Question about impasse

[I in the Eye]

for what it's worth, nothing is black and white enough in the law to be cited as clear proof of the right answer ... a good lawyer can always distinguish the current situation with the situation involved in the decided cases. This is especially true in the NHL situation where you have the laws of two countries and a bunch of provinces involved.

There's no question that the NHL has had its lawyers tee this up for impasse and replacement players or that those lawyers have been working on doing so for many months. So if the NHL seems to be heading toward impasse, that's a pretty good indication that the lawyers think they can pull it off, thoughtful messages on these boards notwithstanding.

My point of view is perhaps the lawyers will be able to pull an impasse off, perhaps they won't (like you say, far from black and white)... IMO, the threat of impasse is much more advantagous to the owners than actually going down the road to implementing it (too many unknowns, IMO, and the two sides don't even want to involve a mediator - nevermind the courts)... Try to scare the players into submission, but if they don't blink, IMHO, time to compromise...

The frustrating thing to me in this labour negotiation is that the 'hard cap' is being sold as a 'silver-bullet' solution to fix the league's problems (which in itself, IMO, have been exaggerated to further the owner's $ goal)... I'm an owner supporter, and I was born at night, but not last night...

There comes a point when the benefits that come with a hard-cap isn't worth the cost of trying to get it implemented... IMO, we're almost at that point... I hope that this was all a negotiation tactic to squeeze out as much as possible out of the players before coming to a compromise...

IMHO, the owner's are playing a dangerous game of 'chicken'... I hope they know when to call the game off before they drive the car off the cliff...

 

[Greschner4]

My point of view is perhaps the lawyers will be able to pull an impasse off, perhaps they won't (like you say, far from black and white)... IMO, the threat of impasse is much more advantagous to the owners than actually going down the road to implementing it (too many unknowns, IMO, and the two sides don't even want to involve a mediator - nevermind the courts)... Try to scare the players into submission, but if they don't blink, IMHO, time to compromise...

The frustrating thing to me in this labour negotiation is that the 'hard cap' is being sold as a 'silver-bullet' solution to fix the league's problems (which in itself, IMO, have been exaggerated to further the owner's $ goal)... I'm an owner supporter, and I was born at night, but not last night...

There comes a point when the benefits that come with a hard-cap isn't worth the cost of trying to get it implemented... IMO, we're almost at that point... I hope that this was all a negotiation tactic to squeeze out as much as possible out of the players before coming to a compromise...

IMHO, the owner's are playing a dangerous game of 'chicken'... I hope they know when to call the game off before they drive the car off the cliff...

Agree that it's a better threat than a real option. Thoughtful point on whether the cap's worth the cost. IMO, the owners have acted rationally so far and I'll assume they have a rational understanding of the relative costs until their actions prove otherwise.

 

[hockeytown9321]

There comes a point when the benefits that come with a hard-cap isn't worth the cost of trying to get it implemented... IMO, we're almost at that point... I hope that this was all a negotiation tactic to squeeze out as much as possible out of the players before coming to a compromise...

Amen. Is it better to wait a year and hope the players fold, or agree to something like the hard cap\tax\franchise player obvious compromise now?

 

[Wetcoaster]

And realistically, an antitrust case would take years to make it through the courts, so it's not that great an option.

That is not necessarily the case. Labour law solutions could be fairly quick as demonstrated in the 1994 MLB strike. At that time the baseball still had its antitrust exemption so labour law was the only option for the union.

In Major League Baseball, the players struck on 12 August 1994 and the owners declared an impasse on 22 December 1994. Cross complaints of unfair labour practises were filed by both sides and the players made a motion that no actual impasse existed.

On 06 February 1995 the owners advised that further contracts would only negotiated by the owners' Players' Relation Committee not individual clubs and the union filed further unfair labour practise complaints.

The NLRB ruled in favour of the players and issued an injuction ordering the owners to play for two more years under the expired CBA and the owners tried unsuccessfully to get the injunction lifted.

The owners appealed the NLRB order to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who upheld the NLRB on 31 March 1995 enjoining appellants to restore the terms and conditions of employment provided under an expired collective bargaining agreement. The owners appealed to the US Court of appeals for the Second circuit who also affirmed the lower court ruling and the NLRB on 29 Septmeber 1995. Meanwhile baseball was being played under the injunctive relief order while the appeal went on.

In the NFL case it took from 1987 to 1993 to finally resolve the antitrust cases because the union decertified rather than use labour law as MLB had done. League play continued as the players hired the former union executive and legal counsel to represent them in their personal capacities. It cost the owners $195 million to settle the various court cases and they had to grant free agency which is what the players had been seeking in the first place. Whereupon the union reconstituted and signed a new CBA.

In the case of the NBA, the union led by Michael Jordan and Patrick Ewing threatened decertication when the NBA attempted to harden the salary cap and remove the various exceptions and in particular the Larry Bird exception. Larry Fleischer, head of the NBPA, had all the players sign notices withdrawing from the union and he slapped them down in front of Commissioner David Stern and his general legal counsel - none other than Gary Bettman. The NBA backed down rather than getting into an antitrust fight.

It could be long and drawn out but it could also be short and sweet. No way to tell at this point.

 

[Greschner4]

That is not necessarily the case. Labour law solutions could be fairly quick as demonstrated in the 1994 MLB strike. At that time the baseball still had its antitrust exemption so labour law was the only option for the union.

In Major League Baseball, the players struck on 12 August 1994 and the owners declared an impasse on 22 December 1994. Cross complaints of unfair labour practises were filed by both sides and the players made a motion that no actual impasse existed.

On 06 February 1995 the owners advised that further contracts would only negotiated by the owners' Players' Relation Committee not individual clubs and the union filed further unfair labour practise complaints.

The NLRB ruled in favour of the players and issued an injuction ordering the owners to play for two more years under the expired CBA and the owners tried unsuccessfully to get the injunction lifted.

The owners appealed the NLRB order to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who upheld the NLRB on 31 March 1995 enjoining appellants to restore the terms and conditions of employment provided under an expired collective bargaining agreement. The owners appealed to the US Court of appeals for the Second circuit who also affirmed the lower court ruling and the NLRB on 29 Septmeber 1995. Meanwhile baseball was being played under the injunctive relief order while the appeal went on.

In the NFL case it took from 1987 to 1993 to finally resolve the antitrust cases because the union decertified rather than use labour law as MLB had done. League play continued as the players hired the former union executive and legal counsel to represent them in their personal capacities. It cost the owners $195 million to settle the various court cases and they had to grant free agency which is what the players had been seeking in the first place. Whereupon the union reconstituted and signed a new CBA.

In the case of the NBA, the union led by Michael Jordan and Patrick Ewing threatened decertication when the NBA attempted to harden the salary cap and remove the various exceptions and in particular the Larry Bird exception. Larry Fleischer, head of the NBPA, had all the players sign notices withdrawing from the union and he slapped them down in front of Commissioner David Stern and his general legal counsel - none other than Gary Bettman. The NBA backed down rather than getting into an antitrust fight.

It could be long and drawn out but it could also be short and sweet. No way to tell at this point.

Great info. The baseball precedent is pro-player, definitely. I'd like to go back and study how the owners lost so badly ... they probably were too brazen and tried for too much, plus there really wasn't an "impasse" ... the remedy was really bad as well, two years under the old CBA. Ouch. A lesson to the NHL owners.

The football precedent IMO is definitely pro-owner ... unfair labor practice against the players, and six more years under basically the CBA the owners wanted. At the end, yeah, the owners had to give up free agency, but got a hard cap in return. The $195M over six years is roughly $1.5 mil per team per year and they got that back and more by having their restrictive CBA in place for those six years. And it took the players six years between decertification and remedy.

Legally, I see a lot of this coming down to just facts and circumstances and the political makeup of the various labor boards and the proclivities of the judge you draw. I'm drawing the conclusion that the cases are all toss-ups.

 

[thinkwild]

Bettman did make a point of saying he's got a lot of lawyers.

 

[ladybugblue]

The only really good thing I could think of if an impasse is declared by the owners...would be the players would have to accept the offer (which they wouldn't do) or STRIKE!!! Then maybe the players wouldn't be playing in all of the other leagues making money and they will come to an agreement sooner...if the players continued to play dispite a STRIKE vote I will have lost all respect for the players.

Now I think both sides are needing to make compromises and work it out but I really don't think the players should be playing in other leagues. It is like a slap in the face to the fans...every right to make a living but a real slap in the face to the fans.

 

[Jarqui]

Hopefully when I recover I will go back and practise law again. God willing.

I've really enjoyed your posts. Best wishes on your recovery.