Could the owners just "lift" the lockout in January?

[Tom_Benjamin]

Yup. Bob's gonna be sitting in his office in April just as the fans are starting to fall back in love with their "heroes" and the owners are standing firm on a salary cap and he'll pick up the phone and say "Hey Trevor, go chase your dream. We'll work this out over summer after the Crosby kid is dished out. Tell the guys we're scrapping the strike vote....."

I don't think the owners would give Bob a choice in April. They force it in January. Could Goodenow even get a "Yes" vote to strike in January? Probably, but force him to fish or cut bait. Try to drive the wedge between the players. Make him give up the Crosby card.

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

I don't think the owners would give Bob a choice in April. They force it in January. Could Goodenow even get a "Yes" vote to strike in January? Probably, but force him to fish or cut bait. Try to drive the wedge between the players. Make him give up the Crosby card.

Tom

There is no Crosby card.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

You're right inane is not the right word here. Absurd is a better one. Why not forget this rotating lockout crap and just sign an agreement with the NHLPA to cut salaries in half, cut the season in half and do it all while keeping the old CBA. Yeah that's the ticket!

It seems like a pretty good ticket to me. The NHLPA would not sign an agreement that cut the season in half and cut the salaries in half. The owners wouldn't sign it either because it doesn't have "cost certainty", so that over time the player salaries would rise to compensate for the fact playoff revenues were a much larger share of league revenues. But that's over time. In the short run, it may not give the owners cost certainty, but it will reduce the player share of revenues to a number in keeping with the owner position and assure league wide profits.

"When the players want to discuss a system where contracts are paid out at 100 cents on the dollar instead of 50 cents on the dollar, they can call us. We can offer a half season at $900,000 indefinitely or the players can have a full season at $1.3 million. Their choice."

Sooner or later, the players cave or go on strike. Either way, the owners are a step closer to their objective. It may be absurd to think Bettman is smart enough to have a plan that might work in this dispute, but if the idea is to get a CBA he wants...

Tom

 

[Kickabrat]

But see, now your forcing the players to STRIKE. It is much easier to argue that you have tried everything when the players are on strike than it is when you are locking them out. This move eitehr a) results in a profitable half season for the owners or b) gets the players to strike, as opposed to being locked out.

The more I think of this, the more I think it is the correct next move for the owners.

And exactly how do you that? In order for the old CBA to be re-activated they would have to at a minimum change the expiry date of the old one, correct? If they change the expiry date of the old CBA, they are changing the agreement, are they not? If they change the agreement they need to get both parties to sign off, do they not? So why would the NHLPA make life easy for the owners?

 

[GabbyDugan]

So how does this play out?

"Lifting" the lockout would be an absolute bombshell in this situation. There have been absolutely no negotiations or even any tiny shifts in either side's position through a ten-week lockout period (and the entire period leading up to it). There has been absolutely nothing of substance to bring the parties into the same room.

Obviously it's Bettman's decision, but how should he play this card?

Timing is always everything, and Bettman told Peter Mansbridge in September that labour negotiation is an "art". "Lifting" a lockout seems like a very strange art form to me, but I like to keep my mind open. How can the events unfold?

Obviously all the NHL teams would need advance notice, since they have a 45-day rolling period to release their arenas. Besides, Bettman would have to let them know so that the teams could have their coaches and other staff ready to set up the training schedules, etc....bringing any business out of mothballs is pretty tough work.

Obviously the team owners have learned well to keep their mouths shut, but how soon after letting teams know they should prepare to resume operations would word get out? I figure anywhere from sixteen seconds to seven hours... (I'm going to assume that NHL teams are still using the 45 day rolling schedule as of today, November 26th, so the first actual NHL game would be played sometime after January 10th)

So what about the players? How much "official" notice does Bettman give them, and through what means does he inform the players they are no longer locked out? I don't think releasing the news to TSN nad ESPN quite cuts the mustard in this case.

Usually there is a small time frame to report back to work after a lockout or strike ends, so in theory the players could be given only about 4 or 5 days to report to their teams. However, if the players find out that the lockout is being lifted at the last possible moment, it would just escalate the already high tension between the players and owners.

What happens to all the players in Europe? Do they report to their NHL teams immediately, even though their NHL teams might not play for 30 to 45 days? Players don't get paid for training camp, so a guy in decent shape who is getting a few thousand a week in Europe might be a little ticked off that he has to give up his European team to spend 30 days in an NHL training camp.

 

[Kickabrat]

It seems like a pretty good ticket to me. The NHLPA would not sign an agreement that cut the season in half and cut the salaries in half. The owners wouldn't sign it either because it doesn't have "cost certainty", so that over time the player salaries would rise to compensate for the fact playoff revenues were a much larger share of league revenues. But that's over time. In the short run, it may not give the owners cost certainty, but it will reduce the player share of revenues to a number in keeping with the owner position and assure league wide profits.

"When the players want to discuss a system where contracts are paid out at 100 cents on the dollar instead of 50 cents on the dollar, they can call us. We can offer a half season at $900,000 indefinitely or the players can have a full season at $1.3 million. Their choice."

Sooner or later, the players cave or go on strike. Either way, the owners are a step closer to their objective. It may be absurd to think Bettman is smart enough to have a plan that might work in this dispute, but if the idea is to get a CBA he wants... Tom

So then if the players and owners are going to all this trouble to negotiate "rolling" lockout agreements every year, why would they not instead negotiate a final agreement and be done with it? There is no incentive for the players to go along with this and as you point out the owners don't get what they want and end up losing money in the long run.

Then what happens after three or four of these agreements. The NHL goes to the NLRB and claims impasse? After thay have been playing hockey with agreements in place? What impasse will say the NLRB? If the players then go on strike, what recourse do the owners have other than wait another year before claiming impasse again? At which point, your're right back to where we are now, except the owners have been losing more money, the players have been getting paid less money. The fans are ticked off at getting 1/2 seasons, and we go through all this crap again. It either gets fixed now or the NHL as we knew it gets changed. Either way, there is no going back to the old CBA.

 

[mudcrutch79]

And exactly how do you that? In order for the old CBA to be re-activated they would have to at a minimum change the expiry date of the old one, correct? If they change the expiry date of the old CBA, they are changing the agreement, are they not? If they change the agreement they need to get both parties to sign off, do they not? So why would the NHLPA make life easy for the owners?

You're tossing a lot of insults and invective for someone who clearly knows nothing about labour law. They don't need to "re-activate" the old CBA. If the owners were to end the lockout the old CBA would continue to govern. The only thing that the expiry of the CBA does is give the owners and players the opportunity to use economic means to pressure the other side to make changes to the relationship. These economic means are not allowed while there is a valid CBA in place.

How can you have such a firm opinion on something that you don't understand?

 

[Egil]

And exactly how do you that? In order for the old CBA to be re-activated they would have to at a minimum change the expiry date of the old one, correct? If they change the expiry date of the old CBA, they are changing the agreement, are they not? If they change the agreement they need to get both parties to sign off, do they not? So why would the NHLPA make life easy for the owners?

The old CBA continues to apply until a new one is negotiated. The 94 baseball strike occured a year and a half AFTER the CBA had expired. The NHLPA doesn't sign off on ANYTHING in this case, it simply has to return to work, UNLESS they strike. That is the beauty of it, it forces the players to play the playoffs, get half their salaries, or strike. If they play, the owners make money and repeat the process next fall. If they strike, then the owners have an easier time declaring impasse (declaring impasse when YOU are locking out the other side is more difficult than if they are striking).

 

[thinkwild]

I still think its a devious plan Tom. One of the other parts you mentioned the first time you brought this up was the idea of after commencing playing, that the owners make a series of incremental offers to the players as the CBA negotiations continue while playing as the players said they would agree to. Like: How about a $32 mil cap? OK, $32.5 mil with 100% tax. How about $40 mil with escrow then. Approaching, but never reaching a deal the players will accept. Kind of like Salary negotiations wher eyou try to make an offer just below what their bottom line was and have them accept. Then they have a final offer before impasse that is more reasonably believable.

The idea certainly makes sense, and it would seem to really leave the PA in a pickle. In fact, I would think Goodenow might have to consider rejecting it. Saying something perhaps like, look we want this solved long term. Not a bandaid that weakens us later. We realize how bad the PR hit will be, but it has to be done. Its a very clever ploy by the league, and rejecting it certainly isnt easy, but for the best long term interests of the players and the game, we have to reject this situation that weakens our position to finding a good long term deal everyone can live with. That plan would be devious hardball by Bettman. The PA might have to stand up to it and do a very unpopoular thing. They will have to actually go through with a strike. A very uncomfortable one.

Perhaps it plays out like this.
-Goodenow makes an offer
-Bettman make a counter.
-Both are rejected, Bettman anounces all arena dates are now available. Doom sets in
-A committee of unassailable integrity comes back with the interest of saving the game and puts forth this possibility Tom has outlined.
-Who would reject it? Especially at Christmas.

 

[Kickabrat]

"Lifting" the lockout would be an absolute bombshell in this situation. There have been absolutely no negotiations or even any tiny shifts in either side's position through a ten-week lockout period (and the entire period leading up to it). There has been absolutely nothing of substance to bring the parties into the same room.

And now that the lockout is "lifted" what rules do you purport they play under? Like I pointed out before, at a minimum they have to change the expiry date of the old CBA. To do that, they need the NHLPA to agree. So let's say for argument purposes, the NHLPA agrees and they get the old CBA back. The NHL goes back and argues that the CBA is not workable, yet they asked to extended it in 1996, and would have (under your scenario) done it again in 2005. So the NHL argues that this CBA is an unworkable piece of s***, but they keep asking the players to renew it. Yep, solid ground the owners would be standing on there.

 

[Egil]

And now that the lockout is "lifted" what rules do you purport they play under? Like I pointed out before, at a minimum they have to change the expiry date of the old CBA. To do that, they need the NHLPA to agree. So let's say for argument purposes, the NHLPA agrees and they get the old CBA back. The NHL goes back and argues that the CBA is not workable, yet they asked to extended it in 1996, and would have (under your scenario) done it again in 2005. So the NHL argues that this CBA is an unworkable piece of s***, but they keep asking the players to renew it. Yep, solid ground the owners would be standing on there.

Kick, how may people need to explain this too you? When a CBA expires, the rules apply until a new one is negotiated. However, when the CBA has expired, the players can legally strike, and the owners can legally lock them out. That is the ONLY thing that changes once a CBA has expired.

 

[YellHockey*]

Kick, how may people need to explain this too you? When a CBA expires, the rules apply until a new one is negotiated. However, when the CBA has expired, the players can legally strike, and the owners can legally lock them out. That is the ONLY thing that changes once a CBA has expired.

I wonder if food magically disappears from Kickabrat's fridge once it is past its expiration date?

 

[Kickabrat]

You're tossing a lot of insults and invective for someone who clearly knows nothing about labour law. They don't need to "re-activate" the old CBA. If the owners were to end the lockout the old CBA would continue to govern. The only thing that the expiry of the CBA does is give the owners and players the opportunity to use economic means to pressure the other side to make changes to the relationship. These economic means are not allowed while there is a valid CBA in place.

How can you have such a firm opinion on something that you don't understand?

Ah and you understand it do you? They can't go back to the old CBA unless both parties agree to it. This would go along the lines of: OK we agree to play under the old rules as long as we continue to negotiate a new CBA. In other words they have to come to some sort of agreement on how the old rules will apply while they continue to negotiate. Neither the owners nor the NHLPA can unilaterally impose the old CBA on the other party. The courts may decide to impose the old CBA, but then the owners or the players would have the option of lockout/strike. In either case, the owners do not want the old CBA, so it is moot.

Example of contract law: I have a contract with you to buy 10 widgets/month for $10 each for the next 12 months. At the end of the 12 months I say, I want 10 widgets a month but I will only pay you $5 each when the market price is now $15 each. You say no way. I then say, OK in that case I'm going back to old contract, I'll pay you $10 each. And you would then be forced to sell me your widgets at $10, whether you liked it or not?

 

[thinkwild]

They can't go back to the old CBA unless both parties agree to it. This would go along the lines of: OK we agree to play under the old rules as long as we continue to negotiate a new CBA. In other words they have to come to some sort of agreement on how the old rules will apply while they continue to negotiate. Neither the owners nor the NHLPA can unilaterally impose the old CBA on the other party.

Yes, this is the point. THey would both agree to it forthe sake of the fans and the season while the players position is weakened. No unilateral - an agreement to negotiate while playing out the season. The players already offered to do this. The owners gain benefit from it. Dont you see?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

"Lifting" the lockout would be an absolute bombshell in this situation.

True. If I'm Bettman, I think that is very appealing. This works on all levels. It is smart financially, it is great PR and it advances the owner agenda.

Obviously all the NHL teams would need advance notice, since they have a 45-day rolling period to release their arenas. Besides, Bettman would have to let them know so that the teams could have their coaches and other staff ready to set up the training schedules, etc....bringing any business out of mothballs is pretty tough work.

This seems to be a good agenda item for the December 2nd meeting with the GMs, eh? What else is it they plan to discuss? The schedule won't be difficult. It might be a little early, but suppose they come out of that meeting and announce training camps start December 15th and the season starts on January 7th.

If they delay the announcement, leaks would be inevitable but all that does is eliminate surprise and that doesn't matter that much. Goodenow probably won't be surprised anyway. If we can imagine the strategy, so can he.

It doesn't matter whether he expects it or not. It whacks the ball firmly into his court without moving a millimeter of the owner position. He does not have a good response. The best strategy is to reverse the player position "We just want to play and it is the owners who are cancelling the season" to "We are in a box the fans can't understand but we have to strike now and kill the season."

That means the players take another PR hit and they set the owners up to use strikebreakers next year or they wind up with the same choice this time next year.

I don't understand why the Bettman poodles don't love this idea. I like the idea of hockey this season, but I hate the idea because it is actually a scenario that could result in an owner victory and an NFL type system in the NHL. What do the Bettman poodles want, if not that?

What happens to all the players in Europe? Do they report to their NHL teams immediately, even though their NHL teams might not play for 30 to 45 days? Players don't get paid for training camp, so a guy in decent shape who is getting a few thousand a week in Europe might be a little ticked off that he has to give up his European team to spend 30 days in an NHL training camp.

I think this is another positive for the plan. Make the players bail on their European teams and hop the next flight home. When the lockout is re-imposed next year, will the Europeans be as anxious to hire NHL players? Will the players be as willing to go if they understand it is probably another half season lockout?

Tom

 

[GabbyDugan]

And now that the lockout is "lifted" what rules do you purport they play under? Like I pointed out before, at a minimum they have to change the expiry date of the old CBA.

I didn't purport anything, as you would have noticed in the parts of my post that you did not quote.

I question the legality of "lifting" a lockout, too . For the sake of this discussion , I can set my questions aside for the time being. The NHL and NHLPA both have labour law advisers at their disposal far beyond what is available to us, so why not give this theory the benefit of the doubt based on the knowledge we have available, at least until irrefutable proof to the contrary is presented?

I'm not so sure an expiry date of a CBA is all that essential if the lockout can indeed be legally "lifted". Generally when a CBA expires, it continues indefinitely, so if it is put into place after a lockout is "lifted", why can't the old agreement continue indefinitely once it is brought back into effect? Certainly the parties would have to present legal strike or lockout notice to once again suspend the old CBA, but what was the case when the NHL declared this lockout? Seventy-two hours prior notice, I believe.

 

[djhn579]

You're tossing a lot of insults and invective for someone who clearly knows nothing about labour law. They don't need to "re-activate" the old CBA. If the owners were to end the lockout the old CBA would continue to govern. The only thing that the expiry of the CBA does is give the owners and players the opportunity to use economic means to pressure the other side to make changes to the relationship. These economic means are not allowed while there is a valid CBA in place.

How can you have such a firm opinion on something that you don't understand?

ARTICLE 3
Duration of Agreement
3.1. Term.


This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 1993, and shall remain in full force and effect until midnight on the 15th day of September, 2004, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and until either party shall furnish the other a written notice of termination of this Agreement 120 days prior to the 15th day of September, 2004 or not less than a like period in any year thereafter.
3.2. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the NHL, the Clubs, the NHLPA and all the players covered by this Agreement and their successors or assigns.

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba/article3.html

In order to terminate this agreement, the NHL had to give written notice to the NHLPA 120 days before Sept 15th 2004. They couldn't lock out the players unless this was done, due to:

ARTICLE 7
No Strike, No Discrimination and Other Undertakings
7.1. (a) Neither the NHLPA nor any player shall authorize, encourage, or engage in any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or other concerted interference with the activities of any Club or of the League during the term of this Agreement. Nor shall any player decline to play or practice or in concert with any other person otherwise interfere with the activities of any Club or the League, or individually or in concert encourage any other player to do so because of picketing or a labor dispute involving any other labor organization. The NHLPA shall not support or condone any action of any player which is not in accordance with this Section 7.01 and the NHLPA shall exert reasonable efforts to induce compliance therewith.

(b) Neither the League nor any Club shall engage in a lockout during the term of this Agreement.

7.2. Neither the NHLPA, the NHL, nor any Club shall discriminate against or in favor of any player because of religion, race, color, national origin, sex, age, marital status, or membership or non-membership in or support of or non-support of any labor organization.

7.3. No player who is a party to a Player Contract with a Club shall, during the term of such Player Contract (including any permissible option year that has been properly exercised by the Player or Club, as the case may be), enter into negotiations with another Club.

This CBA is dead, written notice to terminate has been given. In order for the NHL to resume play, they would have to sign a new agreement that at the very least changes the duration of the agreement.

 

[Egil]

Their is no CBA currently, that is correct. However, I believe standard labour law states that if their is no new CBA, that the rules from the old one apply until a new one is reached. I KNOW that MLB played for a year and a half with no CBA.

Lets use a non sports example, Auto Manufacturing. The strategy employed by the CAW is to pick one of the big three car companies (normally the one doin the best) and try to get as much out of them as possible, while continuing to work without a CBA at the other 2. Once they reach an agreement with the first manufacturer, they then try to get the other 2 to agree to the same deal. But, they definately continue working without a valid CBA, while this is taking place.

 

[thinkwild]

ARTICLE 3

This CBA is dead, written notice to terminate has been given. In order for the NHL to resume play, they would have to sign a new agreement that at the very least changes the duration of the agreement.

Yes, whats so hard about that? Why would that be impossible? What in all your quotes above would prevent that? Why should it be an insurmountable problem if they both agree to do it?

They would both sign an agreement agreeing to its extension yes. What if? What prevents it? Why not do it?

 

[djhn579]

Yes, whats so hard about that? Why would that be impossible? What in all your quotes above would prevent that? Why should it be an insurmountable problem if they both agree to do it?

They would both sign an agreement agreeing to its extension yes. What if? What prevents it? Why not do it?

They can do that if they want, I doubt they will though.

I just don't believe the term of this CBA still apply. If the written notice to terminate was not given, the terms would apply and there could not be a lockout. If written notice was not given they would be playing hockey right now. I don't know about the MLB situation. Maybe they didn't have this clause? I don't know or care. Maybe they had this clause but did not give written notice? Again I don't know or care. But this is what is written in this agreement. It looks pretty clear to me...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

This CBA is dead, written notice to terminate has been given. In order for the NHL to resume play, they would have to sign a new agreement that at the very least changes the duration of the agreement.

This is so easy to get around it is a joke. Here's a variation of the plan:

The NHL declares impasse, implements a CBA the NHLPA has never seen and lifts the lockout. The players file an unfair labour practice suit with the NLRB and the NHL defends that suit with "Damned rights we negotiated in bad faith. We are losing so much money we are proud to show bad faith!"

The NLRB rules for the players, tosses out the new imposed CBA and restores the old one.

"Thanks," says Gary Bettman. "Your move, Bob."

Tom

 

[djhn579]

Their is no CBA currently, that is correct. However, I believe standard labour law states that if their is no new CBA, that the rules from the old one apply until a new one is reached. I KNOW that MLB played for a year and a half with no CBA.

Lets use a non sports example, Auto Manufacturing. The strategy employed by the CAW is to pick one of the big three car companies (normally the one doin the best) and try to get as much out of them as possible, while continuing to work without a CBA at the other 2. Once they reach an agreement with the first manufacturer, they then try to get the other 2 to agree to the same deal. But, they definately continue working without a valid CBA, while this is taking place.

Not every CBA is written the same. I can see what is written in this one though...

 

[Kickabrat]

Kick, how may people need to explain this too you? When a CBA expires, the rules apply until a new one is negotiated. However, when the CBA has expired, the players can legally strike, and the owners can legally lock them out. That is the ONLY thing that changes once a CBA has expired.

As many as you want until you show me legally where you are correct. They cannot impose the old CBA on the NHLPA and the NHLPA cannot impose the old CBA on the owners, unless THEY AGREE or it is imposed by a court. "The conditions under which the players worked under continues throughout the bargaining process but it does not mean the CBA continues in effect" (NH Supreme Court of Appeal)

"Service Employees International Union AFL-CIO, v. Ecclesiatical Maintenance Services Inc. "The District Court concluded that the employee grievance was non-arbitrable because the CBA was no longer in effect. We hold that Local 74 raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an oral agreement between the union and EMS to extend all terms of the expired CBA, ..."




"U. S. Dept of Labor v.Commercial Laundry and Dry Cleaning ...... (a) Commercial Laundry and Dry Cleaning and AFL-CIO Local 44 had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which expired .........(b) Respondents made verbal agreements to continue the CBA with local officials of Local 44......."



from a Supreme Court of New Hampshire Appeal decision re Rochester Federation of Teachers et al. "A CBA may contain an automatic renewal clause, sometimes referred to as an "evergreen clause." Such a clause purports to continue the terms of the contract indefinitely until the parties negotiate, a successor contract....In the absence of a binding automatic renewal clause, a CBA ends on its termination date... "

 

[djhn579]

This is so easy to get around it is a joke. Here's a variation of the plan:

The NHL declares impasse, implements a CBA the NHLPA has never seen and lifts the lockout. The players file an unfair labour practice suit with the NLRB and the NHl defends that suit with 'Damned rights we negotiated in bad faith. We are losing so muich money we are proud to show bad faith!"

The NLRB rules for the players, tosses out the new imposed CBA and restores the old one.

"Thanks," says Gary Bettman. "Your move, Bob."

Tom

Wow. That's kind of out of left field...

Where did the NHL declaring impasse come into this plan of yours? And as you stated, the NHL can't declare impasse until after they present a full CBA to the NHLPA.

The only point I was trying to make is that this CBA is dead. It can't be lifted unless both sides agree to a new CBA. This can have as little changed as the Duration of the agreement, but both sides still need to go along and sign.

I just don't see why the NHL would do this...

 

[thinkwild]

They cannot impose the old CBA on the NHLPA and the NHLPA cannot impose the old CBA on the owners, unless THEY AGREE

So we're in agreement then. If the 2 sides agree to this ..