Brian Burke ON CKNW at 10:10 PT 1:10 AM EST

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
Wetcoaster said:
No European players need apply. They cannot be issued work permits under Canadian or US immigration law while there is an ongoing labour dispute a decalration of impasse does not end the labour dispute - it is only a temporary measure.

Only US citizens or legal alien residents will be able to play for US based teams.

On Canadian citizens or legal permament residents will be able to play for Canadian based teams. That is even assuming that the Canadian teams are part of the NHL since in Canada there is no counterpart provision to an impasse declaration unde the various provincial labour codes.

In any event in BC no replacement workers at all so no Vancouver Canucks, in Quebec they would be prohibited upon a vote of the Habs players (as the Expos players did in the 1994 MLB dispute) and currently there is legisaltion proposed in Ontario to ban replacement workers again which was in force during the 1994 MLB dispute so that the Jays could not put a team in Toronto and if so no leafs and no Senators. While Alberta labour law permits replacement workers there is no guarantee the Alberta labour board would allow it.

1. Assuming that the same visa restrictions would apply as applied to the minor league hockey strike -- a huge assumption -- all that would mean is that a European not currently working in Canada or the US couldn't get a visa. So what.

What about the Europeans who have visas already ... you know, the ones already playing hockey in North America? Do their visas say they can only play in a league that has a labor agreement signed by consent? Or would the same visa not allow them to play hockey in the National Hockey League? Would not the visa that allows Alexander Semin and Josef Balej to play hockey in Portland and Hartford, not also permit them to play in Washington and New York? Especially since the job he'd be "taking" very well might be that of another European. That makes little intuitive sense, so I'd have to be shown, not told, that common sense doesn't apply.

2. The difference between the Habs and Expos is that the NHLPA isn't registered as a union in Quebec. The best reporting I've seen has "replacement player" games allowed in Quebec.

3. Legislation may be pending in Ontario, but under current law my best understanding is that replacement player games could be played in Ontario.

4. You're right on BC. Vancouver could just play their games in Seattle or Portland, though.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
go kim johnsson said:
The NHL can trade unrestricted free agency at an earlier age.

They could - but it is not something the NHLPA is all that interested in which is why you have not seen any NHLPA types trumpeting the need for increased free agency.

Goodenow adheres to the Marvin Miller school of thought on this issue. Keep the supply of free agents restricted and use them to drive up the salaries of the players.

On the surface, it didn't appear the NHLPA got much in the way of free agency in the 1995 CBA. But appearances can be deceiving. The eligible age for unrestricted free agency would rise from 30 to 32 and eventually drop to age 31 by the summer of 1998.

But with free agents not becoming unrestricted until such a late age, it limited the supply and drove up the demand. The result was a bidding war that drove up prices or, in this case, player salaries. It's simple economics.

It's a lesson that Goodenow learned from the Major League Baseball Players' Association, which he greatly admires.

Marvin Miller, the founding Executive Director of the MLBPA, wrote in his book, A Whole Different Ball Game, that "It dawned on me, as a terrifying possibility, that the owners might suddenly wake up one day and realize that yearly free agency was the best possible thing for them; that is, if all the players became free agents at the end of each year, the market would be flooded, and salaries would be held down..... I realized it would be in the in the interests of players to stagger free agency so that every year there would be, say, three or four players available at a particular position and many teams to compete for their services."

There is no value in trading enahnced free agency for a hard cap.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Greschner4 said:
The best reporting has the initial hard cap at somewhere around $31 million and now at around $42. To say that that is no movement is preposterous.

I am just going by what Brian Burke said last night. He does not consider it significant.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Raising the maximum cap is one thing, but setting a tax to make it harder to reach that cap kind of negates the benefit. Especially when you only raised it by less than 4 million per team.

Not to mention that the minimum was reduced as well.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Greschner4 said:
1. Yeah. It's clear that the NFL got a hard cap in exchange for free agency that they were in the process of having to give up by court decree anyway. It's also clear that that was awful negotiation by the NFLPA and doesn't remotely constitute a "loss" by the NFL. Quite frankly, by giving up a hard cap in exchange for so little in return, the NFLPA makes the NHL's argument that a hard cap is nowhere near a big a deal as the NHLPA is making it out to be.

2. If not being able to pick where you want to work until you're 31 is "enough" free agency for the NHLPA, I'd simply suggest that they go back to the drawing board and rethink. From a purely human perspective, I see no reason to fight for an uncapped league over being free to choose your employer and your workplace.

3. Upshaw can say there isn't going to be a cap after 2006 all he wants, but he's dreaming if he thinks there isn't going to be one.

It is also clear why you are not negotating for the NHLPA. You do not appear to grasp the issues and the strategies.

On the surface, it didn't appear the NHLPA got much in the way of free agency in the 1995 CBA. But appearances can be deceiving. The eligible age for unrestricted free agency would rise from 30 to 32 and eventually drop to age 31 by the summer of 1998.

But with free agents not becoming unrestricted until such a late age, it limited the supply and drove up the demand. The result was a bidding war that drove up prices or, in this case, player salaries. It's simple economics.

It's a lesson that Goodenow learned from the Major League Baseball Players' Association, which he greatly admires. he used that coupled with salary arbitration to drive up salries across the board. Those are the facts and it has nothing to do with "a purely human perspective" - it is economics. Looking back over the past 10 years it seems Goodenow was correct in his assessment. It does not matter what you think - it matters what the NHLPA thinks and enhanced free agency is not an isssue for them.

Marvin Miller, the founding Executive Director of the MLBPA, wrote in his book, A Whole Different Ball Game, that "It dawned on me, as a terrifying possibility, that the owners might suddenly wake up one day and realize that yearly free agency was the best possible thing for them; that is, if all the players became free agents at the end of each year, the market would be flooded, and salaries would be held down..... I realized it would be in the in the interests of players to stagger free agency so that every year there would be, say, three or four players available at a particular position and many teams to compete for their services."

The NFL salary cap is gone unless the NFLPA extends it after 2006. It is their option.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Greschner4 said:
1. Assuming that the same visa restrictions would apply as applied to the minor league hockey strike -- a huge assumption -- all that would mean is that a European not currently working in Canada or the US couldn't get a visa. So what.

What about the Europeans who have visas already ... you know, the ones already playing hockey in North America? Do their visas say they can only play in a league that has a labor agreement signed by consent? Or would the same visa not allow them to play hockey in the National Hockey League? Would not the visa that allows Alexander Semin and Josef Balej to play hockey in Portland and Hartford, not also permit them to play in Washington and New York? Especially since the job he'd be "taking" very well might be that of another European. That makes little intuitive sense, so I'd have to be shown, not told, that common sense doesn't apply.

2. The difference between the Habs and Expos is that the NHLPA isn't registered as a union in Quebec. The best reporting I've seen has "replacement player" games allowed in Quebec.

3. Legislation may be pending in Ontario, but under current law my best understanding is that replacement player games could be played in Ontario.

4. You're right on BC. Vancouver could just play their games in Seattle or Portland, though.

1. Different visas for the NHL. NHL'ers get P-1 visas.

Minor leaguers are on H-2B visas and according to the ECHL the entire quota of H2-B visas have already been used for this season.
http://www.echl.com/cgi-bin/mpublic.cgi?action=show_news&cat=1&id=3658

Work visas are issued for specific teams in specific leagues as are work permits for foreign nationals playing in Canada. You cannot use a minor league work visa or permit to play for an NHL team. You need a new visa or permit and it cannot be issued due to the labour dispute.

There is no common sense at issue here -it is a legal prohibition. Labour dispute = no work permit. You cannot use foreign workers during an ongoing labour dispute. Pretty simple concept.

2. The Expos took a quick vote (50% plus 1 is all that is needed), certified the bargaining unit and that was all she wrote.

3. Ontario has legislation currently pending in the provincial legislature as part of the new government's revamping of the Ontario Labour Code to restore the ban on replacement workers that existed until the Mike Haris Conservative government repealed it a few weeks back.

4. Yes I can see the Vancouver fans all in favour of that move. Just hop down across the border to watch the Canucks. I do not think so.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Greschner4 said:
2. If not being able to pick where you want to work until you're 31 is "enough" free agency for the NHLPA, I'd simply suggest that they go back to the drawing board and rethink. From a purely human perspective, I see no reason to fight for an uncapped league over being free to choose your employer and your workplace.

It is an interesting choice. But hockey players are usually very proud to wear the sweater they are drafted in and usually want to stick with their team. The ones wanting to move either for chemistry or role are often a good choice to move. The exceptions would seem few and compensation remedies seem about right. Then an uncapped league seems the better value for the players.

It is at least curious that the players have never really proposed a lowering of the ufa age and the owners seem, if not insistent on it, at least the only ones proposing it. Why as a Sens fan would I be better off if Hossa, Havlat and Spezza can be unrestricted earlier. Who wants it more, who benefits most. Perhaps it is better for fans and would make the league more fun, but it no longer seems intuitive to me.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
Wetcoaster said:
1. Different visas for the NHL. NHL'ers get P-1 visas.

Minor leaguers are on H-2B visas and according to the ECHL the entire quota of H2-B visas have already been used for this season.
http://www.echl.com/cgi-bin/mpublic.cgi?action=show_news&cat=1&id=3658

Work visas are issued for specific teams in specific leagues as are work permits for foreign nationals playing in Canada. You cannot use a minor league work visa or permit to play for an NHL team. You need a new visa or permit and it cannot be issued due to the labour dispute.

There is no common sense at issue here -it is a legal prohibition. Labour dispute = no work permit. You cannot use foreign workers during an ongoing labour dispute. Pretty simple concept.

2. The Expos took a quick vote (50% plus 1 is all that is needed), certified the bargaining unit and that was all she wrote.

3. Ontario has legislation currently pending in the provincial legislature as part of the new government's revamping of the Ontario Labour Code to restore the ban on replacement workers that existed until the Mike Haris Conservative government repealed it a few weeks back.

4. Yes I can see the Vancouver fans all in favour of that move. Just hop down across the border to watch the Canucks. I do not think so.

1. The very story you linked to says explicitly that whether an NHLer can use his visa to play in the minors is a "grey area," so it's hardly as simple as you say. The next "grey area" will be whether minor leaguers of NHL quality already in North America can use their minor league visa -- assuming that's what they're playing on -- to play in the NHL. The difference between your simplicity and a "grey area" is precisely what I'm talking about. Note that the story only says that minor leaguers are on the 2 visas; it does not say that ALL of them are, or that a 2 holder can't play in the NHL. How about a foreigner on a two-way contract, or even not on a two-way contract. Does he get a different visa every time he's sent from the NHL to the AHL? Somehow I doubt that's the setup.

Note also that the story says nothing whatsoever about your main point -- that the visas aren't issuable or usable in situations of labor impasse.

On an even broader point, I don't think European presence is necessary to either the league or the fans for a successful launch of impasse hockey.

2. I know that's what the Expos did; the point is that the Expos' union was registered in Quebec and could avail themselves of that option. The NHLPA, at least according to the legitimate reporting I've seen, isn't registered as a union in Quebec. If the reporting on this is wrong, I stand corrected.

3. I'm an American and will defer to your much greater knowledge of Ontario politics (as well as your greater knowledge of Canadian labor law). I'll simply point out that if there is legislation pending to change the ability to have replacement player games in Ontario, by definition it means they can be held under current law. As you say, the law very well may be changed by the time the issue arises, though I'd have to think the NHL has some influence on Ontario politicans. If you say in good faith that they don't, I won't quibble.

4. On the Canucks, I agree with you that Vancouver fans aren't going to drive to Seattle to see replacement Canuck hockey. My only point is that I've read what seem to be pretty good sources say that the BC situation is the only one where replacement hockey would be illegal and the NHL isn't going to stop the whole impasse hockey train just because the Canuck situation won't work out.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Greschner4 said:
1. The very story you linked to says explicitly that whether an NHLer can use his visa to play in the minors is a "grey area," so it's hardly as simple as you say. The next "grey area" will be whether minor leaguers of NHL quality already in North America can use their minor league visa -- assuming that's what they're playing on -- to play in the NHL. The difference between your simplicity and a "grey area" is precisely what I'm talking about. Note that the story only says that minor leaguers are on the 2 visas; it does not say that ALL of them are, or that a 2 holder can't play in the NHL. How about a foreigner on a two-way contract, or even not on a two-way contract. Does he get a different visa every time he's sent from the NHL to the AHL? Somehow I doubt that's the setup.

Note also that the story says nothing whatsoever about your main point -- that the visas aren't issuable or usable in situations of labor impasse.

On an even broader point, I don't think European presence is necessary to either the league or the fans for a successful launch of impasse hockey.

2. I know that's what the Expos did; the point is that the Expos' union was registered in Quebec and could avail themselves of that option. The NHLPA, at least according to the legitimate reporting I've seen, isn't registered as a union in Quebec. If the reporting on this is wrong, I stand corrected.

3. I'm an American and will defer to your much greater knowledge of Ontario politics (as well as your greater knowledge of Canadian labor law). I'll simply point out that if there is legislation pending to change the ability to have replacement player games in Ontario, by definition it means they can be held under current law. As you say, the law very well may be changed by the time the issue arises, though I'd have to think the NHL has some influence on Ontario politicans. If you say in good faith that they don't, I won't quibble.

1. It may be a grey area to people who do not know immigration law, but it certainly is no grey area to me. I have dealt with thousands of work permits since the mid -1970's. Both as an immigration officer and as legal counsel. I used to issue work permits for hockey players, basebal players football player and soccer players. As a player agent I obtained work permits for my US, Canadian and European players.

Under US law they pull any valid existing work permits as happened during the ECHL strike in 2002.

If Europeans are out the mix, there is no way a replacement league works.

The immigration law in Canada and the US prohibits work permits being issued to foreign nationals while there is a labour dispute in progress. It is a matter of statutory law. The PHPA used this to hamstring the ECHL during the 2002 player strike.

Allen Panzeri
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, January 15, 2005

It is called, by the union for minor-league hockey players, which used it two years ago, the "immigration" card.

It is also one the National Hockey League Players' Association would likely play if the NHL tried to restart with replacement players.

Of all the legal hoops the NHL would have to jump through before it could get its impasse -- the first step in unilaterally setting its own terms and restarting with replacement players -- the ones it probably won't get through are immigration laws in Canada and the United States.

Neither country will issue work visas to workers who are coming to take the jobs of those on strike or involved in labour disputes, and that includes hockey players.

Such regulations would effectively shrink what is otherwise a global talent pool.

Only United States residents would be able to work for U.S.-based teams, while only Canadian residents would be able to work for Canadian-based teams.

Using these immigration regulations was successful for the Professional Hockey Players' Association, which represents American Hockey League and East Coast Hockey League players, in contract talks with the ECHL two years ago.

Eight weeks before the start of the 2003-2004 season, the PHPA struck.

Association executive director Larry Landon said the strategy was taken in an "effort to create an environment that would get the teams back to the table."

The PPHA had to jump through several legal hoops with the National Labour Relations Board and the U.S. Department of Labour.

However, once the strike was certified, the border was effectively shut. The U.S. would not issue work visas to those hoping to come in as replacement workers, would not extend visas and would rescind visas that had already been issued.

The strategy worked. The league came back to the table.

The strike lasted seven weeks, but the season opened on schedule.

"As it turned out, we got the deal done," Landon said. "By closing the border and going around the clock, we got the deal done."

Because that immigration card is available to play, Landon doesn't believe the NHL will declare an impasse, not to mention that such a move would alienate the players.

Also see:
Foreign players were prevented from entering the United States until the PHPA dropped its unfair labor practice charges against the league, which was done Tuesday afternoon.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/thesunherald/sports/hockey/echl/mississippi_sea_wolves/6902228.htm

2. The Expos held a certification vote - no replacement players. Took about 5 minutes. The Habs players can do the same.

3. You misunderstand - there is no procedure to have replacement games in Canada. We do not have an impasse procedure. It would be up to each labour board in provinces where replacement players are not prohibited whether or not it would be allowed. If the Board determines that the NHL is using the tactic to break the union or the NHL has not bargained in good faith, then no chance they could do it whether or not replacement players are notionally available.

It is a moot point anyway since based on the case law I have read on impasse declarations, the NHL does not much of a chance. less than 10% of decalred imnapsses are upheld. If the NHL owners are wrong the financial liabilities will be horrendous as they would have to pay out all the existing contracts. A former NLRA board member was on Fan 590 radio (also broadcast on Rogers SportsNet) and confirmed as much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->