or responsibility is in order as well, a standard cost of living bump is all that you will be able to do. That may not work for the employee in question, but the person does have the option of finding a job elsewhere (a long and timely process with a forfeiture of many benefits that take place because of the loss of tenure with the company). You can explain this to them along with the odds of finding that other job where the pay is better is a roll of the dice. The best thing to do is wish the employee luck and tell them you will be happy to give them a reference. That should allow you to get back to that double mochacinno latte and bear claw sitting next to your keyboard!

 

[mudcrutch79]

This, of course, is not true. The best garbage collector in the planet cannot command a $1 million salary. The best CEO in the country cannot command a $1 billion salary.
Everything is tied to revenues. Except in hockey and baseball, that is.

Does your place of employment provide you with a fixed percentage of it's revenues? It strikes me that the NBA and NFL are rare in that they are workplaces that do. The best hockey player in the world can't command a $15 million salary-hell, if he doesn't have arbitration rights, he can't really demand anything.

As for the guy talking about how he wasn't drafted-the industry in which you work doesn't depend on having at least of semblance of competitive balance in order to sell product. The NHL does. The tradeoff that the players get in return for agreeing to this are pretty huge financial rewards. We've talked about what a no-draft NHL would look like, and while a few teams would thrive, the majority of them would not do well at all. That's fewer big paying jobs. The players benefit as well from a draft based system of allocating talent.

 

[looooob]

As for the guy talking about how he wasn't drafted-the industry in which you work doesn't depend on having at least of semblance of competitive balance in order to sell product. The NHL does. The tradeoff that the players get in return for agreeing to this are pretty huge financial rewards. .

Agree. No one is forcing Andrew Ladd to move to Raleigh. He can work at Starbucks in Calgary, go to University wherever he likes, or play hockey in Europe.

But if he wants to play in the NHL..there have to be tradeoffs

In exchange for huge financial payoffs (let's be honest regardless of CBA system), first class travel, generous per diems and the opportunity for a pension, the tradeoff for poor Mr Ladd is he should have to report to wherever he's drafted (for a handsome capped salary in the 800k-1.3 M range), then he's into a system with qualifying offers, arbitration eligibility, restricted and then unrestricted free agency at 31 (currently). At the end of the day he can 'retire' in his mid 30s and live wherever he wants

Yes there are some artificial restrictions on NHL players that don't exist in many professions, but as you say that's the price of needing to have a league with some sort of competitive balance. Its up to the player whether this is a good workplace for them or not I guess

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

This, of course, is not true. The best garbage collector in the planet cannot command a $1 million salary. The best CEO in the country cannot command a $1 billion salary.
Everything is tied to revenues. Except in hockey and baseball, that is.

sorry, you are describing a budget, not a salary cap. all businesses run on budgets. the players never claimed otherwise.

and of course a garbage collector cannot command a salary of 1 million dollars, because he can not quantify his economic contrbution. a CEO can and might eventually be able to demand 1 billion dollars. although its highly unlikely. however, many CEO's recieve hefty bonuses even when their companies are losing many more millions than any NHL team.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Agree. No one is forcing Andrew Ladd to move to Raleigh. He can work at Starbucks in Calgary, go to University wherever he likes, or play hockey in Europe.

But if he wants to play in the NHL..there have to be tradeoffs

In exchange for huge financial payoffs (let's be honest regardless of CBA system), first class travel, generous per diems and the opportunity for a pension, the tradeoff for poor Mr Ladd is he should have to report to wherever he's drafted (for a handsome capped salary in the 800k-1.3 M range), then he's into a system with qualifying offers, arbitration eligibility, restricted and then unrestricted free agency at 31 (currently). At the end of the day he can 'retire' in his mid 30s and live wherever he wants

Yes there are some artificial restrictions on NHL players that don't exist in many professions, but as you say that's the price of needing to have a league with some sort of competitive balance. Its up to the player whether this is a good workplace for them or not I guess

i am not arguing your points. however, whenever i hear a poster claim the players offer will only see their salaries rise again, i cant help but wonder "who cares".

why shouldnt they have that same opportunity to have their salaries rise that the rest of us professionals have ?

dr

 

[mudcrutch79]

i am not arguing your points. however, whenever i hear a poster claim the players offer will only see their salaries rise again, i cant help but wonder "who cares".

why shouldnt they have that same opportunity to have their salaries rise that the rest of us professionals have ?

If they had the same opportunity that everyone else had, it'd be bad for the success of the game at the NHL level. The NHL couldn't exist as a 30 team entity with unfettered free agency. Agreeing to these restraints helps preserve the golden goose. It's in their interests to do this.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If they had the same opportunity that everyone else had, it'd be bad for the success of the game at the NHL level. The NHL couldn't exist as a 30 team entity with unfettered free agency. Agreeing to these restraints helps preserve the golden goose. It's in their interests to do this.

yes, this is true. i dont believe the players ever offered a system of unfettered free agency though.

the argument against the players proposal was that it would do nothing to curb inflation. i think that could be argued, however even if it allows for inflating salaries, i fail to see why we should be so against that just because "its inflationary".

dr

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

i am not arguing your points. however, whenever i hear a poster claim the players offer will only see their salaries rise again, i cant help but wonder "who cares".

why shouldnt they have that same opportunity to have their salaries rise that the rest of us professionals have ?

dr

Because they are unrealistic. YOU don't get to cash-in after one year of success. Only through many years of success do you get a chance to make big big dollars like these clowns, er NHL players do. Also, when you screw up, and have a bad year, you lose your job and a lot of the money and benefits that go with it. The NHL players don't have to worry about this. One good year is all it takes then they can coast through the rest of their career, knowing it is very unlikely they will every have to take a backward step in earning potential. Its an unrealistic market that needs to be fixed.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

i am not arguing your points. however, whenever i hear a poster claim the players offer will only see their salaries rise again, i cant help but wonder "who cares".

why shouldnt they have that same opportunity to have their salaries rise that the rest of us professionals have ?

dr

There salaries will rise with the payrolls ranges system. The NHL has been so generous in there offer that the range will clearly go up every year.

I never knew in Calgary you can demand and set your own salaries. Hell im going to McDonalds and telling them im coming to work, but I want $17.95 an hour and not the $5.95 you pay everyone with no room for growth.

 

[mudcrutch79]

the argument against the players proposal was that it would do nothing to curb inflation. i think that could be argued, however even if it allows for inflating salaries, i fail to see why we should be so against that just because "its inflationary".

The inflationary argument is a bit ridiculous. It allows players to get the price that the market establishes. What the system ignores is that it's a bit of a false market. What makes sense in the context of a scheme designed to leverage an arena without any rent payments out of a team and develop the real estate around it, doesn't necessarily make sense in the context of a business where the hockey team is the sole revenue generating part of the business plan.

I think we should be against the players proposal because it does nothing to address the fact that once a player is arbitration eligible, he can peg his salary to the dumbest one out there. I've said over and over here that arbitration should focus on finding a salary that makes sense in the context of the market and business plan in which the team is operating. Then let the comparable players pool and share some of their salaries to account for the fact that some of them play in markets where the business plan doesn't involve real estate schemes. It's complicatd and difficult to figure out how to do that, but there is no easy solution to this.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

There salaries will rise with the payrolls ranges system. The NHL has been so generous in there offer that the range will clearly go up every year.

I never knew in Calgary you can demand and set your own salaries. Hell im going to McDonalds and telling them im coming to work, but I want $17.95 an hour and not the $5.95 you pay everyone with no room for growth.

you are hardly worth the energy it takes to type this response.

once you get into the work force you will find out that some people have no ability to earn more money (mcdonald workers) and for others the sky is the limit (sales, executives, business development)

dr

 

[kerrly]

you are hardly worth the energy it takes to type this response.

once you get into the work force you will find out that some people have no ability to earn more money (mcdonald workers) and for others the sky is the limit (sales, executives, business development)

dr

The sky is the limit in the NHL right now and guess what, they have already reached it. The NHL is a completely different business from your so called employment where you can "set" your salary. Which I don't buy for a second. Unless of course you work off commissions and your salary is in direct relation to your personal performance. You may be able to ask for a raise, but it still has to be approved by the people above you, and you will not be able to demand what you want and get it, especially if its unreasonable.

The NHL players will be able to demand what they deserve, in a reasonable fashion just like you would have to do. Thats what each contract negotiation is. They will not be forced to take what they are offered, they can still go where they want if they get offered what they want. But if there are no teams (businesses) that can pay them what they desire, they will have to ask for less. This is still a market place system, but with a forced budget upon it to help the long term success. Companies that are losing copius amounts of money like the NHL is, make cut backs to all areas possible. They will not allow huge salary increases, because that will create a downward spiral, and ultimately will be the downfall of the business over time. I really don't think you understand the importance of having a successful money making league, you seem to have the players mentality of trying to extract as much as possible and not giving a sh*t about your employers success. And as we all know, the more success your company/business/team is having, the more rewards you will see. Work or play for one who is losing money and you can be sure, that your ability to benefit becomes much more difficult.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

One of the posters said it right. A guy in the NHL can have 1 year of success and then demand a huge raise. Then these guys can just coast it. In the real world you can get fired. In the NHL a player canjust sit on his a** or demand a trade if he doesn't get what he wants.

Go try "sitting out" like a baby at work. While your sitting out, keep asking for that big raise. Lets see if they let you come back to work.

 

[thinkwild]

how come the rest of us monkeys are allowed to work in a system where our wages are allowed to inflate at the pace we set and the players arent ?

dr

I'd ask, how come the rest of us monkey work in a system where the owner ties our salaries to his revenues and ability to pay, whereas the NHL owners dont/wont/cant..

I dont think any company has a salary budget cap. If they want to hire more people using the existing rates of pay, they can up their budget as a decision even if they dont think they will gain back all that spending. There is nothing preventing them from hiring more people and upping their salary budget. There are no restrictions on it.


Of course teams cant hire more people, the roster is fixed. Sports is definitely unique. The prize is winning the championship and everyone will determine the marginal revenue they can expect to receive by spending and winning, but only one will win.

I think its becoming conventional wisdom that payroll caps are just plain unfair for fans, players and owners. Just as academia now seems to recognize that drug laws should are better suited to harm prevention rather than criminal prosecution, academia also seems to accept now that salary tax is the preferred logical method, not just for players but for fans and owners too. Just as free agency has counter-intuitively led to more fairness, not less.

I still think froma fans perspective, the concept of linkage is another matter. It might be able to be done in a way thats not bad for fans. Although, who is thinking of that in their profit maximization talks? Who will do whats best for the game, when arguing over their fair share?

 

[SuperUnknown]

how come the rest of us monkeys are allowed to work in a system where our wages are allowed to inflate at the pace we set and the players arent ?

dr

First of all, your affirmation ain't all true. Many businesses have fixed salary ranges for positions (result of internal policies or unions). If you do job "X", then you earn from $Y to $Z. $Z is the most you'll ever get, and it's usually more or less based on a scale that greatly depends on experience. So I wouldn't say that "our wages are allowed to inflate" to anything. I doubt you'll hardly see anyone get a raise of 200%+ in one year.

Second, the system is inflationary because the NHL pays wages well above any other competitor. Why would they if the salary system used by the NHL wasn't inflationnary from the inside? While the teams compete on the ice, the NHL as a whole is one big business, one league, where all franchises depend on the others. I can't see any business sustaining salary raises if they pay already 10x what the other business pay for the same employees. If this isn't inflationary, I don't know what is.

Third, even for the *best* workers in different fields, their salary ain't going to be equal everywhere they work. The salary for the best worker in a field in Calgary ain't going to be the same as the guy doing the same job in San Francisco. The Calgary worker would be laughed at if he asked for San Francisco's type of money, because the two markets are different. However, the NHL works like that. The smaller market has to pay bigger market salaries to their players, something which would never happen to "us monkeys". If it worked like that, salaries around the world would inflate around the highest market's paid salaries, and the whole economy would be in trouble.

 

[YellHockey*]

You set your own raises?

I doubt he does and neither do NHL players.

 

[YellHockey*]

And where is this fantasy workplace? You get minimum 10% raises no matter how bad your performance?

And where is this fantasy hockey league that all players get minimum 10% raises?

 

[YellHockey*]

If they had the same opportunity that everyone else had, it'd be bad for the success of the game at the NHL level. The NHL couldn't exist as a 30 team entity with unfettered free agency. Agreeing to these restraints helps preserve the golden goose. It's in their interests to do this.

Unless the restraints are so restrictive that it no longer is in their interest to do this. With Bettman's most recent proposal, that might be the case.

The NHL could easily exist as a 30 team entity with unfettered free agency. It's just that the 30 teams would have to share a whole lot more of their revenues then they do now.