Some teams against the idea of replacements?

[ScottyBowman]

It's an interesting question. Here's the Detroit Lions attendance during the strike year as well as three years before and after.

[pre]Year Total Avg.[/pre]
---- ------- ------
1984 457,238 57,155
1985 504,613 63,077
1986 432,429 54,054
1987 190,758 27,251*
1988 296,607 37,076
1989 392,296 49,037
1990 521,597 65,200

* = strike year


That's a pretty sever reaction that took about three years to return to normal. Would Ilitch risk something similar? I know a lot of folks who would love to see Detroit become a "small-market team."

Actually it was because Barry Sanders was drafted in 89 or 90.

 

[Cawz]

Most people I know that are in a union would have little trouble with scabs in the NHL.

Most union workers that I know, don't consider the NHLPA a real union. It is viewed commonly as a Millionaires club and not a union to many people.

It could be an issue for some people but I would be shocked to see unions telling people to not go to games, they would likely not state a view on the situation.

Exactly. I find it amusing the amount of people who say replacements wont work in union towns. Do you people really think unionized workers in the real world will stay away from hockey to support their poor unionized cousins in the NHL during their time of labour unrest?

If people stay away from replacment hockey, it'll be due to the low-grade hockey, or lack of recognizable stars.

 

[CMUMike]

You obviously have never been to a game in Detroit. Its all union workers and blue collar workers.

The state of Michigan has about 21% of it's employed workers represented by unions. Not sure of the number in Detroit.

 

[JKP]

Exactly. I find it amusing the amount of people who say replacements wont work in union towns. Do you people really think unionized workers in the real world will stay away from hockey to support their poor unionized cousins in the NHL during their time of labour unrest?

If people stay away from replacment hockey, it'll be due to the low-grade hockey, or lack of recognizable stars.

Oh so totally & utterly correct! Well said!

 

[BLONG7]

Most people I know that are in a union would have little trouble with scabs in the NHL.

Most union workers that I know, don't consider the NHLPA a real union. It is viewed commonly as a Millionaires club and not a union to many people.

It could be an issue for some people but I would be shocked to see unions telling people to not go to games, they would likely not state a view on the situation.

Right on, the PA is not a real union...a real union would never let the individuals negotiate their own rate of pay and perks, a real union treats everyone with the same respect(unlike the PA that lets Bill Guerin's voice be more powerful than a Tie Domi's voice) A Millionaire's club is exactly what this is...as far as replacements, well even in big union cities, if people want to see their team vs who ever, they will still go and see them play...

 

[alecfromtherock]

How many unions in the world have an average salary of US$1,800,000 that are not involved in sports?

These are not teachers, nurses or tradespeople that we are talking about, rather entertainers.

Unionised season ticket holders will not go to see their favourite team play because their ‘union brethren’ turned away an average salary of US$1,300,000 from the NHL?

The NHLPA is the same union that has forced the Blue Collar workers to pay US$40.56 for the average NHL ticket in 2003-2004 because of skyrocketing player salaries. A season ticket with 41 games at home will cost $1662.96, whereas a MLB season ticket $19.83(average ticket cost) will only cost $1606.23 for 81 home games.

At the same time the quality, respect and skill of the NHL has been declining steadily over the duration of the last CBA.

Would it look bad for the fans in Detroit if their team suspended operations because the ownership groups ‘will not ice a team with replacement players’?

On a positive note for Toronto suspending operations because they will not ice replacement players, it will at least be a valid excuse for not winning the Stanley Cup in that season

As long as the Ontario Teachers Union make dividends on their investment of their NHL team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, why should they care about the NHLPA?

 

[vanlady]

Most people I know that are in a union would have little trouble with scabs in the NHL.

Most union workers that I know, don't consider the NHLPA a real union. It is viewed commonly as a Millionaires club and not a union to many people.

It could be an issue for some people but I would be shocked to see unions telling people to not go to games, they would likely not state a view on the situation.

The problem with your theory is that here in Canada unions have been fighting the use of replacement workers. CUPE is currently fighting the use of replacements in Alberta, the Food Workers are trying to fight to keep the scab legislation in BC. If unions start condoning replacement workers in the NHL, what would it do for there own cause against replacements. BTW this was explained to me by the heads of two union negotiating committees. Sorry but unions are not likely to stand on the sidelines in this one here in Canada.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The problem with your theory is that here in Canada unions have been fighting the use of replacement workers. CUPE is currently fighting the use of replacements in Alberta, the Food Workers are trying to fight to keep the scab legislation in BC. If unions start condoning replacement workers in the NHL, what would it do for there own cause against replacements. BTW this was explained to me by the heads of two union negotiating committees. Sorry but unions are not likely to stand on the sidelines in this one here in Canada.

I agree with you for a change. I suspect that unionized workers will not stand on the sidelines on this one. I suspect they will protect their union and side against the players. The players and the union have not displayed a single union-esque action during this dispute. They have done the opposite on most occassions. I can't see a "real" union having the balls to stand up beside the NHLPA and support the "millionaire boys club" when they have crossed numerous picket lines in the past and not once spoken out in support of the workers on strike. The NHLPA is not a union and is not recognized as one anywhere. It is an association and no self respecting union is going to throw their support behind the NHLPA. It is an insult to unionized labor everywhere to be lumped in with the NHLPA. Unionized labor will not stand by and watch all the gains they have made in the past 100 years get washed down the drain because of the level of distrust and the light that the NHLPA has cast organized labor in. Unionized labor should take to the street and make protest against the NHLPA, showing that unions are all about the little guy, not about protecting the interests of 8% of the membership.

 

[flybynite77]

Snider... Illitch... guys in very bad places to bring in replacement players due to the cities ties with unions.

Definitely. I remember when Daily News Live interviewed Snider and they asked about Replacement Players, I think he did a union type answer of we'll cross that bridge in the future or something, but the look he had.

I think Snider would rather there be NO hockey and keep having the Phantoms play then have replacement players which would make a Flyers team with probably less talent then the Phantoms team.

 

[BitterEnd]

I'm sure the unions and their members are as divided as us posters on this board, the media, the players and the owners. For us to try and predict how they'll react to replacements is just ridiculous. I'm sure some will support the owners and some will support the players. There are too many intangibles that will affect attendance other than which side you support. How many regular NHL'ers will cross, how good will the competition be, how much will owners charge. Until us fans know the answers to these questions...To argue about it now is moot.

 

[Mess]

I'm sure the unions and their members are as divided as us posters on this board, the media, the players and the owners. For us to try and predict how they'll react to replacements is just ridiculous. I'm sure some will support the owners and some will support the players. There are too many intangibles that will affect attendance other than which side you support. How many regular NHL'ers will cross, how good will the competition be, how much will owners charge. Until us fans know the answers to these questions...To argue about it now is moot.

Ironically ... Fans would be supporting both at the same time if replacement players were used ..

Pro-owner types for the most part say they would watch replacement players to support the owners in this dispute .. However by spending money and watching games on TV .. you are putting pressure on the NHLPA , however the more you support this cause the more REVENUE you bring in and the harder it is for the NHL to prove lower/shrinking Revenue Pie and therefore lower cap.

and vice versa for the Pro-player stance .. by staying away the exact reverse of the above is happening

 

[ScottyBowman]

Ironically ... Fans would be supporting both at the same time if replacement players were used ..

Pro-owner types for the most part say they would watch replacement players to support the owners in this dispute .. However by spending money and watching games on TV .. you are putting pressure on the NHLPA , however the more you support this cause the more REVENUE you bring in and the harder it is for the NHL to prove lower/shrinking Revenue Pie and therefore lower cap.

and vice versa for the Pro-player stance .. by staying away the exact reverse of the above is happening

I think their are very few people with the above mentality about paying full price to see crappy hockey. Last night, they televised a UHL game in Detroit and I watched a period of it. The hockey is a few steps slower and the passing aspect of the game is horrible. Not to mention the sorry goaltending. Anyway, I'll be straight up and say whoever pays $60 to see this is an idiot and since the owners know their are plenty of idiots, they will try it.

 

[ScottyBowman]

I agree with you for a change. I suspect that unionized workers will not stand on the sidelines on this one. I suspect they will protect their union and side against the players. The players and the union have not displayed a single union-esque action during this dispute. They have done the opposite on most occassions. I can't see a "real" union having the balls to stand up beside the NHLPA and support the "millionaire boys club" when they have crossed numerous picket lines in the past and not once spoken out in support of the workers on strike. The NHLPA is not a union and is not recognized as one anywhere. It is an association and no self respecting union is going to throw their support behind the NHLPA. It is an insult to unionized labor everywhere to be lumped in with the NHLPA. Unionized labor will not stand by and watch all the gains they have made in the past 100 years get washed down the drain because of the level of distrust and the light that the NHLPA has cast organized labor in. Unionized labor should take to the street and make protest against the NHLPA, showing that unions are all about the little guy, not about protecting the interests of 8% of the membership.

I can't believe people keep repeating this myth that this lockout is about the guys making $6 mil and up. If someone used common sense and logic, they would realize that someone making $8 mil a year lost more money than someone making $1 mil a year. If you advanced this common sense one step farther, you would see that in the NBA and NFL and any other league in the world that superstars will always get big money no matter if their is a cap or not. To take it another step farther, when their is a cap, the Darren McCarty's/Domi's/and other 3rd line players making over $2 mil are going to take the biggest hit in order to keep on paying the superstar his $8 mil. In other words, QUIT LYING TO YOURSELF and use some common sense. I'm sure that isn't asking too much.

 

[YellHockey*]

I can't believe people keep repeating this myth that this lockout is about the guys making $6 mil and up. If someone used common sense and logic, they would realize that someone making $8 mil a year lost more money than someone making $1 mil a year. If you advanced this common sense one step farther, you would see that in the NBA and NFL and any other league in the world that superstars will always get big money no matter if their is a cap or not. To take it another step farther, when their is a cap, the Darren McCarty's/Domi's/and other 3rd line players making over $2 mil are going to take the biggest hit in order to keep on paying the superstar his $8 mil. In other words, QUIT LYING TO YOURSELF and use some common sense. I'm sure that isn't asking too much.

There's a very simple explanation for the absence of common sense. Someone is being paid to spout off myths and illogical arguments.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

I can't see a "real" union having the balls to stand up beside the NHLPA and support the "millionaire boys club" when they have crossed numerous picket lines in the past and not once spoken out in support of the workers on strike.

Here's one

 

[PecaFan]

A golf course? No wonder the PA members finally found a union they could support. It was interfering with their tee times. :lol

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Here's one

Is that the best you got? One single action at a single golf course at a place no one has ever heard of, and it didn't cost the NHLPA a single cent or game lost? Wow, that's weak.

 

[Frenzy31]

You obviously have never been to a game in Detroit. Its all union workers and blue collar workers.

Actually, I go to one game every year wearing a Blues Jersey. Scalp some tickets outside or let a rep. treat me to a game. I say there is a fair amount of non-union members at the games.

 

[CGG]

A few myths need to be swatted away:

(1) The NHLPA is not a union.

Right on, the PA is not a real union

Call it what you want, but all players must be in it, and it is the officially recognized bargaining agent for all players in all jurisdictions. That, my friends, is a union. Sure, they make more than the UAW, but they're still a union.

(2) Higher ticket prices are the result of higher salaries, which is the union's fault.

The NHLPA is the same union that has forced the Blue Collar workers to pay US$40.56 for the average NHL ticket in 2003-2004 because of skyrocketing player salaries.

This has been around for years, the idea that high salaries = high tickets. The two aren't related. Teams set ticket prices to maximize revenue, just like WalMart sets their prices to maximize revenue, or in their case, profits. Because people are willing to pay $40.56 for a ticket, that's the price. That, in turn, lets owners pay the players more. Chop salaries by 50% and you won't see prices fall by 50%.

(3) Union members in general won't support the NHLPA or reject the idea of a scab league because the NHLPA is made up of rich people.

Also false. In BC and Quebec, for example, laws exist forbidding the use of replacement workers. If, by some miracle, the NHL somehow circumvents these laws and uses scabs in Vancouver and Montreal, there will be instant outrage. Not because union workers care that millionaire hockey players are missing out, but because if the non-scab law doesn't apply to hockey, what's to say it applies to trade unions? If the NHL doesn't have to abide by it because they're rich, then why would the richer GM pay attention to anti-scab laws? There would be a legal precedent set allowing scabs, and that is not what any union worker wants to see.

A scab would be the most hated creature in BC or Quebec, for those reasons. Doesn't matter if they are replacing millionaires or low-paid factory workers.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

A few myths need to be swatted away:

(1) The NHLPA is not a union.



Call it what you want, but all players must be in it, and it is the officially recognized bargaining agent for all players in all jurisdictions. That, my friends, is a union. Sure, they make more than the UAW, but they're still a union.

That is not exactly true. They are an association, like the Screen Actor's Guild, which is not a recognized union. In fact the SAG is not supported by their unionized brethern from the technical branches of productions when they take action. The SAG is very much like the NHLPA in the fact that they do what is good for the top 10% of the workers in favor of the majority of the membership. The "stars" get all the benefits and then some while the supporting and bit actors get screwed. Also, what you describe is also applicable to professional associations that engineers, doctors, etc. have to be members of, and they are not unions either. Just because you have a brotherhood does not make you a union.

(2) Higher ticket prices are the result of higher salaries, which is the union's fault.



This has been around for years, the idea that high salaries = high tickets. The two aren't related. Teams set ticket prices to maximize revenue, just like WalMart sets their prices to maximize revenue, or in their case, profits. Because people are willing to pay $40.56 for a ticket, that's the price. That, in turn, lets owners pay the players more. Chop salaries by 50% and you won't see prices fall by 50%.

Ticket prices and salaries are not associated? In what dream world? Salaries are paid through ticket sales. If salaries go up, so do ticket prices. That is linkage. If salaries do drop the team has the option to drop ticket prices. If they don't, that is another issue and not related to the issue at hand. Salaries are linked directly to revenues. To argue otherwise makes zero sense.

(3) Union members in general won't support the NHLPA or reject the idea of a scab league because the NHLPA is made up of rich people.

Also false. In BC and Quebec, for example, laws exist forbidding the use of replacement workers. If, by some miracle, the NHL somehow circumvents these laws and uses scabs in Vancouver and Montreal, there will be instant outrage. Not because union workers care that millionaire hockey players are missing out, but because if the non-scab law doesn't apply to hockey, what's to say it applies to trade unions? If the NHL doesn't have to abide by it because they're rich, then why would the richer GM pay attention to anti-scab laws? There would be a legal precedent set allowing scabs, and that is not what any union worker wants to see.

A scab would be the most hated creature in BC or Quebec, for those reasons. Doesn't matter if they are replacing millionaires or low-paid factory workers.

Prove it. Did people sympathize with the SAG when they went on strike? Hell no. Did the unions support them? Hell no. The proof will be in the pudding. The NHLPA is hated right now and the players are killing themselves every time they open their mouths. It won't take much for the people to find new fan favorites and define new stars. This is the point that PA supporters fail to acknowledge. Talent doesn't make you a star player. The fans adoration does. Without the fans' adoration a player is nothing but a talent. With it he becomes an irreplaceable star. The fans will decide who the stars are, not the players.

 

[CGG]

Ticket prices and salaries are not associated? In what dream world? Salaries are paid through ticket sales. If salaries go up, so do ticket prices. That is linkage. If salaries do drop the team has the option to drop ticket prices. If they don't, that is another issue and not related to the issue at hand. Salaries are linked directly to revenues. To argue otherwise makes zero sense.

Holy crap, if you're right about that, then raise the ticket prices some more and the league won't be in the mess that it's in. Why can't they do this? Because you can only charge for tickets what the market will bear.

If you're charging $40 for a ticket but have 30,000 people willing to pay $50, you better raise that ticket price to $50, regardless of what you're paying in salaries. If not, you're an idiot. If you want to raise your ticket price from $20 to $30 but only half the numbers would buy tickets, then you don't do it. Simple as that. Whatever brings in the most money. Has nothing to do with salaries.

Prove it. Did people sympathize with the SAG when they went on strike? Hell no. Did the unions support them? Hell no. The proof will be in the pudding. The NHLPA is hated right now and the players are killing themselves every time they open their mouths. It won't take much for the people to find new fan favorites and define new stars. This is the point that PA supporters fail to acknowledge. Talent doesn't make you a star player. The fans adoration does. Without the fans' adoration a player is nothing but a talent. With it he becomes an irreplaceable star. The fans will decide who the stars are, not the players.

SAG strike? What strike? Did they release a Mission Impossible 2 with a replacement Tom Cruise? I must have missed that.

I can't wait for Carl Malette to become a star with the replacement Columbus Blue Jackets. For those of you who haven't heard of him, which is everyone not named Malette, he's currently the leading scorer in the ECHL.

 

[shakes]

Is that the best you got? One single action at a single golf course at a place no one has ever heard of, and it didn't cost the NHLPA a single cent or game lost? Wow, that's weak.

How is that weak? That union represents 90 000 members across Canada. Does your blind support of the owners know no bounds?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

How is that weak? That union represents 90 000 members across Canada. Does your blind support of the owners know no bounds?

How is that weak? What did it cost the NHLPA? Not a damn thing. They drove down the road and played at another "non-unionized" golf course. If the NHLPA is such a strong union then why did they not support the CBC technicians by refusing to cross their picket line and boycott the games held in Canada on Saturday nights? Or how about when the referees were out on strike? The players did nothing to support them in any shape or form. Part of supporting a work action is not crossing the picket line and taking a hit yourself. NEVER has the NHLPA done anything in support of another union that cost the association a single seconds of work or revenue. THAT is weak. To use the single golf course in question as a support of 90,000 people is weak as that golf course likely had 5-6 unionized workers at it and it did nothing to the market itself in any shape or form by their huge show of support (and that's a strong word). Argue otherwise.

 

[mr gib]

How is that weak? What did it cost the NHLPA? Not a damn thing. They drove down the road and played at another "non-unionized" golf course. If the NHLPA is such a strong union then why did they not support the CBC technicians by refusing to cross their picket line and boycott the games held in Canada on Saturday nights? Or how about when the referees were out on strike? The players did nothing to support them in any shape or form. Part of supporting a work action is not crossing the picket line and taking a hit yourself. NEVER has the NHLPA done anything in support of another union that cost the association a single seconds of work or revenue. THAT is weak. To use the single golf course in question as a support of 90,000 people is weak as that golf course likely had 5-6 unionized workers at it and it did nothing to the market itself in any shape or form by their huge show of support (and that's a strong word). Argue otherwise.

what a fan you are? you gonna cheer for the owner's when the game comes back?

 

[kdb209]

How is that weak? What did it cost the NHLPA? Not a damn thing. They drove down the road and played at another "non-unionized" golf course. If the NHLPA is such a strong union then why did they not support the CBC technicians by refusing to cross their picket line and boycott the games held in Canada on Saturday nights? Or how about when the referees were out on strike? The players did nothing to support them in any shape or form. Part of supporting a work action is not crossing the picket line and taking a hit yourself. NEVER has the NHLPA done anything in support of another union that cost the association a single seconds of work or revenue. THAT is weak. To use the single golf course in question as a support of 90,000 people is weak as that golf course likely had 5-6 unionized workers at it and it did nothing to the market itself in any shape or form by their huge show of support (and that's a strong word). Argue otherwise.

The reason the NHLPA never supported other unions work stoppages and crossed picket lines was because they were required to in the CBA - they had no choice:

ARTICLE 7
No Strike, No Discrimination and Other Undertakings

7.1. (a) Neither the NHLPA nor any player shall authorize, encourage, or engage in any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or other concerted interference with the activities of any Club or of the League during the term of this Agreement. Nor shall any player decline to play or practice or in concert with any other person otherwise interfere with the activities of any Club or the League, or individually or in concert encourage any other player to do so because of picketing or a labor dispute involving any other labor organization. The NHLPA shall not support or condone any action of any player which is not in accordance with this Section 7.01 and the NHLPA shall exert reasonable efforts to induce compliance therewith.

Now, you could blame the players for not providing moral support to other unions - statements of support, etc - but you cannot blame them for crossing picket lines.