Fan 590 Reports Players Are Angry

[Gary]

Hey guys, think for a second. If NHL declares an impasse and replacement players can be used everwhere else except Quebec and BC, how long do you think it takes for those two provinces to change the laws??

I mean THINK about it, any Quebec government which tells it's people "sorry this current legislation prevents Habs from playing and we're not going to do anything about it" can disband itself immediately because they don't have any future in politics and most likely their personal physical wellbeing is also in danger.

There will be changes in legislation in nanoseconds if it's the only thing keeping Habs from playing.

I agree...If anyone has learned anything from this whole fiasco it's that the "$$$ talks, and BS walks..." mantra holds true

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

What is with everyone sticking up for Bettman cause he "quadroupled revenue", well if revenue quadroupled and the NHL still LOST money, it looks like the commish signed a bad CBA eh? Which mean he messed up big time and should be FIRED for his mistake. Any other leader would have been fired for that mistake why shouldn't Bettman? I guess im wrong about Bettman not watching a hockey game before he became commish though, I guess he was a big fan, you can tell he was by the way he ran the league for the past 10 years...........Does everyone FORGET all those times Gary Bettman has DENIED the on ice product wasnt hurting? Numerous times he always said "theres nothing wrong with our product" DENYING there were problems. I guess the whole CBA issue has clouded peoples minds that Bettman is nothing more than a lying *****.

 

[SENSible1*]

I'm glad Wetcoaster is here spelling out the PA's case should the NHL choose the impasse implementation scenario. He provides quality information and raises the level of the dicussion.

That being said, I think it is fairly obvious that the NHL's lawyers would present an entirely different set of information for consideration.

I doubt the NHL will go for impasse and implementation, not because it is impossible, but simply because it is risky and the alternative "starve them out stance" is foolproof. Sure it will cost them money, but they have plenty and their willingness to sustain losses has been clearly established during the last CBA. Unlike the foolishness of throwing money into the growing vortex of player costs, the payoff in crushing the PA is real and worthwhile.

 

[Pepper]

NHL has an army of the best labor lawyers in NA, I'm sure they have considered everything possible so whatever happens, NHL is ready.

 

[mooseOAK*]

What is with everyone sticking up for Bettman cause he "quadroupled revenue", well if revenue quadroupled and the NHL still LOST money, it looks like the commish signed a bad CBA eh? Which mean he messed up big time and should be FIRED for his mistake. Any other leader would have been fired for that mistake why shouldn't Bettman? I guess im wrong about Bettman not watching a hockey game before he became commish though, I guess he was a big fan, you can tell he was by the way he ran the league for the past 10 years...........Does everyone FORGET all those times Gary Bettman has DENIED the on ice product wasnt hurting? Numerous times he always said "theres nothing wrong with our product" DENYING there were problems. I guess the whole CBA issue has clouded peoples minds that Bettman is nothing more than a lying *****.

Bettman did not agree to sign the last CBA, it was the owners who pressured an agreement.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Which experts are those?

You mean guys Dennis Devaney (NLRB '88-'94), John Oesch, labour ministers Michelle Poirot and Grahame Currie, Chuck Greenberg, Brian Burke and enough labor lawyers in the NHL's offices to choke a horse?

As well, here is an interesting article that seems to bring everything that Wetcoaster has been saying into question.

http://www.lawmemo.com/articles/hardball.htm

Seems if you go down this checklist you'll see the NHLPA has rolled over and played right into the impasse strategy, contrary to what the resident "legal expert" has to say, er... cut and paste.

Or is this just another attempt of yours to slander anyone who can intelligently explain why they do not support ownership? Why do you always seem to do that to the users here who bring the most to the discussions?

Slander? Funny, but I'm always willing to go toe-to-toe with anyone on almost any subject. I always post supporting docs when required, unlike you who never backs up a single argument you make. Run along South Central Nepean tough guy, before you embarass yourself further.

 

[SuperUnknown]

What is with everyone sticking up for Bettman cause he "quadroupled revenue", well if revenue quadroupled and the NHL still LOST money, it looks like the commish signed a bad CBA eh? Which mean he messed up big time and should be FIRED for his mistake. Any other leader would have been fired for that mistake why shouldn't Bettman? I guess im wrong about Bettman not watching a hockey game before he became commish though, I guess he was a big fan, you can tell he was by the way he ran the league for the past 10 years...........Does everyone FORGET all those times Gary Bettman has DENIED the on ice product wasnt hurting? Numerous times he always said "theres nothing wrong with our product" DENYING there were problems. I guess the whole CBA issue has clouded peoples minds that Bettman is nothing more than a lying *****.

Your own personal vendetta against Bettman is clouding your judgement.

 

[CarlRacki]

All I can go by is what I read.

A junior partner in a large firm is little more than an associate - he would have had little management experience and input into the firm and certainly he was not a managing partner. There are any number of lawyers I know who rose faster and even became full partners in prestigious firms and one who became a judge within 6 years out of law school after making full partner in three years.

With all due respect, I have friends who are junior partners in one of the country's largest and most prestigious law firms. They're extremely talented and intelligent people and they worked very hard to get to their current positions. For you to say that being a junior partner is akin to being an associate shows a tremendous lack of understanding of how things work at law firms in places like New York, D.C., Chicago.

 

[Scoogs]

On a completely different note.. Was there some new law passed in Toronto or something that prevents Live Streaming of Radio over the net? Its been this way since at least yesterday afternoon. I thought there was a certain program that couldn't be broadcast, but I still can't recieve it.

Doesn't matter, because I can just turn on the radio over here, but I'm lazy.

EDIT: Well... I dunno whats up with the FAN590 but Mojo Radio streams so...

 

[perrykaravello]

Yeah i've had the same problem also , everytime I try and listen to FAN 590 it says that Major League laws prevent streaming of this program.

 

[Wetcoaster]

With all due respect, I have friends who are junior partners in one of the country's largest and most prestigious law firms. They're extremely talented and intelligent people and they worked very hard to get to their current positions. For you to say that being a junior partner is akin to being an associate shows a tremendous lack of understanding of how things work at law firms in places like New York, D.C., Chicago.

You missed my point. The issue was that Bettman never had actually run anything until the NHL owners gave him what is essentially a large company.

 

[CarlRacki]

You missed my point. The issue was that Bettman never had actually run anything until the NHL owners gave him what is essentially a large company.

That's fine. I agree somewhat, though I'm not sure what David Setern actually "ran" before becoming NBA commissioner. And Pete Rozelle, arguably the best commissioner ever, came from a PR background.
Regardless, to get to your point, you unnecessarily belittled Bettman's accomplishments prior to joining the NHL. I don't think the guy's been a particularly effective commissioner (nor as bad as some would claim), but it's obvious the guy's accomplished much in life. Why some can't recognize that while still being critical of his tenure as NHL commissioner is beyond me.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

I'd say being commissioner of a league of 30 independently-owned and operated teams is quite different from running a company where the chief executive has ultimate authority over every matter within the company. The commissioner's job focuses a bit more on the areas of marketing and labor relations and less on operations and management.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

I'd say being commissioner of a league of 30 independently-owned and operated teams is quite different from running a company where the chief executive has ultimate authority over every matter within the company. The commissioner's job focuses a bit more on the areas of marketing and labor relations and less on operations and management.

My opinion is that hes failed in both areas, and failed miserably in marketing. My "personal vendetta" against Bettman is that he BLOWS as a commissioner. If he was a GOOD commissioner then I'd like him obviously. I guess im the only person who finds whenever Bettman speaks to people very very cocky and condescending to others. Not to mention his blatant lies year after year in interviews telling us theres gonna be a "crackdown" on interference and that "the on ice product is great right now."

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

That's fine, but I was addressing Wetcoaster's point.

 

[Strangelove]

Seems if you go down this checklist you'll see the NHLPA has rolled over and played right into the impasse strategy, contrary to what the resident "legal expert" has to say, er... cut and paste.

:lol

I just had to laugh....

I doubt y'all know this, but Wetcoaster was dubbed 'Mr Cut & Paste' during his exile at my home site.

Now I see he's over here, still receiving references to cut 'n pastin'.

Too funny....

No offense intended Wettie, ya gotta admit it's hilarious!


And it's not "libel", right?



Speaking of that, you never did *actually* advise your heroes Strachan & Gallagher that they had a good libel case against we folk at your temporary home didjya?

 

[Wetcoaster]

You mean guys Dennis Devaney (NLRB '88-'94), John Oesch, labour ministers Michelle Poirot and Grahame Currie, Chuck Greenberg, Brian Burke and enough labor lawyers in the NHL's offices to choke a horse?

As well, here is an interesting article that seems to bring everything that Wetcoaster has been saying into question.

http://www.lawmemo.com/articles/hardball.htm

Seems if you go down this checklist you'll see the NHLPA has rolled over and played right into the impasse strategy, contrary to what the resident "legal expert" has to say, er... cut and paste.

Slander? Funny, but I'm always willing to go toe-to-toe with anyone on almost any subject. I always post supporting docs when required, unlike you who never backs up a single argument you make. Run along South Central Nepean tough guy, before you embarass yourself further.

I have read it and in fact have posted excerpts from it in the past. The basic thesis is that it is difficult to get to a declaration past the NLRB and you have to look at the actual case law to see how it works. Remember this was written by a labour lawyer who represents management.

You also have to keep in mind that very few impasse declarations are upheld.
There have been other labour lawyer experts and former NLRB members who take the opposite view to what you espouse - all that means is that it is not a certain bet for or against. Among the one's counselling caution is former NLRB member John Raudabaugh who appeared recently on Fan 590 with Bob McCown (simulcast on SportsNet) who is a management labour lawyer. He cautioned the NHL to be extremely careful in trying the impasse declaration because the financial penalties could be extremely severe. He did not see it as slam dunk and it is not given the case law.
http://www.butzel.com/attorney/attbio.cfm?ID=263

And that is without considering the overlay of multiple labour law jurisdictions and the constraints on work permits and visas by Canadian and US immigration law.

Both Graham Currie and Michelle Poirot are NOT "labour ministers". They are not lawyers, they are PR people - the "spokes persons". But they are not even the spokes persons for the respective Labour Relations Boards but rather the Labour Ministries. I have read their statements and it appears all Currie has said is that the union is not certified in BC. The reporters seem to have made the next jump. If the reports of Ms. Poirot's statement was really that the NHL players are not covered under the province's labour code, rather than saying the union is not certified - then she is wrong.

Here is the report which apeared first in the canadian Press and has been quoted in various newspapers and other media:

However, Quebec labour ministry spokeswoman Michele Poirot says NHL players aren't covered under the province's labour code. Ditto in B.C., where the NHLPA isn't certified as a union, says provincial labour ministry spokesman Graham Currie.

If they did claim that the replacement player ban does not apply to the NHLPA, then they were wrong or perhaps the media asked the wrong questions or took their quotes out of context or did not report the full quote. Reporters seldom get fine legal points correct unless they happen to be court reporters by vocation. In any event what has been reported is wrong and that is clear on the law.

As a general rule a union must be certified to have the full benefit of Labour Code protection (including a ban on replacement workers in BC and Quebec). It is the same in Ontario and Alberta which currently do not have a ban on replacement workers but it has been reported the Liberal governemnt in Ontario is prepared to re-impose the ban shortly that was in place during the 1994 MLB labour dispute and prevented the Blue Jays from putting a replacement team in Toronto.

The NHLPA is a union (or in BC terms a "trade union") as defined under the applicable provincial labour codes. The NHLPA has not applied formally for certification as far as we know, however they could do so if they wished at any time (under s. 19 of BC Labour Relations Code for example).

BUT it is not necessary because under the various provincial labour codes, there is a long standing and well-recognized exception to the general rule of certification. That exception is known under Canadian labour law as "Voluntary Recognition". Once the employer has recognized the bargaining agent and concluded a CBA and as long as it is clear the employees have accepted that CBA - certification is NOT required for the union to obtain the benefits under the labour code such as the ban on replacement workers. That is clear law and does not require an opinion.

Here is the explanation of what "Voluntary Recognition" means directly from the BC Labour Relations Board website drawn from the LRB's published "GUIDE TO THE LABOUR RELATIONS CODE -Province of British Columbia" which is used by both union and management in its appearances before the Board:

If a group of employees wants to be represented by a union, the Code provides the means for that union to be legally recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent for those employees. This recognition is called “certification†and carries with it certain rights and obligations. The union acquires the right to bargain with the employer on behalf of the employees it represents (the bargaining unit) and, on their behalf, to enter into a collective agreement setting out the terms and conditions of their employment. In return for that right, the union has the duty to represent all of the employees in the bargaining unit in a manner which is not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, whether or not those employees are members of the union.

Even where a union has not sought certification under the Code, an employer may agree to acknowledge the union as bargaining agent for the employees and to conclude a collective agreement with the union. This is called voluntary recognition. In such cases the union will normally have the same rights and be subject to the same obligations under the Code as a certified union. The Board, however, must be satisfied that the voluntary recognition has been approved by the employees affected.

http://www.lrb.bc.ca/codeguide/chapter1.htm

 

[Wetcoaster]

:lol

I just had to laugh....

I doubt y'all know this, but Wetcoaster was dubbed 'Mr Cut & Paste' during his exile at my home site.

Now I see he's over here, still receiving references to cut 'n pastin'.

Too funny....

No offense intended Wettie, ya gotta admit it's hilarious!


And it's not "libel", right?



Speaking of that, you never did *actually* advise your heroes Strachan & Gallagher that they had a good libel case against we folk at your temporary home didjya?

It appears that many posters do not understand how to support an argument.

What you refer to as "cut and paste" is properly advancing and supporting an argument.

What temporary home do you refer to and what exile???? I do not understand your reference - please clarify.

My caution about defamation in the past was to posters and if you check the posting rules here, there is a similar caution. Simply because it is the internet you cannot defame people - the same legal rules apply as to any other publication. The moderators will shut it down very quickly because they do not want a vicarious liability claim against the board operators for allowing publication of defamatory material.

 

[deathbear]

will you people grow up already? who are you trying to impress?

 

[SuperUnknown]

It appears that many posters do not understand how to support an argument.

What you refer to as "cut and paste" is properly advancing and supporting an argument.

What temporary home do you refer to and what exile???? I do not understand your reference - please clarify.

My caution about defamation in the past was to posters and if you check the posting rules here, there is a similar caution. Simply because it is the internet you cannot defame people - the same legal rules apply as to any other publication. The moderators will shut it down very quickly because they do not want a vicarious liability claim against the board operators for allowing publication of defamatory material.

Or the mods could ban someone because of the potential trouble he could bring them?

 

[Wetcoaster]

That's fine. I agree somewhat, though I'm not sure what David Setern actually "ran" before becoming NBA commissioner. And Pete Rozelle, arguably the best commissioner ever, came from a PR background.
Regardless, to get to your point, you unnecessarily belittled Bettman's accomplishments prior to joining the NHL. I don't think the guy's been a particularly effective commissioner (nor as bad as some would claim), but it's obvious the guy's accomplished much in life. Why some can't recognize that while still being critical of his tenure as NHL commissioner is beyond me.

I understand that David Stern had been a managing partner at Proskauer Rose and had run the sports and labour law department for number of years. In an interview he stated he only joined the NBA as Commissioner when it was apparent that not doing so could cost his firm the NBA legal work and he agreed to do the job only on a one year basis. Interestingly he still works on a year to year contract and he has said that preserves his future options.

As far as Pete Rozelle he had run the PR for the 1956 Olympics and spent three years as GM of the LA Rams. Also many descriptions of Rozelle begin with the charismatic, born leader, visionary, etc. And Gary Bettman....? Apples and Orangutans.

I compare Bettman to Clarence Campbell a former NHL President with an impressive legal, academic and sports background. It is too bad that Campbell is not leading the NHL now that would have been something to see him going toe to toe with Goodenow. At least Goodenow would not be dealing with someone fighting out of his weight class.

As I noted in another post Campbell clearly outpoints Bettman ... and he is suffering from the handicap of being dead for a number of years.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Or the mods could ban someone because of the potential trouble he could bring them?

Sorry I do not understand. Would you clarify please?

 

[SENSible1*]

I understand that David Stern had been a managing partner at Proskauer Rose and had run the sports and labour law department for number of years. In an interview he stated he only joined the NBA as Commissioner when it was apparent that not doing so could cost his firm the NBA legal work and he agreed to do the job only on a one year basis. Interestingly he still works on a year to year contract and he has said that preserves his future options.

As far as Pete Rozelle he had run the PR for the 1956 Olympics and spent three years as GM of the LA Rams. Also many descriptions of Rozelle begin with the charismatic, born leader, visionary, etc. And Gary Bettman....? Apples and Orangutans.

I compare Bettman to Clarence Campbell a former NHL President with an impressive legal, academic and sports background. It is too bad that Campbell is not leading the NHL now that would have been something to see him going toe to toe with Goodenow. At least Goodenow would not be dealing with someone fighting out of his weight class.

As I noted in another post Campbell clearly outpoints Bettman ... and he is suffering from the handicap of being dead for a number of years.

Wetcoaster,

Since Bettman has had his hands untied by the owners, he has been giving Goodenow a thorough thrashing. Fighting out of his weightclass? We'll see about that.

The most important question out of Bobby's mouth in the next 24 hours will be: "Can I at least put some KY on my butt first?"

It will be fun to watch the spin job from you when this showdown reaches its inevitable conclusion.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I'd say being commissioner of a league of 30 independently-owned and operated teams is quite different from running a company where the chief executive has ultimate authority over every matter within the company. The commissioner's job focuses a bit more on the areas of marketing and labor relations and less on operations and management.

You may have hit on the major problem with Bettman. He is a not the NHL Commissioner he is more the Chief Financial Officer.

He is supposed to be the NHL Commissioner which IMHO entails managing and growing the GAMR of hockey as well and he has not done that. I still do not think that he has hockey in his blood - if he does in fact have blood.

In an another post I suggested that maybe the thing to do after this dispute is put to bed is to choose a an independent NHL Commissioner paid by both the owners and players but who has true independence to work for the good of the game. Bettman can stay as head of the owners if they so wish.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Wetcoaster,

Since Bettman has had his hands untied by the owners, he has been giving Goodenow a thorough thrashing. Fighting out of his weightclass? We'll see about that.

It will be fun to watch the spin job from you when this showdown reaches its inevitable conclusion.

In your opinion. Mine differs. Since the Trevor Linden call for meetings it seems to me that Goodenow has been in control of the agenda. YMMV.

This is not done yet and thus far, in the end in every conflict with Goodenow Bettman has come out second best.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. We will see who is still standing or who still has a job when this is over. I just hope the NHL survives this.