Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Blue Dragon, May 13, 2011.
The whole NFL lockout drama inspired this question. Any answers
Laws are different in Canada, probably.
Maybe it was because they had a useless head of the union?
That's a great question. Do we have a labor attorney on board who has familiarity with the laws of both countries?
not a labor expert but maybe it has something to do with the union's position- in the nfl the players union is very weak relative to other pro sports. in the nhl prior to the end of the lockout the nhl players had a very good deal relative to nfl and nba players
decertification brings it from a labour dispute to an antitrust dispute. The antitrust laws [in Canada] give a bit more flexibility to make your argument, but more importantly shifts the focus off of the rights of the players to the misdoings by the owners.
I think its more likely that the NHLPA simply didn't explore this option as opposed to having a few teams in Canada prevented it.
Also, I don't its necessarily been successful for the NFLPA yet. It all comes down to the two sides being able to meet on common ground and one side giving up something.
Obviously the NHLPA was quite aware of this option; it was always the nuclear deterrent in their arsenal. However, the PA thought that if they could hold out for 2 years, the owners, despite all their bluster, would have caved. We'll never know though, because the owners claimed they were quite willing to drive the league into the ground for years in order to get their money whereas the players in the end werent willing to ruin the league.
It must be the apparent success the nflpa is having with this strategy at the moment that is making you raise this question? For one, the NFL owners this time arent even pretending they need the money, they just want more and know that many fans will blindly support them regardless as if they were our alien overlord gods.
Lets remember that the NFL CBA was held up as the holy grail of sports cba's that had worked out the perfect system for owners so they could all make money. And what has changed since then? Well they are making even more money.
Ironically, when the NFL players did decertify their union, saying they no longer want to bargain collectively, thus there is no union, it has been broken, it is an ex-union, ceased to exist, well the first thing that the owners did was to raise an unfair bargaining challenge against the players. It appears despite the owners bluster about wanting to break the union, it is NFL owners more than players that need the union.
The NHL players may have decided that overall, they are better off with slightly less money than previously, but still collectively bargaining, than as individuals negotiating whatever they could get. This environment, which would likely see Crosby quadruple or more his salary while the minimum salaried players would be down to 5 figure salaries, likely wont be appealing to the players unless the NHL owners copy the greed of their NFL counterparts next cba.
I guess the NFL owners are so slimy at the moment, that the NFL players are better off saying: to heck with it then, we decertify, pay us whatever you want. I guess the NHL owners havent crossed that line yet.
Separate names with a comma.