NHL files unfair labor practice against NHLPA to NLRB

[blamebettman*]

that's because if the owners do show a crack, they have to pay a hefty fine. gag order remember.

right now you just had the NHLPA conclude a quite meeting, meanwhile bettman keeps up his "tough rhetoric", lowball offers, his whining, and finally this complaint that was filed. Bettman is like the cheesy horror movie monster whose zipper is showing, really he's not scaring the players, and has nothing to back up his threats with. give it up!

the NHLPA just threw there hands up and said enough, get back to us when you're serious, put up or shut up.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Pot to kettle: Your black!

 

[R0CKET]

I think the hard liners that are running this thing are having pressure put on them by the rest of the franchises. If this thing doesn't get settled soon then Goodenow WILL get the deal that he wants.

this is nothing more than a fake, a scare tactic that the players were warned about in there meetings probably. Bettman has tried to drive a wedge through the PA for months already and they've stood there ground.

Stood their ground...for what?

He lost 1.5 Billion dollars that they will never recover.

ThePA did that for what 6 months all the while beleiving this was to prevent a cap and then Goody says a Cap is OK?

What did they stand their ground for cuz not even they really understood what it was for.

That's a 1.5 Billion dollar sellout for something they thought they were standing up for but actually weren't...surprise!

So just what deal is Goody thinking he's going to be handing over to the PA that can compensate for the loss?

Do the math, the PA lost and they still are losing more every day.

The 1.5 Billion isn't fake and the greatest thing to scare the PA if I were in their shoes would be one more month of Captain Queeg Goodenow, not some charge by the NHL.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

All I know is if the NHL uses replacement players and think theyll actually win anything theyre idiots, NHLPA will gain all control after no one decides to pay anything to see a bunch of scrubs. Best thing the NHL could do is hold out longer which it seems like they wont and use replacements, which will blow up in their faces.

 

[SuperUnknown]

that's because if the owners do show a crack, they have to pay a hefty fine. gag order remember.

right now you just had the NHLPA conclude a quite meeting, meanwhile bettman keeps up his "tough rhetoric", lowball offers, his whining, and finally this complaint that was filed. Bettman is like the cheesy horror movie monster whose zipper is showing, really he's not scaring the players, and has nothing to back up his threats with. give it up!

the NHLPA just threw there hands up and said enough, get back to us when you're serious, put up or shut up.

The NHLPA has been the rhetoric kings so far. Just watch once again Goodenow's horrific season cancellation speech.

How is Bettman keeping the "tough rhetoric"? It's not like the owner's wanting a better deal is something new. They've been crying about red ink and changes for a few years now. Also, the economic signs seem to back them up (franchise prices going down, lack of interest in acquiring an NHL team, TV deal value going down, etc, all the while player salaries still going up). Also, I haven't seen any "threat" from Bettman. He's been saying since the start of the year he wants a deal with the players and so far had rejected any other alternative. Now he's looking at the different options ahead for the league for next year. What's so shocking about it?

As to the NHLPA, when did they ever look serious in this process? By refusing to negociate prior to this seasons? By making their first real proposal only when half a season was already cancelled? By conceeding on what could have brought a deal at t-1 before the season cancellation but by insisting on including linkage (only in their favor) while they spewed anti-linkage rhetoric? By losing $1.3B?

 

[blamebettman*]

they knew in advance they were going to lose money, the players were prepared for every scenario, otherwise the NHLPA would've broken apart by now. Besides the figure is alot less than 1.5 billion considering 1/2 of the league is in europe making money. not as much as in the NHL, but enough to keep them from crawling back.

bettman also said there was going to be 2 way linkage, and he abandoned that, the NHLPA came off the no hard cap stance and accepted a soft cap. that's fair, it's called negotiating. nothing is set in stone.

Goodenow won these players everything they have now, that's why they're loyal to him, that's why this supposed 1.5 million is just a figure flaunted by idiots to make it seem like Goodenow has done a bad job. If guys are making 1.6, 1.8 mil a year and saving up for a possible lockout, then a year of making 600,000 in europe or 10,000 a month from the lockout warchest is really not so bad, because they know they will win and when they get back on the ice they'll be making 1.1 million dollars a year rather than the 400,000 the owners want to screw them into. It's a worthwhile gamble for the players

 

[BitterEnd]

How exactly do you know that using replacements will blow up in the owners faces? Check the poll in the other tread, 75% of fans would watch replacements.
I for one think people will watch and the only ones who will have anything "blow up in their faces" will be the players.
Only time will tell!

All I know is if the NHL uses replacement players and think theyll actually win anything theyre idiots, NHLPA will gain all control after no one decides to pay anything to see a bunch of scrubs. Best thing the NHL could do is hold out longer which it seems like they wont and use replacements, which will blow up in their faces.

 

[shveik]

There was a lot of discussion in another thread that the NHL can have replacement players without declaring impasse. If this is the case, it makes since for the NHL to clear this up now. If they decide to go with replacement players in the future, this needs to be cleared up so players who are borderline on crossing are free to make that decision instead of worrying about how they will be able to repay $100K+ they recieved from the NHLPA.

It is possible for the NHL to have replacement players without the impasse. But in that case they cannot be NHLPA members. NHLPA members are locked out, and they can only be replacements in one case: impasse is declared and then the lockout is converted to a strike. So we are actually *two uncertainties* away from this becoming a *possibility*. The other option suggested by the NHL (salary selective lockout) that could possibly allow some NHLPA members to return to work (become replacements) during the lockout, has been concluded to be wishful thinking on the NHL part. It would require NLRB ruling, which would far less likely to go in NHL favor than an impasse.

Still waiting for a reply from somebody with non-zero labor law background. Can NLRB rule on an intent to commit unfair labor practices in the future?

 

[SuperUnknown]

they knew in advance they were going to lose money, the players were prepared for every scenario, otherwise the NHLPA would've broken apart by now. Besides the figure is alot less than 1.5 billion considering 1/2 of the league is in europe making money. not as much as in the NHL, but enough to keep them from crawling back.

bettman also said there was going to be 2 way linkage, and he abandoned that, the NHLPA came off the no hard cap stance and accepted a soft cap. that's fair, it's called negotiating. nothing is set in stone.

Goodenow won these players everything they have now, that's why they're loyal to him, that's why this supposed 1.5 million is just a figure flaunted by idiots to make it seem like Goodenow has done a bad job. If guys are making 1.6, 1.8 mil a year and saving up for a possible lockout, then a year of making 600,000 in europe or 10,000 a month from the lockout warchest is really not so bad, because they know they will win and when they get back on the ice they'll be making 1.1 million dollars a year rather than the 400,000 the owners want to screw them into. It's a worthwhile gamble for the players

First off, the last league offer would have allowed an average salary of up to what it was last year (about $1.7M). Even a late settlement with a shortened season would have let the players cash in close to $1B.

Second, the players are making peanuts over in Europe. If the average salary for all the NHLPA members (including what's paid by the NHLPA) is over $200k, I'll fall off my chair. $200k for each player is about $150M for all the players. Less the insurance payments (which can be easily $50k) for their NHL salary.

Third, the revenues lost for the players this season could only be regained over the next six years if the average payroll was at least $8M higher than what the NHL's last proposal offered, otherwise they will make less money in a 7 year period (including this year) than if they had accepted the last NHL's proposal. In other words, if the NHLPA doesn't get $49M in cap with a high min cap, they will have made their players lose money (and a year and for some players an important part of their career earnings). Imo, they have already lost, since there's no way they'll get over $49M in cap AND a high min cap or there's no way they'll get in average $8M per team over the last NHL's proposal now that there's less interest (and money) in hockey than at the start of last year. Hence, Goodenow has utterly failed, since not only has he lost on most accounts (cap, rollback, no real gain on other subjects) but in the end he will also sign a deal that will guarantee players will make less money over the course of the next CBA than they would have accepting the NHL's last proposal. To be at that point is quite poor...

 

[SuperUnknown]

It is possible for the NHL to have replacement players without the impasse. But in that case they cannot be NHLPA members. NHLPA members are locked out, and they can only be replacements in one case: impasse is declared and then the lockout is converted to a strike. So we are actually *two uncertainties* away from this becoming a *possibility*. The other option suggested by the NHL (salary selective lockout) that could possibly allow some NHLPA members to return to work (become replacements) during the lockout, has been concluded to be wishful thinking on the NHL part. It would require NLRB ruling, which would far less likely to go in NHL favor than an impasse.

I've heard that players without a contract could probably get out of the NHLPA and become replacement players as well. This would have to be clarified in court though, but it's certainly something the NHL owners have thought about.

 

[shveik]

I've heard that players without a contract could probably get out of the NHLPA and become replacement players as well. This would have to be clarified in court though, but it's certainly something the NHL owners have thought about.

"We will hire you if you quit the union?" I would not be surprised if there are already plenty of cases declaring this tactic an unfair labor practice.

 

[Enoch]

I do not know if asking back the lockout compensation is an illegal labor practice. It very well could be. But there is one major snag to the NHL's position at this time. The NHLPA players are currently locked out. They can only be replacement players when and if the impasse is declared. So if asking for the money back is illegal by itself, IMO they would first to have a situation under which it is possible, and then actually *do it*. To put it short, saying that they might resort to unfair labor practices in the future IMO is not an unfair labor practice in itself. Otherwise NHLPA would have just as ridiculous case against the NHL with their idea of salary selective lockout. But I would like to hear what somebody with a bit of the labor law background thinks about it.

The problem with your assessment is that your assuming that putting a rule in place is not actually an unfair practice until it is broken. Fortunately/unfortunately, unfair practices do not work that way. The two rules itself are unfair pracitces as they would hold the players/agents in a semi-hostage state. It may not be to the point where the rules come into play, but that does not make them any less wrong.

Does that make sense?

By the way, this is not a legalistic statement. Purely my opinion.

Maybe this analgy would help. If Congress passed a law saying - "If a woman wins the presidency, then 50% of Congress will be replaced with women." Obviously, this is an unfair rule. Yet - it isn't going to come into play UNLESS a woman becomes the president... Does that make it any less wrong? No, it doesn't. It just means it hasn't come to the point where the "wrongness" of it is carried out. Naturally, my analagy and what the NHLPA is doing are very different in the levels of magnitude. I'm just using an extreme example to try and make a point.

Again, hope that helps - just my personal opinion on the matter.

 

[garry1221]

"We will hire you if you quit the union?" I would not be surprised if there are already plenty of cases declaring this tactic an unfair labor practice.

just a thought into my mind, but if a player is without contract couldn't he just stop paying his dues and thus be kicked out of the union? thus being able to sign as a replacement player. i don't think the words would even have to be spoken by the league. if the players without contract know that by breaking away from the union that they'll be able to earn more than 10k a month (lockout stipend) then wouldn't the players wise up and part ways with the pa? seems to me i think quite a few would.

 

[me2]

It is possible for the NHL to have replacement players without the impasse. But in that case they cannot be NHLPA members. NHLPA members are locked out, and they can only be replacements in one case: impasse is declared and then the lockout is converted to a strike. So we are actually *two uncertainties* away from this becoming a *possibility*. The other option suggested by the NHL (salary selective lockout) that could possibly allow some NHLPA members to return to work (become replacements) during the lockout, has been concluded to be wishful thinking on the NHL part. It would require NLRB ruling, which would far less likely to go in NHL favor than an impasse.

Still waiting for a reply from somebody with non-zero labor law background. Can NLRB rule on an intent to commit unfair labor practices in the future?

If the players had to sign NHLPA contracts with those clauses then that may be sufficient without having to resort to the "future" as a key component.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Not really. The way this will play out in the courts will be more of a political battle than a battle of principle. I think its more absurd to compare my argument to the MJ trial because one is criminal case where you are establishing if someone is guilty or not, while with the type of stuff involving the NLRB, you are trying to see if someone falls within the law or not... the facts are there for everyone to see

where were you when everyone was saying since republicans are in power, the NHL is more likely to get a decision their way?

Where were you when it was pointed out that roughly the same percentage of impasses have been uphelp under Bush as under Clinton, or that labor law is based a lot more on precedent than interpretation.

 

[Mort]

The NHL is trying to keep the pressure on the NHLPA. Without that extra outside pressure, the NHLPA has no incentive to negotiate until October 15 when next the players would receive a paycheck. The NHL wants a settlement soon or wants to move soon to replacements. They are committed to playing this fall regardless of what the NHLPA does or does not do. If the NHL did not cancel the draft and did not start the NLRB actions, Goodenow would just lob back a proposal the the NHL would in no way accept. Goodenow has shown over and over he is deadline driven, so the only way the NHL can get him to act is to throw deadlines at him. My expectation is that the NHL will play a new card every week or so until it's over one way or the other.

 

[mr gib]

I've heard that players without a contract could probably get out of the NHLPA and become replacement players as well. This would have to be clarified in court though, but it's certainly something the NHL owners have thought about.

bettman is playing slime hardball all the way - kinda sad - what will be left? - who will be playing where? - many lineups will be a shadow of what they once were - all those great club's broken up cause hockey didn't work in place's it shouldn't be -

 

[mooseOAK*]

bettman is playing slime hardball all the way - kinda sad - what will be left? - who will be playing where? - many lineups will be a shadow of what they once were - all those great club's broken up cause hockey didn't work in place's it shouldn't be -

Who decides where a team should or shouldn't be?

 

[mr gib]

Who decides where a team should or shouldn't be?

king gary and the merry men

 

[djhn579]

bettman is playing slime hardball all the way - kinda sad - what will be left? - who will be playing where? - many lineups will be a shadow of what they once were - all those great club's broken up cause hockey didn't work in place's it shouldn't be -

And what exactly is Goodenow playing? Didn't he already file one unfair labor practice suit against the NHL? What is Goodenow holding up signing a CBA for? It was that they were "philosophically" opposed to a hardcap, but that doesn't seem to be the case now.

If Bettman and the owners get their way, hockey is alive and well for all 30 teams. Whether there should be a team in some places is not your decision, luckily for many of us fans.

If Goodenow gets his way, teams will not be able to compete in the short term, and will go bankrupt before too long, depriving many fans of their teams, just so hockey players can make more money. That sounds like it would be really good for the game, doesn't it????

 

[mr gib]

And what exactly is Goodenow playing? Didn't he already file one unfair labor practice suit against the NHL? What is Goodenow holding up signing a CBA for? It was that they were "philosophically" opposed to a hardcap, but that doesn't seem to be the case now.

If Bettman and the owners get their way, hockey is alive and well for all 30 teams. Whether there should be a team in some places is not your decision, luckily for many of us fans.

If Goodenow gets his way, teams will not be able to compete in the short term, and will go bankrupt before too long, depriving many fans of their teams, just so hockey players can make more money. That sounds like it would be really good for the game, doesn't it????

gotta go do some research - find some link's to follow up what everyone already know's -

enjoy your replacement player's - turncoat's

 

[JohnnyB11]

gotta go do some research - find some link's to follow up what everyone already know's -

enjoy your replacement player's - turncoat's

mr gib - ever get the feeling that your opinions don't seem to be shared by the vast majority of HF posters? Rather than trying to defend your opinion with one liners and insults, maybe you could try to understand why so many people feel differently than you do. You seem unwilling to understand the big picture.

 

[mr gib]

mr gib - ever get the feeling that your opinions don't seem to be shared by the vast majority of HF posters? Rather than trying to defend your opinion with one liners and insults, maybe you could try to understand why so many people feel differently than you do. You seem unwilling to understand the big picture.

there's two or three that agree - sorry bout the insult's - all in good fun

 

[SuperUnknown]

"We will hire you if you quit the union?" I would not be surprised if there are already plenty of cases declaring this tactic an unfair labor practice.

I've heard that basically they'd argue that a player without a contract doesn't fall under the NHLPA. I'm sure there's more legal mumbo jumbo, but I wouldn't find it surprising if there was a way out. Look at Irbe, why is he a member of the NHLPA? He's never going to play again in the NHL, he's spent the last few seasons in the ECHL. If I was a member of the NHLPA, I'd ask myself what he's doing there being a member of the exec. Why is he negociating the players future when he doesn't have any NHL future? How do you know he's got the current players best interests at heart?

Also, the NHLPA said they would kick out any player (from the NHLPA) acting as a replacement player. Well, then what is there to lose for players that want to play as replacement players if they quit the NHLPA (because NHLPA members wouldn't be able to play as replacement)?

 

[Munchausen]

"We will hire you if you quit the union?" I would not be surprised if there are already plenty of cases declaring this tactic an unfair labor practice.

The owners don't have to say it, it's a given. If you're not part of the locked out union, you can play in a non-impasse replacement situation, but the decision to get out of the union would need to be the players' only. If the owners try to convince/bribe/threaten some players out of the union, then it becomes unfair labor practice indeed.