mudcrutch79
Registered User
Former NLRB board member on Prime Time Sports right now. McCown generally does decent interviews. Listen online at www.fan590.com.
Fan590 NLRB
- Thread starter mudcrutch79
- Start date
- Status
He acknowledges that he works for management, but says that he thinks that the parties have reached an impasse at this point, legally speaking.
He goes on to say that the PA has an advantage in that the union controls most of the players that people care to spend money on tickets to see, making an impasse risky.
He goes on to say that the PA has an advantage in that the union controls most of the players that people care to spend money on tickets to see, making an impasse risky.
as you said he works for management. no way the league wins an impasse in court.mudcrutch79 said:
He's gone on to say that if you declare an impasse you better be right, because if you're wrong, it's an expensive mistake. Interesting, he just mentioned that the composition of the Board could change before them seeing this case; apparently cases take a while to get there.
its called an opinion. if you have read the great posts on the topic of am impasse by wetcoaster you might agree with my opinion.mudcrutch79 said:
i understand you can't be pro-player on these boards without getting attacked (mainly by a certain calgary flames fan) but i am aloud to voice how i feel about what the outcome of an impasse would be.
you are taking the word of a guy on a radio show that said right off the bat he is pro-managment.
He's discussing whether or not you have to show movement or actually negotiate...says it could well be acceptable not to deviate from an original position.
Last edited:
Son of Steinbrenner said:
I'll say what I've said in other places. An uneducated or unresearched opinion is worthless. I've read what Wetcoaster has said, and am aware it'd be a huge risk for the NHL. I don't think that they'll go for it, but don't know enough to really speculate on whether they'd get it myself.
A bald statement that "The owners won't get an impasse." does nothing to advance the debate if you have nothing to back it up. We really need to split this forum into two sub-forums. One, for people who just want to express opinions, and another for people who want to discuss the issues associated with this and check their opinions about who's right at the door.
Hmm, I've now been attacked multiple times as being pro-player and pro-owner. I wonder if perhaps it's the people tossing the bombs who have the agendas to push?
He said he's a management side labour lawyer, and that people listening should be aware of that. Believe it or not, many people are able to separate their opinions of how things should be, from this analysis of how they are. Just because your position on whether or not an impasse would occur is dictated by your biases doesn't mean that his is.
Thanks for the headsup, Mudcrutch. I caught the last part of the interview on 1260 radio here in Edmonton (usually don't listen to McCown, but wish I had tuned in earlier today. I may get a second chance, because I think Sportsnet West shows McCown's program on delay around 5:30 in Edmonton.)
The man's name, by the way, is John Raudabaugh. As was pointed out, he now represents management on labour issues, but I thought his insights dovetailed nicely with the discussion in the impasse thread.
It looks like the declaration of an impasse is legally a possibility even at this stage, but the aftermath can trigger a nuclear winter for hockey as we know it. I sure hope there is enough collective wisdom between the players and the owners to come to a negotiated agreement.
The man's name, by the way, is John Raudabaugh. As was pointed out, he now represents management on labour issues, but I thought his insights dovetailed nicely with the discussion in the impasse thread.
It looks like the declaration of an impasse is legally a possibility even at this stage, but the aftermath can trigger a nuclear winter for hockey as we know it. I sure hope there is enough collective wisdom between the players and the owners to come to a negotiated agreement.
Like the guy said on the fan, an impasse could eliminate hockey for years and the process would take years.
Crows said:
I think you're misunderstanding him. The legal wrangling surrounding the impasse could take years. If the NHL declares an impasse, they're free to impose their last best offer on the players.
mudcrutch79 said:
OHH my mistake... so technically the NHL could offer up another proposal this week, then the PA rejects it... so then the NHL could file with the NLRB and their last one would be in place IMEDIATLY??
Crows said:
They could declare an impasse tomorrow if they wanted, although I suspect they'd want to do things like tabling an actual offer before doing so.
The league can declare impasse anytime their want. Then it could take up to 4 years before the NLRB comes back with their decision. Do you really think the players are going to wait 4 years before cross over I don't think so.Son of Steinbrenner said:
But I don't think the NHL want to go that route. If the players win then the owners are obligated to pay damages to the players.
mudcrutch79 said:
Doesn't the NLRB have to agree an impasse exists before implementation? I thought that was the whole reason for going to them?
Digger12
Gold Fever
hockeytown9321 said:
Nope. According to this guy, the only time the NLRB gets involved is if one of the two parties raises a complaint after the fact. Even McGowan seemed a bit surprised by this.
At least, that's how I thought I heard it.
That being said, I think it's becoming rather obvious that impasse doesn't look like a road the NHL really wants to travel on, nor would it be a bed of roses for the NHLPA.
Digger12 said:
It doesn't make sense at all that they can implement before going to the NLRB. If they have a case now, why wait until next year? Do it now and save the season.
Fascinating stuff. I listened to the entire interview. In Raudanbaugh's expert opinion the NHL are aleady in a legal position to declare an impasse. He said there was nothing wrong with owners taking a stand on wanting a salary cap system as long as they have shown a willingness to move on other issues.
Players could then decide to go on strike or work under the owners final CBA offer. Appeals and delaying the process had more to do with non-related issues.
After the interview I was left with the impression that Bettman could successfully declare an Impasse at any moment and would be well within his rights in doing so.
Did anyone catch Sean Burke's interview earlier in the program. He can join McCabe and others in their retirement. He said "we are insulted at the offer the NHL are trying to impose on us" "we will never agree to work under their latest proposals" and this was in reference to last weeks meetings.
My morning optimism for NHL hockey with current NHL players is quickly disappearing. I will never support current NHL palyers if they wait until next year or some other time in the future to come to an agreement. This is their last chance. Hopefully common sense and cooler heads prevail.
Players could then decide to go on strike or work under the owners final CBA offer. Appeals and delaying the process had more to do with non-related issues.
After the interview I was left with the impression that Bettman could successfully declare an Impasse at any moment and would be well within his rights in doing so.
Did anyone catch Sean Burke's interview earlier in the program. He can join McCabe and others in their retirement. He said "we are insulted at the offer the NHL are trying to impose on us" "we will never agree to work under their latest proposals" and this was in reference to last weeks meetings.
My morning optimism for NHL hockey with current NHL players is quickly disappearing. I will never support current NHL palyers if they wait until next year or some other time in the future to come to an agreement. This is their last chance. Hopefully common sense and cooler heads prevail.
No. You have it backwards.hockeytown9321 said:
That is the gamble. The employer makes a final comprehensive offer, which if rejected, the employer can then implement as the CBA and open for business using replacements. This is NOT a permanent solution but only a stopgap measure - the labour dispute continues.
The union can go to the NLRB contest that there was in fact an impasse and/or claim that the employer is guilty of unfair labor practises. That is what happened in the 1994 MLB dispute where the owners lost with the NLRB directing them to play 2 more years under the existing CBA. Less than 10% of the impasse declarations are upheld by the NLRB according to reports I have seen.
Pro sports is an especially thorny case because if the owners are wrong on the impasse declaration the players can sue for monies owing under their contracts. I understand that there is also authority for the NHLPA to sue for anti-trust activities carried out under the voided imposed CBA since there would have been no protection from anti-trust law for illegal activities. The financial penalties under anti-trust law in the US are what is referred to as "treble (triple) danmages". canadian antitrust law provides for fines at the discretion of the court (no upper limit).
You also have the issue of what about the 6 Canadian teams as there is no impasse procedure in Canada and each team is subject to provincial labour code provisions.
Perhaps the real nail in the coffin is the immigration laws of Canada and the US.
Because it operates in two countries and many of its players are neither Canadian nor American, immigration laws in Canada and the US will determine who can play as a replacement player.
Bear in mind an impasse declaration and use of replacement is considered only a temporary measure and therefore the labour dispute continues. Under Canadian immigration law for a foreign player to play in Canada (Europeans and Americans) they must have a work permit issued from Canada Immigration unless they have been admitted an immigrant previously. Under US immigration law for a foreign player to play in US (Europeans and Canadians) they must have a work permit issued from Canada Immigration unless they have been admitted an alien resident previously.
Under the immigration laws of both countries, a work permit cannot be issued to a foreign national where there is a labour dispute in progress. So only Canadian citizens and permanent residents can play for Canadian based teams and only US citizens and alien residents can play for US based teams - no European players at all.
For a full review see my post (#4) in another thread which goes into detail on impasse declarations, Canadian labour law considerations, decertication and immigration matters:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=2388714&highlight=work+permit#post2388714
Wetcoaster said:
Thanks for the clarification. I would think that after some of Bill Daly's recent statements and the NHLPA discussing the cap after 3 years, that impasse would be very risky for the NHL. Definitely not worth it.
That is my considered opinion as well but then I have seen NHL executives, owners and GM's do some incredibly stupid things over the years. (See brian Burke antics for example).hockeytown9321 said:
It is only my opinion so I could be wrong - I have been before once - it was 1976 and I got married - that one cost me over a million.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 6Staked: $2,110.00Event closes
- Updated:
-