NHL and NHLPA Meeting Dec. 9th

[PecaFan]

You keep flogging this like it's fait accompli. It's not up to the Ministry of Labour Relations in Quebec to decide. Government policy is challenged all the time.

As for the "good faith" link you've provided, again, it's up for interpretation.

I didn't say anything was fait accompli. I said there are questions or doubts about how the laws apply in Quebec. Which there are.

As for good faith, there is no interpretation. Concessions are not required for good faith bargaining. So pointing to the lack of concessions as proof of bad faith bargaining is clearly wrong.

Or are you going to start a new "What would the NLRB know about labour laws" discussion?

 

[mudcrutch79]

Giving up, are we? :lol

Are you kidding me? That's laughable. I as much as pointed out that you're completely ignorant, and are just spouting nonsense. I was polite about it, and didn't phrase it that way, just suggested I didn't care to get into a discussion with someone with zero background who doesn't bother to back up what he's saying. I'll modify that position now.

I've rarely read more ignorant commentary, or seen someone take positions that are so laughably wrong, and completely without merit. If I were you, I'd find a profitable use for my time, and stop wasting bandwidth on my interpretations of law considering my complete lack of a background.

When I don't know something for sure, I ask a question. You'll notice I've done it on this very board on many occasions. It's pretty clear to me that I know a great deal more about law than you do, and yet I'm not the one making these sweeping statements and accusing others of being incorrect in their positions. Why would you pretend to know something about this?

 

[me2]

Giving up, are we? :lol

LOL you are a complete embarassment to HF as moderator. As a general user it wouldn't be a problem but as a mod it reflects badly on the site.

 

[Slats432]

LOL you are a complete embarassment to HF as moderator. As a general user it wouldn't be a problem but as a mod it reflects badly on the site.

And...he's a drinker.

This joke was made for the entertainment of our viewing audience. Any reproduction, retransmission, in whole or in part without the express written consent of Molstar Communications and Hockey Night in Canada is strictly prohibited.

 

[me2]

And...he's a drinker.

This joke was made for the entertainment of our viewing audience. Any reproduction, retransmission, in whole or in part without the express written consent of Molstar Communications and Hockey Night in Canada is strictly prohibited.

I'll drink to that!

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

I didn't say anything was fait accompli. I said there are questions or doubts about how the laws apply in Quebec. Which there are.

And they are decided by courts and/or judicial boards, not by Ministerial fiat.

 

[mudcrutch79]

And they are decided by courts and/or judicial boards, not by Ministerial fiat.

The Ministry is far more likely to know what the law is and how it's applied than you are. Do you have any sources that back up your opinion?

I feel like Ben Stein "Bueller...Bueller...Bueller..."

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

The Ministry is far more likely to know what the law is and how it's applied than you are. Do you have any sources that back up your opinion?

Are you implying the Government of Quebec and its Judiciary are not independent of each other?

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

If Bettman doesn't want to accept the new proposal, what 8 teams do you think will vote it down? Calgary and Edmonton come to mind, maybe Nashville too... any others?

If the players proposal as some teeth to it I'm not so sure that edmonton nor calagary for that matters would vote against the proposal. Why? Because even with a "hard cap" they will never be able to compete with the big market of the nhl? Take Doug Weight for exemple even with a "hard cap" I'm sure that Weight would of sign with a big market team anyway. I think the owners understand that cancelling the entire season could be disastrous for the league. If they do cancel the season it will be a enormous mistake by the nhl because the fans will nerver forget them.

 

[mudcrutch79]

Are you implying the Government of Quebec and its Judiciary are not independent of each other?

No, not at all. I'm saying that the opinion of a government spokesperson, who undoubtedly knows far more about the intent and operation of the legislation, is far more credible than that of some mouthpiece on the internet who knows nothing about the law.

Are you saying you're a credible source of information on legal matters?

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Are you saying you're a credible source of information on legal matters?

I could be. But why eliminate all the mystery?

 

[mudcrutch79]

I could be. But why eliminate all the mystery?

I think your comments on legal matters in this thread, culminating with your, to be blunt, appallingly ignorant claim that the NHLPA will be recognized as a union under the various LRA's because they're a corporation has pretty much eliminated any mystery that might be left.

The only question left to resolve is what would drive a person to spew forth on issues about which he knows nothing. I'm thinking it's some sort of psychological problem.

 

[me2]

Are you implying the Government of Quebec and its Judiciary are not independent of each other?

I think you need to define "independent" since they are both independent and dependent, depending entirely on the circumstances and phrasing of the question.

Isn't the main reason we have a Judiciary to adjuciate using the laws as made by the government? How can a completely independent body be told what to do and how? If they were 100% independent then the Government of Quebec wouldn't be able to make any laws that the Judiciary recognised. The Quebec government wouldn't be able to tell the Judiciary what is a crime, what isn't, how long a sentence should be, court procedures, etc. Yet they can and do.

You argument that the government has no little or no idea of what the laws might mean, despite making them and issuing directions and guildelines on the implementation, sounds a little daft. The government has as good an idea of the law as anybody, and if they courts kick up too much of a stink about some technicality the government passes a new law and closes the loophole then forces the courts to do what the government wants (providing its legal).

 

[thinkwild]

There is still a possibility that the league could win a jurisdictional battle rendering the ability to play in quebec moot. Dont how good a chance, but it doesnt sound like a ridiclous case on the surface.

The NHLPA has already filed motions with labour boards over the lockout. They are the legally recognized bargaining unit the league must negotiate with. Whether they are a union for the purpose of replacement players cant be too important. The league just goes on without them if they lose. The whole point is to break the union and then dump the replacements without a 2nd thought when the players return.

 

[mudcrutch79]

The NHLPA has already filed motions with labour boards over the lockout. They are the legally recognized bargaining unit the league must negotiate with.

I've read this too, but I can't honestly see how that means anything-do you have any idea what sort of motions they filed? It seems impossible to me that there could be 7 or 8 labour bodies applying the law to this lockout. This is a pretty unique situation labourwise; offhand I can't think of a non-sport example like it.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

I've read this too, but I can't honestly see how that means anything-do you have any idea what sort of motions they filed? It seems impossible to me that there could be 7 or 8 labour bodies applying the law to this lockout. This is a pretty unique situation labourwise; offhand I can't think of a non-sport example like it.

The recent National Lacrosse League labour situation is an example. Of course, that bypasses Quebec Labour Law.

 

[mudcrutch79]

The recent National Lacrosse League labour situation is an example. Of course, that bypasses Quebec Labour Law.

An example of what? A labour situation?

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

You argument that the government has no little or no idea of what the laws might mean, despite making them and issuing directions and guildelines on the implementation, sounds a little daft. The government has as good an idea of the law as anybody, and if they courts kick up too much of a stink about some technicality the government passes a new law and closes the loophole then forces the courts to do what the government wants (providing its legal).

I've claimed no such thing. My argument is that parties appear before the Quebec Labour Board, who renders the final word. What a ministerial assistant tells the press has no bearing on that decision.

Why would the Quebec Government appeal their own law?

 

[mudcrutch79]

I've claimed no such thing. My argument is that parties appear before the Quebec Labour Board, who renders the final word. What a ministerial assistant tells the press has no bearing on that decision.

No, but presumably she doesn't like looking stupid, and asks someone who knows the answer before speaking. This shouldn't be breaking new ground.

Why would the Quebec Government appeal their own law?

They might not appeal their own law, but they could certainly change it if there was any doubt, and they wanted to make crystal clear that the players weren't covered by it.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

They might not appeal their own law, but they could certainly change it if there was any doubt, and they wanted to make crystal clear that the players weren't covered by it.

Why would they do that? You'd think they'd be more concerned with legislation covering labour disruptions of essential services to the public. Law Enforcement, medical services, that sort of thing.
What public good is to be gained by retroactively disenfranchising professional athletes?

 

[mudcrutch79]

What public good is to be gained by retroactively disenfranchising professional athletes?

What public good is served by allowing hockey players to forum shop in an effort to win orders from tribunals to screw over their bosses in a fight between millionaires and billionaires? I can't imagine that this what was the legislature intended the legislation would be used for when they enacted it. Why should people with real problems have their hearings pushed back because two groups of wealthy people can't figure out how to divide 2.1 billion dollars?

The balance of interests here would clearly seem to favour not having this legislation cover the players, particularly because I have a hard time seeing what makes the NHLPA an appropriate bargaining unit to certify in Quebec. 29/30 teams don't play in Quebec, the vast majority of the employees of the unit work in the US and they're engaged in a commercial enterprise where they do half of their work outside of Quebec. It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I've read this too, but I can't honestly see how that means anything-do you have any idea what sort of motions they filed?

The Canucks gave notice to the BCLRB that they were locking out their employees. The NHLPA filed an unfair labour practices claim before the NLRB to obtain a list of players formally locked out. Those are the only ones I am aware of.

It seems impossible to me that there could be 7 or 8 labour bodies applying the law to this lockout.

Me too, but I don't think there is any way that it can be avoided really. I also don't think it really matters because I've convinced myself that the owners will not go for an impasse and have no intention of using or trying to use replacement players.

Tom

 

[mudcrutch79]

The Canucks gave notice to the BCLRB that they were locking out their employees. The NHLPA filed an unfair labour practices claim before the NLRB to obtain a list of players formally locked out. Those are the only ones I am aware of.

The fact that they went to the NLRB rather than one of the Canadian jurisdictions is telling in my mind. I think they know who will ultimately rule the day if it comes to a labour board intervening. As for the Canucks, it seems to me that they could be unsure, and are just covering their bases.

Me too, but I don't think there is any way that it can be avoided really. I also don't think it really matters because I've convinced myself that the owners will not go for an impasse and have no intention of using or trying to use replacement players.

I've convinced myself of the same thing-there are too many uncertainties in how that could play out for it to be an attractive option in my opinion. This is still an interesting issue, academic though it may be. I don't think anyone really knows the answer. This BR guy certainly has no clue. Even the labour lawyers I've heard speak about this have done so in vague terms, and kind of give the impression that they're just speculating. I wonder if the reason MLB was planning to have the Jays play out of Dunedin in 1995 was because they didn't know the answer either, and didn't want to risk having salary of union players imposed as damages in an unfair labour practices hearing?

 

[mudcrutch79]

For what it's worth, the Ontario Labour Relations Board policy appears to be to restrict certifying bargaining units that extend beyond a single municipality, let alone extending beyond the borders of the province and the country.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

What public good is served by allowing hockey players to forum shop in an effort to win orders from tribunals to screw over their bosses in a fight between millionaires and billionaires?

Montreal Canadiens players live and pay their taxes in Quebec. Why shouldn't they go to their provincial labour board? Or is justice only for the poor?