Bargaining in Good Faith?

[SENSible1*]

Rumoured offer--**Updated based on Burke--TSN**--

-Unrestrained arbitration (but both sides can initiate)

-Still linkage, maybe with higher cap + luxury tax though

-50/50 profit sharing over 115 mil league proft (less than $4 Mil a team)

-Clearly detailed 3rd parry auditing plan to ensure books arn't cooked

-$1 mil fine + loss of 1 first round pick for first time cought cooking books

-$5 mil fine + loss of 3 first round picks for second time cought cooking the books

Click to read more...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

You would need to see a lot more of the details in the offer than just what is posted above.

 

[djhn579]

If the above is close to true, there can be no doubt that they are bargaining in good faith. But even without this offer, I see no conclusive reason how anyone could say they were not bargaining in good faith in the first place. (Refusing to compromise on a key issue is not bargaining in bad faith...)

 

[vanlady]

Unfortunately for the NHL I think this water is already under the bridge. The NLRB is very clear about what must be provided to the union when finacial hardship is claimed in positioning in negotiations. The NHL's Levitt report does not meet the required standard.

 

[SENSible1*]

Unfortunately for the NHL I think this water is already under the bridge. The NLRB is very clear about what must be provided to the union when finacial hardship is claimed in positioning in negotiations. The NHL's Levitt report does not meet the required standard.

Interesting point. I wasn't really thinking of the NLRB implications, but more the public's perception of the owners actions.

 

[Slats432]

Unfortunately for the NHL I think this water is already under the bridge. The NLRB is very clear about what must be provided to the union when finacial hardship is claimed in positioning in negotiations. The NHL's Levitt report does not meet the required standard.

Then why did a former member of the NLRB go on Bob McCowan's (Fan 590 and Roger's Sportsnet) show and state that the NHL has seemingly met any criteria that the NLRB would have for declaring an impasse.

The reasons for not doing it have nothing to do with the NLRB's standards. The reasons for not doing it have to do with the immigration status of replacement workers from what I understand. (If someone could assist me in clarifying this point? I am not a lawyer.)

 

[SENSible1*]

I have updated the offer based on the best information we have available.

 

[quat]

I think the NHL wants to sign a new CBA with the PA. I don't think they want to use replacement players. It seems like some people forget how strong the PA is, and how capable they are keeping their members on a pretty short leash. You've got to resort to pretty extreme tactics if you want to make these people understand that you are to be taken serious. That's all the NHL has done.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I like to know more details, but from what Burke reported i would lean toward yes

 

[Scoogs]

I think so. They understand the huge hit the NHL would take on top of all the crap we are going through now, if they cancel the season. They want to start it up ASAP.

 

[mcphee]

I have no knowledge of what constitutes good faith negotiations. I do hear Pierre McGuire and Stephen Brunt on Mtl. radio on a daily basis. To the best of my knowledge neither of them have passed the bar either. For what it's worth, McGuire has stated that he has been told that the issue or one of the issues is being available to negotiate. A lawyer in this field claims that just being available is a key issue. Brunt has spoken of a hiring by the NHLPA of someone with extensive experience within the nlrb. Whether either of these points mean a whole helluva lot, I have no idea.

 

[SENSible1*]

I have no knowledge of what constitutes good faith negotiations. I do hear Pierre McGuire and Stephen Brunt on Mtl. radio on a daily basis. To the best of my knowledge neither of them have passed the bar either. For what it's worth, McGuire has stated that he has been told that the issue or one of the issues is being available to negotiate. A lawyer in this field claims that just being available is a key issue. Brunt has spoken of a hiring by the NHLPA of someone with extensive experience within the nlrb. Whether either of these points mean a whole helluva lot, I have no idea.

I'm not really referring to the legal term--"Good Faith Bargaining", but am more concerned with the public's view whether the league is legitimately trying to get a deal done or break the union.

 

[Chili]

This is a good question for a labour lawyer. And I'd be surprised if you didn't get conflicting opinions.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

No way are they dealing in good faith. They want it all back now and they are probably going to get it.

Having said that I don't think the players are dealing in good faith either.

 

[GKJ]

Based on new info, that potential offer of more than satisfactory. Everyone gets what they want.


However one offer of concessions does not an 'good faith' make.

 

[Rahan]

"Bill knows that the concepts they discussed with us on Thursday would not form the basis for an agreement, so he should not be surprised that he hasn't heard from us," NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said in a statement. "We were very clear on Thursday that we would not be negotiating over his proposed concepts."

source: www.tsn.ca

Ted Saskin should stop trying to be an hardass, it's getting old.