Bettmans plan isnt for strikebreakers - its another year of no hockey.

[thinkwild]

And it is sleazy exploitation under duress to win a power struggle, with no concern for fans. I have never heard hockey players say they need that money to feed their families. It is strictly a money business deal. But just because you are up against a powerful negotiating partner doesnt mean you succumb to a long term bad business deal under pressure. Do you condemn a small company Microsoft is attempting to buy out for holding out for $300mil when they are only being offered $100mil? After all its a lot of money they get either way. Whats the principle behind their holding out for a better offer? To call it simply greed, would seem to qualify you as a bad businessman

The owners can fairly apply the pressure, but to cancel the season because you want everything rather than make a compromise is just simply unsupportable. I think it nearly qualifies arena vandalism as an acceptable political action

 

[YellHockey*]

That is the first and hopefully the last time I see hockey players in the nhl compared to walmart employees. Getting a little dramatic aren't we?

It seems like the general public doesn't give a damn about either of them.

People shop at Wal-Mart even though they pay their employees as little as possible and fight tooth and nail any attempt to unionize so they keep their employees subservient. I mean why does a single mother need to make anything more then minimum wage when the Walton family is still working on becoming the richest family in the world? Why should that money go to employees who'd only spend it on food and rent when the Walton's granddaughters need money to pay for other people to do all their college work for them?

Meanwhile the general public is hoping the owners crush the players so that the owners have a better chance at making Forbes list of the richest people.

 

[loudi94]

It seems like the general public doesn't give a damn about either of them.

People shop at Wal-Mart even though they pay their employees as little as possible and fight tooth and nail any attempt to unionize so they keep their employees subservient. I mean why does a single mother need to make anything more then minimum wage when the Walton family is still working on becoming the richest family in the world? Why should that money go to employees who'd only spend it on food and rent when the Walton's granddaughters need money to pay for other people to do all their college work for them?

Meanwhile the general public is hoping the owners crush the players so that the owners have a better chance at making Forbes list of the richest people.

Lower wages allow them to charge less for products. It's a win situation for me. Besides, no one is forcing the single mother to work at Walmart.

 

[YellHockey*]

Lower wages allow them to charge less for products. It's a win situation for me. Besides, no one is forcing the single mother to work at Walmart.

Lower wages don't mean anything other then increasing the Waltons' bank account even faster. Walmart prices their products at what they feel is the optimal price. Their employees wages have very little to do with it.

Where else is the single mother supposed to work when Wal-Mart enters the small town and drives all the other stores into bankruptcy?

 

[loudi94]

Lower wages don't mean anything other then increasing the Waltons' bank account even faster. Walmart prices their products at what they feel is the optimal price. Their employees wages have very little to do with it.

Where else is the single mother supposed to work when Wal-Mart enters the small town and drives all the other stores into bankruptcy?

Poppycock! If you pay the employees more money, then your bottom line decreases. Therefore to recoup those losses (however insignificant in your opinion), Walmart would raise prices. I'm not interested in that.

Secondly, you underestimate the intelligence of single mothers and their ability to find meaningful work at a decent wage. If the only place she can find a job is Walmart, then maybe she deserves what she currently earns.

 

[Pepper]

Owners should just keep the lock-out as long as it takes for players & Goodenow to smell the coffee. 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, I don't care, just make the players get it.

 

[SENSible1*]

Because they are greedy incompetent slugs who initiated the lockout in a vain attempt to exploit the players.

Tom

The owners are just trying to get the greedy incompetent slugs to realize the seriousness of the problems they fail to acknowlegde.

Perhaps it's time for players to start asking themselves what shape the league really is in if they are willing to cancel more than one season to get a new deal that better balances the equation.

BTW,

We won't know if the owners actions are "in vain" or not until the deal is struck. The owners hold the better hand and have the guts to wait until the players blink, and blink they will.

 

[SENSible1*]

The owners can fairly apply the pressure, but to cancel the season because you want everything rather than make a compromise is just simply unsupportable.

The owners willingness to take this as far as necessary should provide all the evidence necessary that your little fantasy world--where the old CBA worked, is unsupportable. If the deal really was working and the league was profitable, in spite of their claims of losses and the evidence to support those claims, then what incentive do they have to cancel multiple seasons instead of simply taking the concessions offered and getting back to making money?

Maybe it's time for you and the players to get the fantasy out of their heads and deal with reality. The amount of pressure the owners are willing to apply should tell you and the NHLPA all you need to know about their real financial picture.

The ironic thing is that the realization of the league financial problems won't be important at all when the players finally cave. They'll change their stance when they discover the harsh reality that the owners aren't bluffing and that they have lost millions of dollars from their extrememly limited earing window in a vain effort to save the extra thousands they made during this period of gross overpayement and in doing so have ensured that they've done enough damage to the revenue stream to ensure that they continue to lose millions more for years to come.

 

[hockeytown9321]

A real fan wouldnt think the solution is to break the union. That is something one with a lack of control of their life would think. A power victory. Never mentioning the game itself.

One of the things I can't understand from reading some of the comments here is why some people not only are on the league's side, but are vindictive in their hate of the union too. Why isn't it enough for your side to win that the union has to be destroyed too? Why can't they come up with a solution where both sides win?

 

[hockeytown9321]

The owners are just trying to get the greedy incompetent slugs to realize the seriousness of the problems they fail to acknowlegde.

The players are incompentent, but the owners aren't?

 

[YellHockey*]

Poppycock! If you pay the employees more money, then your bottom line decreases. Therefore to recoup those losses (however insignificant in your opinion), Walmart would raise prices. I'm not interested in that.

Costco doesn't seem to be having a problem paying their employees decent wages and they have low prices.

Walmart have a loss? They made almost 60 BILLION dollars last year. Do you really think that paying their employees a decent wage is going to cause Walmart to lose money?

 

[dawgbone]

Costco doesn't seem to be having a problem paying their employees decent wages and they have low prices.

Walmart have a loss? They made almost 60 BILLION dollars last year. Do you really think that paying their employees a decent wage is going to cause Walmart to lose money?

They have a right to pay minimum wage, and a worker has a right to find a better paying job.

My wife worked at Walmart from when she was 16 until she graduated from college and entered the work force in her field.

During that time, she collected over $5000 in profit sharing money, saved thousands of dollars using her walmart discount, and using their employee stock program, saved up enough money for a downpayment on both our car and our house.

Maybe you should get your facts straight... not every corporation is out there to enslave the world.

 

[SENSible1*]

One of the things I can't understand from reading some of the comments here is why some people not only are on the league's side, but are vindictive in their hate of the union too. Why isn't it enough for your side to win that the union has to be destroyed too? Why can't they come up with a solution where both sides win?

It is imperative that the owners score a clear and decisive win so that we don't have to go through this process again at the end of the next CBA.

 

[YellHockey*]

Maybe you should get your facts straight... not every corporation is out there to enslave the world.

From Business Week:

the cheap-labor model turns out to be costly in many ways. It can fuel poverty and related social ills and dump costs on other companies and taxpayers, who indirectly pick up the health-care tab for all the workers not insured by their parsimonious employers. What's more, the low-wage approach cuts into consumer spending and, potentially, economic growth. "You can't have every company adopt a Wal-Mart strategy. It isn't sustainable," says Rutgers University management professor Eileen Appelbaum

Given Costco's performance, the question for Wall Street shouldn't be why Costco isn't more like Wal-Mart. Rather, why can't Wal-Mart deliver high shareholder returns and high living standards for its workforce? Says Costco CEO James D. Sinegal: "Paying your employees well is not only the right thing to do but it makes for good business."

Although Sam's $11.52 hourly average wage for full-timers tops the $9.64 earned by a typical Wal-Mart worker, it's still nearly 40% less than Costco's $15.97. Costco also shells out thousands more a year for workers' health and retirement and includes more of them in its health care, 401(k), and profit-sharing plans.

 

[hockeytown9321]

It is imperative that the owners score a clear and decisive win so that we don't have to go through this process again at the end of the next CBA.

And that win cannot be acheived unless the union is totally destroyed? There are solutions that can work for both sides, why would that be bad?

 

[Captain Lou]

And that win cannot be acheived unless the union is totally destroyed? There are solutions that can work for both sides, why would that be bad?

And when Bettman is done destroying the union, he will go back to what he does best---destroying the league and the product on the ice:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

This guy has ruined this league. Over-expansion, boring games due to lack of enough high-quality talent and inflated ticket prices, and now shootouts. Plus he has changed several on-ice rules that have destroyed the flow of the games (with the help of the GM's). Why don't they just start playing on roller-blades?

Sheesh.

 

[hockeytown9321]

And when Bettman is done destroying the union, he will go back to what he does best---destroying the league and the product on the ice:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

This guy has ruined this league. Over-expansion, boring games due to lack of enough high-quality talent and inflated ticket prices, and now shootouts. Plus he has changed several on-ice rules that have destroyed the flow of the games (with the help of the GM's). Why don't they just start playing on roller-blades?

Sheesh.

You mean the glowing puck didn't put the NHL right up there with football? I'm shocked.

 

[ti-vite]

You mean the glowing puck didn't put the NHL right up there with football? I'm shocked.

:lol

 

[SENSible1*]

And that win cannot be acheived unless the union is totally destroyed? There are solutions that can work for both sides, why would that be bad?

The union doesn't need to be destroyed, simply brought to a more realistic understanding of their role in the business.

 

[dawgbone]

From Business Week:

That's nice, but you ignored everything I put down... the money is there.

At Costco, you get no discount (though you do get a free membership). That certainly adds up over the course of a year. The profit sharing plan usually turns out about $700/employee/year. The shareholder plan my wife participated in saw her almost double her money.

And that's nice about retirement plans, 401(k)... but we are talking about less than 10% of the workers at these places... and an even fewer amount when it comes to non-administrative positions.

 

[loudi94]

Costco doesn't seem to be having a problem paying their employees decent wages and they have low prices.

Walmart have a loss? They made almost 60 BILLION dollars last year. Do you really think that paying their employees a decent wage is going to cause Walmart to lose money?

If they pay more money in wages, their bottom line is going to be smaller. Can we agree on that? If they wish to make up that "loss", then they must raise prices or charge a membership fee. Can we agree on that? Where I stand, that's not a very appealing option.

Costco charges a membership fee and that helps keep their cost low. Once again, I'm not interested in paying a membership fee to shop at Walmart so employees can receive higher wages.

 

[YellHockey*]

If they pay more money in wages, their bottom line is going to be smaller. Can we agree on that?

Yes.

If they wish to make up that "loss", then they must raise prices or charge a membership fee. Can we agree on that?

No. Because raising prices doesn't mean you raise revenues.

Costco charges a membership fee and that helps keep their cost low. Once again, I'm not interested in paying a membership fee to shop at Walmart so employees can receive higher wages.

Strange how Walmart's Sam's Club charges a membership fee yet it still doesn't its employees as well as Costco does. In fact Costco is kicking Sam's Club's behind even though Costco supports the rights of employees to unionize and pays them better.

 

[gary69]

Poppycock! If you pay the employees more money, then your bottom line decreases. Therefore to recoup those losses (however insignificant in your opinion), Walmart would raise prices. I'm not interested in that.

Secondly, you underestimate the intelligence of single mothers and their ability to find meaningful work at a decent wage. If the only place she can find a job is Walmart, then maybe she deserves what she currently earns.

And if the owners and GM's are incapable of doing a budget and sticking to it, then maybe they deserve all the losses they have.

 

[loudi94]

And if the owners and GM's are incapable of doing a budget and sticking to it, then maybe they deserve all the losses they have.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, they've screwed things up so much that if they try to be responsible under the current agreement, the NHLPA would sue them for collusion or whatever.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I agree wholeheartedly. However, they've screwed things up so much that if they try to be responsible under the current agreement, the NHLPA would sue them for collusion or whatever.

This simply isn't true. Teams have independently decided to do the same thing without drawing a collusion lawsuit. For example, the last time any team made an offer to a restricted free agent was in 1998. The NHLPA has not filed a suit because every team has an excellent reason not to bother with RFAs and the NHLPA could not win.

Tom