So what?
It is either right or wrong, why does the salary matter in right or wrong? It matters in whether or not you feel sympathy for them (I do not), but it shouldn't matter if it is right or fair or not.
We can disagree on the question of the offers and if they are fair or not, but the amount of money involved shouldn't influence that debate.
Necessity and need versus greed (greed not being a bad thing, we're all greedy to some extent). It matters quite a bit when (
and only when) comparing the players plight to the average persons which is the context the original question was posed. The average person would and should be upset when their employer approaches them and says they will be rolling back their salaries 25% because for the average person that means they'll likely need to choose which necessity they need to cut out. Power, food, travel, etc etc... The average person also doesn't negotiate a contract under a collective bargaining agreement, and those that do understand that when that collective bargaining agreement changes so can the terms of their employment as CBA's can regulate everything involved with employment.
No players should be shocked that the owners are suggesting changing the financials of the new CBA around to suit the economic landscape of the NHL. The idea that this is equivalent to my employer coming to me and rolling back my wages 25% does not jive in the least.
Your analogy doesn't fit.
Did you sign a contract with your company? Is that contract up for re-negotiation? Would you try to negotiate terms you thought were the best you could get or deserved? Or would you just take what they tell you you should get?
I no longer have to renegotiate a contract, I did at one time year to year (12 month contracts). When I did I would try to negotiate terms in my best interest, and as I've stated many many times, I don't begrudge the players their right to do just that. That doesn't mean I need to agree with their point of view or with their reasoning.
I now play a part in the process of negotiating contracts with employees and when we look at those contracts, they need to align with the financial needs of the company and must not fall out of line with what we'd expect in regards to market value for those services. None of which is really comparable to what happens in the NHL, two entirely different processes.
You are saying you don't refuse to work when you don't get your bonus, but you agreed to those parameters when you took the job on the bonus.
This example just isn't close to the deal with the CBA. Also, the players are not refusing to work. They would work right now. The issue is the parameters they will work under in the future.
Not so, this is a different point altogether. We're no longer comparing the two scenarios, nhl player versus average everyday joe, we're talking about expectations when signing a contract, and that is comparable. The idea that NHL players have a right to be enraged because the financials of the business are being adjusted by the owners is in my opinion, bogus.
Players signed a contract they knew would and could be affected drastically by renegotiating a CBA. The players knew exactly when the CBA expired when they signed those contracts. Because of that NHL owners changing the financials of an NHL players contract is completely different then the average worker being told the same thing by their bosses. NHL players entered into their contract knowing it was completely regulated by a CBA that was about to expire, and with very recent examples of just that scenario playing out. If I entered into a contract with those expectations then I would have far less right to be shocked and angered at such a scenario, especially if the owners could back up their reasoning with financial numbers. I'd have the right to fight it through whatever union I belonged yes, and the union would spin it to make them look bad and the worker look good, however that wouldn't change the fact that I entered into my contract knowing full well that exact scenario could happen. If I was at all business savvy and followed the two lockouts of the other professional leagues in the country it wouldn't even be unexpected.
So, I'd of course be able to go find work elsewhere if I thought the work elsewhere was better. In the event that I didn't, the idea that I and my fellow employees could hold the company hostage until I got more favorable terms regardless of how that affected the business in the long term would be something I wouldn't agree with from a moral standpoint regardless of what side of the coin I fell on, especially if that company was compensating me at a far far far far better rate then anyone else in the market already, with a benefit package that blew all others out of the water. I suspect there are many players that fall in this category right now that could care less about all the political BS and just want to get back to the game.
If I were an investor in that company who was disassociated from both the owners and the workers financials I'd be more angered at the workers in such a scenario then I would be at the owners as I'd want the company to thrive long term.