MeisterBruinmaker
Registered User
David Pollak reported in Tuesday's San Jose Mercury News that declaring an impasse and winning the case are two different things. He opines that this could be one reason the NHL may not be eager to resume negotiations. In essence, by coming to the table and engaging in talks, the NHLPA could show 'good faith' bargaining -- while still not giving in to the NHL's desire for a cap.
The issue for the NHL is that they have to declare an impasse in order to implement "cost certainty'' and eventually re-open the league with replacement players (should the players strike). According to the experts referenced in the article, the NHLPA does not have to take drastic steps in order to show they are "making an effort" to avoid an impasse.
For instance, Bob Goodenow could make a reasonable counteroffer that could be good enough to convince the US labor board that negotiations were making progress. To do that, he doesn't have to give in to the NHL's wishes for a salary cap, yet taking this step in of itself could weaken the league's case.
Another point was made by Paul Staudohar, a professor of business administration at Cal State-Hayward and author of ``Playing for Dollars: Labor Relations and the Sports Business.'' He said the labor board plays a key role in the process, noting the 1994 dispute between baseball owners and players. Back then, the owners attempted to impose a salary cap on striking players, but the board sided with the union and a federal court agreed. He also said that because the NHLPA has already filed an unfair labor practice charge with the labor board, they've accomplished the secondary goal of establishing a relationship with the NLRB
The last point speaks to the negotiating and legal prowess of the NHLPA. For instance, since the last CBA was implemented, it has been the NHLPA who's lawyers and agents have effectively leveraged the system, rather than the NHL. One of the most successful fronts has been RFA arbitrations, where the NHLPA has been better prepared and most often the winners of cases. This overall prowess is part of the reason salaries have continued to escalate.
Lastly, law professor Ross said that while there is no minimum time required before the NHL can go to the National Labor Relations Board to declare an impasse, the NHL should have at least one more negotiating session where it says, "Here is our last and final offer, and if you don't take that, then we impose.''
All in all, it certainly doesn't sound like a simple case for the NHL to declare an impasse and win...
The issue for the NHL is that they have to declare an impasse in order to implement "cost certainty'' and eventually re-open the league with replacement players (should the players strike). According to the experts referenced in the article, the NHLPA does not have to take drastic steps in order to show they are "making an effort" to avoid an impasse.
For instance, Bob Goodenow could make a reasonable counteroffer that could be good enough to convince the US labor board that negotiations were making progress. To do that, he doesn't have to give in to the NHL's wishes for a salary cap, yet taking this step in of itself could weaken the league's case.
Another point was made by Paul Staudohar, a professor of business administration at Cal State-Hayward and author of ``Playing for Dollars: Labor Relations and the Sports Business.'' He said the labor board plays a key role in the process, noting the 1994 dispute between baseball owners and players. Back then, the owners attempted to impose a salary cap on striking players, but the board sided with the union and a federal court agreed. He also said that because the NHLPA has already filed an unfair labor practice charge with the labor board, they've accomplished the secondary goal of establishing a relationship with the NLRB
The last point speaks to the negotiating and legal prowess of the NHLPA. For instance, since the last CBA was implemented, it has been the NHLPA who's lawyers and agents have effectively leveraged the system, rather than the NHL. One of the most successful fronts has been RFA arbitrations, where the NHLPA has been better prepared and most often the winners of cases. This overall prowess is part of the reason salaries have continued to escalate.
Lastly, law professor Ross said that while there is no minimum time required before the NHL can go to the National Labor Relations Board to declare an impasse, the NHL should have at least one more negotiating session where it says, "Here is our last and final offer, and if you don't take that, then we impose.''
All in all, it certainly doesn't sound like a simple case for the NHL to declare an impasse and win...