Replacement Players???

[LaLaLaprise]

How much longer do you think it will go before they use Replacement players?

There are lots of good hockey players out there. And they would probably play more entertaining hockey

Mistakes = Fun

Click to read more...

 

[Dave is a killer]

How much longer do you think it will go before they use Replacement players?

There are lots of good hockey players out there. And they would probably play more entertaining hockey

Mistakes = Fun

I don't know if the owners can go the replacement player route yet...we just have to wait and see if the NHLPA is a Union, which I believe holeheratedly it is...and If I was the owners I wouldn't even think twice about using replacement players at this point

 

[LaLaLaprise]

I don't know if the owners can go the replacement player route yet...we just have to wait and see if the NHLPA is a Union, which I believe holeheratedly it is...and If I was the owners I wouldn't even think twice about using replacement players at this point

Why not? Screw the players.

Get guys who want to PLAY, for a lot less, more fans would turn out if they could get a ticket for 20 bucks instead of 120 bucks.

 

[ehc73]

I'm not sure if it's legal in Canada. I know for sure in BC it's not allowed. By law, you can't bring in replacements if you already have workers there. Unless it's only in the case of a strike...

 

[Teeder]

Where would the players come from? Aren't most minor league players under NHL contract?

 

[Dave is a killer]

Where would the players come from? Aren't most minor league players under NHL contract?

that's just it, they're not considered NHL players...they're AHLers

 

[LaLaLaprise]

Since the owners locked out the players i dont think they can do it.

If the players walked out on strike, then i think it would be allowed.

 

[Velouria]

it is illegal in Canuckville

 

[x-bob]

How much longer do you think it will go before they use Replacement players?

There are lots of good hockey players out there. And they would probably play more entertaining hockey

Mistakes = Fun

If I remember well....they were saying on TSN that they have to wait a year

 

[Dave is a killer]

If I remember well....they were saying on TSN that they have to wait a year

si senor...its called IMPASSE ... owners have to give 2, 3 or 4 more proposals and the players decline each time...then the owners can wait until next September 15, declare an impasse on the PA, then hand the Levitt report to Trevor Linden's hands and start the NHL over...shut it down and restart all over again

 

[PecaFan]

I'd love to see replacement players, take the NHLPA down a peg or two.

My loyalty is to the team, always has been. I've never cared who was wearing the uniform, because so many are gone in a few years, many get traded, etc. It's always been "who's wearing it now".

 

[Stammer Time*]

Unless they droped the ticket prices down to low minor league prices it wouldn't work.

I doubt anybody would be willing to pay $30-60 to see a bunch of has-beens play.

 

[txomisc]

Unless they droped the ticket prices down to low minor league prices it wouldn't work.

I doubt anybody would be willing to pay $30-60 to see a bunch of has-beens play.

a bunch of hasbeens? i doubt that. the league would take a hit for awhile but it would still get the best young guys. The Capitals would still have Ovechkin, the Flames would still have Phaneuf. Pretty much anyone who hasnt joined the nhlpa yet would play just like nothing happened. Some nhlpa members would play. in 5 years the level of talent would be pretty much right where it is now.

 

[nomorekids]

Preds fans will know what I mean when I say...

Captain Trevor Jobe?

:lol

Hell, I'd support it! Bring back Harry York and Glen Metropolit, too!

 

[Lionel Hutz]

si senor...its called IMPASSE ... owners have to give 2, 3 or 4 more proposals and the players decline each time...then the owners can wait until next September 15, declare an impasse on the PA, then hand the Levitt report to Trevor Linden's hands and start the NHL over...shut it down and restart all over again

There are some serious legal issues with respect to replacement workers in all provinces of Canada. Impasse is a solution, but that is really a seperate issue.

 

[struckmatch]

Unless they droped the ticket prices down to low minor league prices it wouldn't work.

I doubt anybody would be willing to pay $30-60 to see a bunch of has-beens play.

It would take about less than a week for the NHLPA to fold if the NHL implemented replacement players.

 

[Jussi]

Hell, I'd support it! Bring back Harry York and Glen Metropolit, too!

HEY! HEY! Keep your stinking paws off of Metro! He's Jokerit property.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

that's just it, they're not considered NHL players...they're AHLers

This isn't true. A few guys have AHL contracts, but most players in the AHL have NHL contracts. They are locked out of an NHL job.

Tom

 

[GabbyDugan]

There are some serious legal issues with respect to replacement workers in all provinces of Canada. Impasse is a solution, but that is really a seperate issue.

Replacement players or impasse? I would say impasse is far more likely.

This article outlines how an employer would go about implementing an impasse...seems pretty consistent with the NHL's strategy so far...

http://www.lawmemo.com/emp/articles/hardball.htm

 

[H/H]

An employer inserting a lockout and then hiring replacement workers? Uhm, I'd be extremely surprised if this isn't highly illegal in any high welfare country.

 

[mr gib]

I'd love to see replacement players, take the NHLPA down a peg or two.

My loyalty is to the team, always has been. I've never cared who was wearing the uniform, because so many are gone in a few years, many get traded, etc. It's always been "who's wearing it now".

that would be fantastic - signed the nfl -

 

[RangerBoy]

The NFL and MLB(tried in spring training)used replacement players and it was an embarrassment for both leagues.When the NFL tried it in 1987,they were rightfully ridiculed.It puts the coaches in a very difficult position.The coaches hated coaching a bunch of scabs

 

[thinkwild]

Replacement players or impasse? I would say impasse is far more likely.

This article outlines how an employer would go about implementing an impasse...seems pretty consistent with the NHL's strategy so far...

http://www.lawmemo.com/emp/articles/hardball.htm

An interesting article. Geez, I started reading this stuff and now my brain hurts.
Man im becoming geeky. I like the page name - Hardball.

Impasse, however, is only a temporary deadlock, and exists until a change in circumstances indicates that an agreement may be possible. Impasse may be broken through either a change in mind or the application of economic force (i.e., a strike). Implementation after impasse is viewed by the NLRB as a method of breaking impasse, and the parties remain obligated to attempt to negotiate an agreement in good faith. The implementation after impasse strategy is not intended to be used to act unilaterally and destroy the collective bargaining process

My little brain struggles with stuff? Any legal mumbo jumbo interpreters that can tell me if they are saying anything here?

Here was ian interesting line

Implementation does not, however, guarantee an immediate strike. The union may delay striking until a busier time for the business so as to have a greater economic impact on the employer, which, in actuality, will transfer the control of the timing to the union.

Declare impasse
union decertifies but returns
pa and managament spend year in courts
players strike at end of regular season as they have played year without a contract
oh yay
maybe Gretzky builds an arena on his golf course and televises playoffs where players are playing for beer and gatorade boy and they televise on ppv


A related case on that site
Unilateral Implementation

the National Labor Relations Board found that [the newspaper] committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally implementing a discretionary merit pay proposal, even though [the newspaper] had bargained to impasse over the proposal with the union.

When the 1986 agreement expired, [the newspaper] and the union each proposed a new wage system. From the outset, their proposals were diametrically opposed: [the newspaper] wanted to move to a system based entirely on its determination of merit; the union wanted to eliminate the merit system altogether.
The parties bargained in good faith, but ultimately deadlocked over wage terms for the new agreement. Following impasse, [the newspaper] asserted that it was implementing its final offer and began granting increases to employees without consulting the union.

The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against [the newspaper], alleging that implementing "merit" increases without the union's consent violated [the newspaper]'s duty to bargain with the union over wages.
The General Counsel argued that because [the newspaper] had a statutory obligation to bargain over "wages, hours, and terms of employment," granting individual raises without consulting the union violated the National Labor Relations Act. [the newspaper] maintained that it had satisfied that duty by bargaining to impasse over the discretionary pay proposal. Once it had exhausted the bargaining process by reaching impasse, [the newspaper] asserted, it was privileged to implement its "last, best, and final offer" over the union's objection.

the Board rejected [the newspaper]'s defense. In the Board's view, this case was less about impasse than statutory waiver: an employer who proposes unlimited management discretion over wages is really proposing that the union waive its statutory right to be consulted about wage changes. That is fine, the Board reasoned--if the union agrees. But impasse, by definition a lack of agreement, could not substitute for consent. Without a waiver, nothing relieved [the newspaper] of its obligation to bargain with the union before changing any employee's pay; unilaterally granting merit increases, therefore, was an unfair labor practice.

Out of context, not completely analogous, likely invalid precedent, ignores the appeal, and this qoute only a small snippet, but is it saying anything relevant? A waiver theory? Over my head.


There were some mixed signals in the articles. Here was one

Of course, a union's tactics, no matter how troubling or even independently unlawful, are always designed to reach a collective bargaining agreement. An employer, on the other hand, may well wish to break the union. Neither the Board nor the Supreme Court has mentioned this asymmetrical factor, but it may have affected decisions.

Break the union? Surely not.

Here was another one

the Board has denied the employer a particular economic tactic for the sake of preserving the stability of the collective bargaining process. The post-impasse rule itself regulates process through power. The Board has told us that its rationale for permitting an employer to unilaterally implement its final offer after impasse is that such an action breaks the impasse and therefore encourages future collective bargaining.4 The theory might well be thought somewhat strained, for it does not explain why the Board decided to handle impasse with this rule instead of another.

The Board could have adopted, for example, a rule requiring the status quo to remain in effect until either the union or the employer was willing to resume negotiations. Stagnancy might pressure both the employer and the union to bend. But the rule it did choose--allowing the employer to implement its final offer--moves the process forward by giving one party, the employer, economic lever- age. And in this case, where the employer has advanced no substantive criteria for its merit pay proposal, the Board has decided that the economic power it has granted would go too far. Rather than merely pressuring the union, implementa- tion might well irreparably undermine its ability to bargain.

But assessing the significance of impasse and the dynamics of collective bargaining is precisely the kind of judgment that should be left to the Board.

you read this stuff and you wonder if this thing is destined to be settled or time-wasted in the courts over arcane matters of waiver and the labour boards authority over the dynamics of collective bargaining? At the least, it seems to suggest implementation after impasse will be a strategy fraught with legal peril.

petitioner was therefore entitled to insist on it to impasse. Petitioner claims, however, that by declaring its "implementation" after impasse illegal the Board has done indirectly what it could not do directly. If an employer cannot implement its proposal then the union has a permanent "veto," which, it is argued, is simply another way for the Board to treat an employer's insistence on the proposal as illegal. Petitioner's argument has a good deal of force, but it does not quite carry the day. As the Board's counsel pointed out, the two steps of bargaining to impasse and implementing after impasse are not practically equivalent and therefore can be judged according to different standards. If a party can force an impasse over a subject, its authority to do so gives it significant leverage over all other matters. That ability is not lost--at least not totally--by the Board's holding that the same proposal may not be unilaterally implemented after impasse.

It is important to recognize, however, that the Board's decision does not prevent an employer from implementing a merit pay proposal post-impasse--so long as the proposal defines "merit" with objective criteria.

Lawyers paradise.

 

[mr gib]

The NFL and MLB(tried in spring training)used replacement players and it was an embarrassment for both leagues.When the NFL tried it in 1987,they were rightfully ridiculed.It puts the coaches in a very difficult position.The coaches hated coaching a bunch of scabs

- my thoughts precisely -

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Here was ian interesting line:

Implementation does not, however, guarantee an immediate strike. The union may delay striking until a busier time for the business so as to have a greater economic impact on the employer, which, in actuality, will transfer the control of the timing to the union.

This opens up another option for the players. The owners declare an impasse. The union does not strike. They return to work under the owner's system but they refuse to have anything to do with audit procedures while filing lawsuits against the league and the imposed agreement.

They play 100% of the regular season, cash 100% of their paycheques and walk off the job just before the playoffs start. If they want to be really perverse, they report back to work the following September. The owners can have their salary cap under that scenario, but they can't have a Stanley Cup Tournament.

Tom