Glimmer of Hope

[SuperUnknown]

Again you fail to realize that the owners have a "duty" to bargain in good faith. They absolutely cannot sit with their thumbs up their butts and do nothing. This will get them into real trouble and quick. On this side of the border the NHL has even a slimmer time line without the labor ministers getting involved. Remember there are elections comming up and the federal government cannot afford to annoy the labor movement in the southern parts of Ontario. Oh and to implement their CBA as you put it requires impasse.

First, the owners have the right to lock out the players for as long as they want. No ifs or buts. As to the labour movement, do you really think they care about the NHLPA?

What I'm saying is that the players will bend someday. Whether that is in 2-3-5-10 years isn't known, but there's a point where they will have lost so much (and will be losing so much more with each day that they're locked out) that they'll sign to anything. It's easy to go "I don't care losing one year" when you have a few millions in the bank, but as time goes by, those players will be losing years and years of "good hockey good pay" and the fanbase will diminish, meaning that even if they get 75% of the revenues, it will be based on a much shorter income line (if total revenues shrink to $800M, then globally they'll get $600M at today's rate, a rate they won't even come close to get). Eventually, in due time, the players will sign an agreement with the owners that's based on the owner's concepts.

Economic laws will always surpass anything else. In this case, they clearly are against the players. Anything else is fluff.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

First, the owners have the right to lock out the players for as long as they want. No ifs or buts. As to the labour movement, do you really think they care about the NHLPA?

Looks like they do.

Ottawa Citizen

 

[dawgbone]

Boy, I'd be mighty happy if I was in the CAW and my dues were going to be used to help the NHLPA, especially after all the NHLPA support they have shown CAW all these years.

 

[vanlady]

First, the owners have the right to lock out the players for as long as they want. No ifs or buts. As to the labour movement, do you really think they care about the NHLPA?

What I'm saying is that the players will bend someday. Whether that is in 2-3-5-10 years isn't known, but there's a point where they will have lost so much (and will be losing so much more with each day that they're locked out) that they'll sign to anything. It's easy to go "I don't care losing one year" when you have a few millions in the bank, but as time goes by, those players will be losing years and years of "good hockey good pay" and the fanbase will diminish, meaning that even if they get 75% of the revenues, it will be based on a much shorter income line (if total revenues shrink to $800M, then globally they'll get $600M at today's rate, a rate they won't even come close to get). Eventually, in due time, the players will sign an agreement with the owners that's based on the owner's concepts.

Economic laws will always surpass anything else. In this case, they clearly are against the players. Anything else is fluff.

No the owners cannot lock the players out as long as they want. That is the thinking that gets you nailed for bad faith bargaining. One of the 5 tests for impasse is frequency of negotiation. Another is the amount of negotiation. The owners have no choice but to bargain.

 

[SuperUnknown]

No the owners cannot lock the players out as long as they want. That is the thinking that gets you nailed for bad faith bargaining. One of the 5 tests for impasse is frequency of negotiation. Another is the amount of negotiation. The owners have no choice but to bargain.

No one can be forced to operate a business that's losing money. If they don't want to operate for whatever reason, they can. Even if they "lose" to the NLRB, they can do a lock-out right after. I don't think they'll try to claim impasse, so you think that the NHLPA will?

Anyway, it's not like I really care, I'm having fun watching junior hockey.

 

[vanlady]

No one can be forced to operate a business that's losing money. If they don't want to operate for whatever reason, they can. Even if they "lose" to the NLRB, they can do a lock-out right after. I don't think they'll try to claim impasse, so you think that the NHLPA will?

Anyway, it's not like I really care, I'm having fun watching junior hockey.

First the NHL would have to prove financial extingncy. That requires a full audit of not only the clubs but any associated business that is under common ownership and directly derives its revenue from hockey. The NLRB will not accept the fiction that the NHL calls the URO's..

Second once the NLRB nails the NHL for Unfair Labor practices and issues a per se ruling both parties will be ordered to resume normal activity under the old CBA. The owner cannot change the conditions of work until they have a new CBA, period.

Third the NHLPA cannot claim impasse, only the owners can. The NHLPA can however file Unfair labor practices complaints until the NLRB forces mediation, in that case with special circumstances the NHLPA will get imput into a special mediator. The owners will freak.

 

[SuperUnknown]

First the NHL would have to prove financial extingncy. That requires a full audit of not only the clubs but any associated business that is under common ownership and directly derives its revenue from hockey. The NLRB will not accept the fiction that the NHL calls the URO's..

Second once the NLRB nails the NHL for Unfair Labor practices and issues a per se ruling both parties will be ordered to resume normal activity under the old CBA. The owner cannot change the conditions of work until they have a new CBA, period.

Third the NHLPA cannot claim impasse, only the owners can. The NHLPA can however file Unfair labor practices complaints until the NLRB forces mediation, in that case with special circumstances the NHLPA will get imput into a special mediator. The owners will freak.

Keep living in your dreams... It will take a while to come there. Also, since Levitt used the team's audited statements, I don't doubt the NLRB will come to similar conclusions if they got accountants worth 2 cents.

Anyway, like I said, I'm satisfied with the current hockey I get to see, so if there's no NHL for years I will hardly miss it.

 

[vanlady]

Keep living in your dreams... It will take a while to come there. Also, since Levitt used the team's audited statements, I don't doubt the NLRB will come to similar conclusions if they got accountants worth 2 cents.

Anyway, like I said, I'm satisfied with the current hockey I get to see, so if there's no NHL for years I will hardly miss it.

I don't live in dreams I worked as a labor law paralegal for years. Oh by the way I have only ever seen 2 completely successful impasse declarations, out of thousands.

By the way, read the NHL website the URO's are not audited statements, they are a list of revenues that were predetermined by the owners. Sorry but if you read the article in the Phillidelphia Enquirer called "NHL Truth as thin as ice", you will discover that the GM of the Flyers admits to 2 sets of books, one they use for the URO's and the other is the one they report to the SCC. Guess what according to the set the report to the SCC they are making a profit, the URO set says they lost money.

 

[I in the Eye]

I don't live in dreams I worked as a labor law paralegal for years. Oh by the way I have only ever seen 2 completely successful impasse declarations, out of thousands.

Meh, only lawyers and criminals really know about this stuff

I know enough about the law to know to get a lawyer... but thanks for the good info... You're going to make me look really smart during my wife's dinner party tonight...

 

[vanlady]

Meh, only lawyers and criminals really know about this stuff

I know enough about the law to know to get a lawyer... but thanks for the good info... You're going to make me look really smart during my wife's dinner party tonight...

ROFLMA :lol

 

[thinkwild]

http://www.caut.ca/en/publications/bargaining/aug2002badfaithbargaining.pdf

That sure was an interesting link

The requirements of "good faith" and "reasonable efforts" are procedural ones. An interesting wording. To ensure recognition of the unions exclusive bargaining rights and full discussion of differences. And the board is hesitant to interfere in "Mature relationships". At least in length of relationship, this would have to be seen as mature

Its hard not see the NHL as perfectly fitting "surface bargaining". Its hard to see them passing any of those tests in fact. But then im sure they have good lawyers.

Its hard to listen to someone call themself a fan and say they dont care if the league sits out 10 years in its attempt to extort the players. I wonder what they would think when 10 years later, they need more concessions and do it again.

Does Bushes election have any effect on the NLRB?

 

[vanlady]

That sure was an interesting link

The requirements of "good faith" and "reasonable efforts" are procedural ones. An interesting wording. To ensure recognition of the unions exclusive bargaining rights and full discussion of differences. And the board is hesitant to interfere in "Mature relationships". At least in length of relationship, this would have to be seen as mature

Its hard not see the NHL as perfectly fitting "surface bargaining". Its hard to see them passing any of those tests in fact. But then im sure they have good lawyers.

Its hard to listen to someone call themself a fan and say they dont care if the league sits out 10 years in its attempt to extort the players. I wonder what they would think when 10 years later, they need more concessions and do it again.

Does Bushes election have any effect on the NLRB?

All the current Administrative Judges have at least 4 years left at the Board, so no. However he can fill a couple of Judges seats on the Supreme Court, but that really has no impact on labor law outside of anti trust.

 

[thinkwild]

Looks like they do.

Ottawa Citizen

Buzz's support comes with good and bad I guess. Im not used to appreciating it. But picket lines can surely get a lot nastier which can make the owners plan tougher.

Its was funny hearing them say a mediator would get them to focus on what is causing the problems and how to fix it, instead of focusing on the cap. What a concept eh?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

What I'm saying is that the players will bend someday. Whether that is in 2-3-5-10 years isn't known, but there's a point where they will have lost so much (and will be losing so much more with each day that they're locked out) that they'll sign to anything.

The players correctly believe that the profitable teams will toss the unprofitable ones overboard before they let 2-3-5-10 years go by. All it will take is for half a dozen owners to say, "The hell with this noise" and announce they are prepared to lift the lockout on their teams and play.

The other 24 teams would scramble on board, Bettman would be fired and the owners would surrender, happy to get out with the status quo. That's why all the rules about how many votes the owners need to countermand Bettman are so much bunk. All it takes is half a dozen teams to decide they are going to play.

Toronto, New York, Detroit, and Philadelphia would vote to play right now indefinitely under the old agreement. They'll add a lot of allies as this season begins to drift away. So far the lockout has hardly cost the owners anything. They've lost the games that spark the least interest, the smallest crowds and the lowest TV ratings. If teams lose half a season they probably only lose 45% of their gate receipts and less than 45% of TV revenues. On the other hand, player costs would fall by more than half because teams have half the injuries and half the injury replacement costs. Killing the first half of the season assures all but the truly incompetent a profit this year. All we need is six teams to decide that enough is enough.

The pattern so far is exactly the same as last time except Europe has turned out to be great for the NHLPA this time around. Early in the dispute, the players were vilified as greedy. All the pundits said it was certain they would have to cave. Then the players said, "Sorry. We aren't caving." Then everybody gave up and figured the season was over. Then at the last minute the big boys said "Screw this. We aren't turfing the season for Edmonton. Make a deal because if you don't, we will."

We all know Carolina is willing to see the season go down the tubes. Is Toronto?

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

Buzz's support comes with good and bad I guess. Im not used to appreciating it. But picket lines can surely get a lot nastier which can make the owners plan tougher.

Its was funny hearing them say a mediator would get them to focus on what is causing the problems and how to fix it, instead of focusing on the cap. What a concept eh?

The players unwillingness to link salaries to revenue is the problem. They don't need a mediator to figure that out.

 

[thinkwild]

Its the owners unwillingness to link their salaries to revenues thats the problem.

 

[PecaFan]

The players correctly believe that the profitable teams will toss the unprofitable ones overboard before they let 2-3-5-10 years go by. All it will take is for half a dozen owners to say, "The hell with this noise" and announce they are prepared to lift the lockout on their teams and play.

Not a chance. First of all, you've got it backwards. All Bettman needs is *8* teams on his side, because they need 75% to ratify the old CBA.

Six teams can say "let's play", but as you're fond of telling us, they can't play until there's a signed CBA.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Buzz's support comes with good and bad I guess. Im not used to appreciating it. But picket lines can surely get a lot nastier which can make the owners plan tougher.

Its was funny hearing them say a mediator would get them to focus on what is causing the problems and how to fix it, instead of focusing on the cap. What a concept eh?

When Buzz Hargrove speaks, people listen. He exerted tremendous influence when he was head of the Canadian Labour Congress. He can certainly usher widespead public support.

 

[thinkwild]

They can agere to extend the last CBA while they work it out. Playoff profits can help thinking

 

[vanlady]

Not a chance. First of all, you've got it backwards. All Bettman needs is *8* teams on his side, because they need 75% to ratify the old CBA.

Six teams can say "let's play", but as you're fond of telling us, they can't play until there's a signed CBA.

Yes but they only need a majority to fire Bettman and Daly, and install someone that will get a deal done.

Vancouver
Detroit
NY Rangers
Colorado
LA
Dallas
Philidelphia
Islanders
Montreal

Any team that is going to loose big for not playing will start to scream. Why do you think Daly sat in an arena full of Stars fans and got screamed at. He hasn't done that for any other team, why would he do it in Dallas? To keep the owner onside??

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Six teams can say "let's play", but as you're fond of telling us, they can't play until there's a signed CBA.

Why not? Why can't ten teams - there would be that many at least - announce they were willing to play under the old CBA pending a resolution of the dispute, lifted their lockouts and announced a schedule? The players would report to work and off they would go.

Suppose push comes to shove and 20 teams vote with Bettman to continue the lockout and tank the season. The ten most powerful teams in the league, the ten richest teams say, "Fine. You stay locked out. We're going to play."

What happens?

I am "fond of telling you" that the league can't play without a signed CBA? When did I ever say that?

Tom

 

[me2]

Why not? Why can't ten teams - there would be that many at least - announce they were willing to play under the old CBA pending a resolution of the dispute, lifted their lockouts and announced a schedule? The players would report to work and off they would go.

Suppose push comes to shove and 20 teams vote with Bettman to continue the lockout and tank the season. The ten most powerful teams in the league, the ten richest teams say, "Fine. You stay locked out. We're going to play."

What happens?

Tom

33% of the players get 50% of their pay. The other 67% get 0% of their pay. And that 33% is not going to be the best 33% either, it'll be a mix. Stars on low rent teams they don't restart get to watch scrubs make much more money than they are in the AHL/Europe.

Repeat next season. 10 teams cash in on 1/2 season. Cha-ching.