NHL and other professional leagues already have questionable "rights" over their employees from the draft system and AHL age rules. Anything limiting execs rights to terminate their job to go to another employer (in an extremely limited field) is questionable at best from a legal standpoint. It's effectively a form of automatic non-compete (which is different state to state, and in CAN).
I also loathe the fact that teams had to compensate teams with other forms of indentured servants (draft picks)
thus limiting movement and competitiveness. If you transpose these rules and practices to other industries you see how ridiculous they are from a labor viewpoint.
Except that those limitations on movement are already there. Pittsburgh could have just as easily refused to allow Bylsma, Shero or Hynes to interview, let alone sign with a new team. As I said before, I don't think it's right with Bylsma and Shero as they were fired, and only an ******* would prevent them from trying to get another gig - even if they're still getting paid by the Penguins (or were). But for Hynes, preventing him from advancing was entirely within Rutherford's rights, Hynes had a contract, and getting compensation for him to be hired away from the org absolutely should be a thing.
You don't want to be restricted in your movement? Don't sign multi year contracts - but we all know why everyone wants those.
(just speculating)....There were most likely legal issues about this rule is why it was scrapped. I am almost positive that it could not be enforced in CA, but may have been enforceable in other states that aren't labor friendly (like our lovely PA). This leaves the NHL in a tough position with unfair rules that only affect certain teams based on their location.
Disagree. If that was the case, it would have come up when Edmonton was forced to pony up for PC. The rule was scrapped because Bettman hated the idea.