Two quick Impasse questions

[Buffaloed]

NO .... Any player that has paid Union fees in the past year or 2 is considered a NHLPA member .. Even UFA who may not currently be paying union fees are still members ..

In the US it's unconstitutional to prevent someone from resigning from a union at any time including during a lockout or strike. Whether they have paid dues is irrelevant to the case law.

Supreme Court Decision: PATTERN MAKERS v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985)

 

[SENSible1*]

Thanks for stopping by, Senator McCarthy. :lol

Do you have any evidence to dispute my claim or would you prefer to continue with your little "comedy" routine?

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Do you have any evidence to dispute my claim or would you prefer to continue with your little "comedy" routine?

Okay.

Name the last NHL player to be "fired" for disciplinary reasons.

 

[SENSible1*]

Okay.

Name the last NHL player to be "fired" for disciplinary reasons.

Do the terms of the last CBA apply to the re-hiring of former PA members in a decertification scenario?

 

[Hawker14]

Do the terms of the last CBA apply to the re-hiring of former PA members in a decertification scenario?

wow, that's pretty lame !!

good job

 

[SENSible1*]

wow, that's pretty lame !!

good job

What exactly does the disciplinary history betweent the NHL and NHLPA have to do with the scenario I'm proposing?

No PA or CBA would exist upon decertification.

The individual players would have zero protection from those sources, so Bicycle's question is worthless.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Do the terms of the last CBA apply to the re-hiring of former PA members in a decertification scenario?

Oh. You're back on that tangent again.

The last CBA had provisions for player discipline. In it's absence, labour law would prevail.

Oh wait, I forgot. In Thunderstuck's World, if he disagrees with a labour law, it ceases to exist.

 

[SENSible1*]

Oh. You're back on that tangent again.

No tangent. Simply the matter upon which you choose to comment.

Do try and keep up.

The last CBA had provisions for player discipline. In it's absence, labour law would prevail.

And what labour law would force the owners to rehire players who have clearly demonstrated, through statement or action, a poor attitude towards their business?

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

And what labour law would force the owners to rehire players who have clearly demonstrated, through statement or action, a poor attitude towards their business?

Union activity nor contractual negotiation does not constitute "poor attitude towards their businesses."

Name a specific player 'bad-attituding' a specific owner.

 

[SENSible1*]

Union activity nor contractual negotiation does not constitute "poor attitude towards their businesses."

Name a specific player badmouthing a specific owner.

Why does the badmouthing have to be specific?

Numerous players have badmouthed the league and its commisioner. Those actions do not fall under "union activity" or "contractual negotiation". Without the protection of the PA and CBA those actions would constitute gross insubordination and be grounds for immediate dismissal.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Numerous players have badmouthed the league and its commisioner. Those actions do not fall under "union activity" or "contractual negotiation".

Who specifically and in what regard? Like Mario Lemeiux calling the NHL a "Garage League?" Fire him!! :lol

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

.....Numerous players....

Who who whoooo?!

 

[SENSible1*]

Who who whoooo?!

I'll tell you what.

You hold your breath while I compose the list.

Deal?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Oh. You're back on that tangent again.

The last CBA had provisions for player discipline. In it's absence, labour law would prevail.

Oh wait, I forgot. In Thunderstuck's World, if he disagrees with a labour law, it ceases to exist.

Aren't you aware of the exeption to anti-trust law? If an employee has a poor attitude toward management, management is exempt?

 

[SENSible1*]

Aren't you aware of the exeption to anti-trust law? If an employee has a poor attitude toward management, management is exempt?

Still a fan, how cute.

 

[Buffaloed]

And what labour law would force the owners to rehire players who have clearly demonstrated, through statement or action, a poor attitude towards their business?

In the USA, Federal and State labor law in all 50 states prohibits discrimination based on past or present legal union activities. You made original the claim that they can discriminate. Therefore the burden falls on you to provide the links to back it up. The "poor attitude" argument doesn't hold water as no players were dismissed or disciplined prior to the lockout for having a "poor attitude". Subsequent dismissal after a labor dispute for "poor attitude" would be seen by any court as dismissal for union activities. Players could point to dozens of instances of players badmouthing management and not being disciplined for having a "poor attitude" prior to the dispute. The league can't suddenly decide that something that's not considered a poor attitude before the labor dispute constitutes a poor attitude afterward. Consistancy needs to be established to make such a claim. The prior CBA had all the provisions necessary to take disciplinary actions against players for actions detrimental to the club or the game, and they failed to do so.

 

[SENSible1*]

In the USA, Federal and State labor law in all 50 states prohibits discrimination based on past or present legal union activities. You made original the claim that they can discriminate. Therefore the burden falls on you to provide the links to back it up. The "poor attitude" argument doesn't hold water as no players were dismissed or disciplined prior to the lockout for having a "poor attitude". Subsequent dismissal after a labor dispute for "poor attitude" would be seen by any court as dismissal for union activities. Players could point to dozens of instances of players badmouthing management and not being disciplined for having a "poor attitude" prior to the dispute. The league can't suddenly decide that something that's not considered a poor attitude before the labor dispute constitutes a poor attitude afterward. Consistancy needs to be established to make such a claim. The prior CBA had all the provisions necessary to take disciplinary actions against players for actions detrimental to the club or the game, and they failed to do so.

How does badmouthing the league, owners and commisioner fall under "union activities?"

 

[Buffaloed]

How does badmouthing the league, owners and commisioner fall under "union activities?"

Statements made by union members that are critical of management and supportive of the union's position during a labor dispute are considered union activities. Unless they cross the line where it's libel or slander there's no cause for dismissal. The league has already established over the past 10 years that players can say almost anything except racial slurs and no disciplinary action will be taken. They can't put that genie back in the bottle.

 

[SENSible1*]

Statements made by union members that are critical of management and supportive of the union's position during a labor dispute are considered union activities.

Critical of managements position regarding the labour dispute or critical of management on unrelated issues?

Unless they cross the line where it's libel or slander there's no cause for dismissal.

That certainly narrows the scope.

The league has already established over the past 10 years that players can say almost anything except racial slurs and no disciplinary action will be taken. They can't put that genie back in the bottle.

Are you suggesting that the owners can't change disciplinary policy once a decertified league has begun operations?

 

[mytor4*]

how about chelios making remarks about bettman's family. or do we call them threats.either way i wouldn't hire him back after what he said and no court would go against me .

 

[Buffaloed]

Are you suggesting that the owners can't change disciplinary policy once a decertified league has begun operations?

Sure they can, but they can't make rules and apply them retroactively, nor can they make any policy that punishes past union-related activities. At one time smoking was permitted at most workplaces. Before it became a matter of law, most employers implemented their own policies to ban smoking. The employers couldn't very well fire someone that formerly smoked in the workplace, nor could they refuse to hire a smoker. Their only cause for action was if the worker violated the new policy in the workplace. It would be like me making a new policy, that anyone who posted "Bicycle Repairman is an idiot" is subject to immediate permanent banishment, and then searching all the old posts and banning 5000 members. I'd get in a lot of trouble, and so will the NHL if they try to operate that way.

 

[Buffaloed]

how about chelios making remarks about bettman's family. or do we call them threats.either way i wouldn't hire him back after what he said and no court would go against me .

It depends on how the remarks are phrased. If it's a direct threat the NHL has cause to bar him from future employment.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

It would be like me making a new policy, that anyone who posted "Bicycle Repairman is an idiot" is subject to immediate permanent banishment, and then searching all the old posts and banning 5000 members.

Hmm... You can't bring in replacements?

 

[txomisc]

In the US it's unconstitutional to prevent someone from resigning from a union at any time including during a lockout or strike. Whether they have paid dues is irrelevant to the case law.

Supreme Court Decision: PATTERN MAKERS v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985)

So if anyone chose to resign they could theoretically play?

 

[Weary]

So if anyone chose to resign they could theoretically play?

Yep. There is nothing the NHLPA could do to stop one of its members from crossing the line. Well nothing other than try to pressure him not to. They can't legally stop anyone from doing it.