Even Homeland Security in the USA effects Replacement players ..

[djhn579]

Right, but as long as the two sides are arguing over numbers and not philosophy, there won't be an impasse. Impasse is very easy to break, so all the players would have to do is move slightly in the owners direction.

So, if the NHLPA refuses to budge off of a $49M hardcap and the NHL refuses to budge off a $40M hardcap, regardless of how all the other issues are resolved, your saying that the NHL can't say there is an impasse?

I don't think it matters if the impasse is due to $$'s or philosophy. If there the sides refuse to budge after negotiating for a reasonable amount of time, that is an impasse.

 

[hockeytown9321]

So, if the NHLPA refuses to budge off of a $49M hardcap and the NHL refuses to budge off a $40M hardcap, regardless of how all the other issues are resolved, your saying that the NHL can't say there is an impasse?

I don't think it matters if the impasse is due to $$'s or philosophy. If there the sides refuse to budge after negotiating for a reasonable amount of time, that is an impasse.

Please re-read my post. I said all the players need to do is move a little in the owners direction.

Lets say the NHLPA made an offer of a $49 million non linked cap. The NHL counters with a non linked cap at $25 million. The NHL declares impasse and implements the $25 million cap. The NHLPA offers a non linked cap of $48 million. The impasse is broken.

 

[djhn579]

Please re-read my post. I said all the players need to do is move a little in the owners direction.

Lets say the NHLPA made an offer of a $49 million non linked cap. The NHL counters with a non linked cap at $25 million. The NHL declares impasse and implements the $25 million cap. The NHLPA offers a non linked cap of $48 million. The impasse is broken.

And the NHL can claim that that is surface bargaining. The NHL PA in that situation is not trying to come to a deal, they are just trying to head off impasse by offering a slight concession. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that that would be considered negotiating in bad faith.



The quote below deals with surface bargaining by an employer, but I'm sure it applies just as equally to the union...

When examination of the "totality" of a party’s conduct during bargaining discloses that the forms of negotiation have been employed to conceal a purpose to frustrate or avoid mutual agreement, the party is said to have engaged in "surface bargaining." Any single factor, standing alone, is usually insufficient to support such a conclusion, but its "persuasiveness grows as the number of issues increases."

Although an employer may be willing to meet at length and confer with the union, the Board will find a refusal to bargain in good faith if it concludes the employer is merely going through the "motions of bargaining."

http://www.labor.state.ak.us/laborr/do/245.htm

 

[hockeytown9321]

And the NHL can claim that that is surface bargaining. The NHL PA in that situation is not trying to come to a deal, they are just trying to head off impasse by offering a slight concession. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that that would be considered negotiating in bad faith.



The quote below deals with surface bargaining by an employer, but I'm sure it applies just as equally to the union...

When examination of the "totality" of a party’s conduct during bargaining discloses that the forms of negotiation have been employed to conceal a purpose to frustrate or avoid mutual agreement, the party is said to have engaged in "surface bargaining." Any single factor, standing alone, is usually insufficient to support such a conclusion, but its "persuasiveness grows as the number of issues increases."

Although an employer may be willing to meet at length and confer with the union, the Board will find a refusal to bargain in good faith if it concludes the employer is merely going through the "motions of bargaining."

http://www.labor.state.ak.us/laborr/do/245.htm

I'm not so sure the law does apply equally to a union as labor law is generally made in favor of the employees. Regardless, the PA's movement in my scernario obviously isn't done to avoid agreement, and since its a single issue, according to your research, its probably not sufficient.