The FAN590: Daly & Saskin in Washington with Mediators - (February 13th, 2005)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crows*

Guest
Umm.. If you guys saw daly's press conference the other day. He po inted out that they have had mediators in this thing from almost the beggining.

By law you have to have em.
 

Scoogs

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
18,389
93
Toronto, Ontario
CalgaryThrasher said:
No doubt... If you don't believe the guy... don't visit his blog, or troll his chat.

Problem solved.

When it gets to the point where some random guy is giving false hope to passionate hockey fans, then you gotta have a voice and say that its wrong, dont you think?
 

Tafkak

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
4,583
0
Novi, MI.
I believe we're all grown ups here and we can all believe in what we want to believe in. If you don't like the chat or what he says, don't go there, it's that simple. You don't need to influence others on what to think.
 

incawg

Registered User
Mar 7, 2003
4,009
0
Canuckland
Visit site
Derren Dreger of sportsnet reports that this meeting is at the request of the FMCS...neither the NHL nor NHLPA asked for this meeting. The meetings started earlier this afternoon and they're still meeting now. They're meeting each side one on one and not as group.

Bottom line is that none of the panel feel that it's really that positive.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
TKF37 said:
Saskin is probably at the meeting for legal reasons -- i.e. if the NHL files for an impasse.

I don't see how talk about officially canceling the season can be looked at as good news. Stop living in denial and face the facts.
Pretty hard to get an impasse declaration past the NLRB when Daly goes on The Score the other day and indicates that the NHL is prepared to move off linkage and owners are pressuring players to contact the union to push Goodenow for a settlement - an unfair labour practise.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,674
37,463
Gary Bettman does not need the OK from the PA to call the season. If he wanted to he could have called the season back in October.
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,238
New York
www.youtube.com
The return of Trevor Linden?

As of Sunday afternoon, no contact had been established between the two sides, however a league source tells Sportsnet we shouldn't be surprised if Players' Association President Trevor Linden makes his way back into the ring. A move that some suggest would help bring the two sides together again.

So far, Linden has been unavailable for comment

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050213_133047_4820
 

transplant99

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
549
0
Visit site
and owners are pressuring players to contact the union to push Goodenow for a settlement

Of all the nonsense you have posted about this thing...here is another case of it.

This is absolutely made up by you. One source please that suggests the gag order was lifted to "pressure" players to contact the union.

Utter BS.
 

NewBreed19

Guest
Eklund was not the first person to confirm this story, it was the fan 590 and I posted the information first under the Sunday news thread. His and everyone elses info comes from main stream media!! :shakehead
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
cleduc said:
So if they get agreement in DC, do they have to hop on a jet and get agreement from BC, Quebec, Ontario & Alta labour mediators/whatever like they will with replacement players, impasse or other labour issues ? This is nuts.
That is not how it works.

The NHL declares a bargaining impasse on their own it is not "pre-approved and they take a chance they are wrong. They must implement their last offer as a CBA and then try to open for business seeking replacement players. If time was short to get a regular NHL season up and running I do not see how replacement teams could be ready to go on short notice even if it were not for the differing international jurisdictions and immigration visa problems.

The NHLPA then has several options including going on strike, decertifying or folding and returning towork. The NHLPA would likely file motions with the NLRB that an impasse in fact did not exist or that the NHL has committed unfair labour practises.

If the NHLPA wins then the NLRB would issue an injunction against the owners on implementation of the CBA and then the real fun of lawsuits and potential financial penatlies would ensue.

In Canada the NHL would likely first have to seek accreditation to have standing before the various LRB's. The NHLPA OTOH can rely on the exception to certification as a bargaining agent, namely voluntary recognition or if they wished they could formally certify. Remember there is NO impasse declaration procedures in Canada but once the NHL does appear then it becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial boards who have mediation and arbitration powwers and the powwer to order production oif financial records where an employer is claiming inability to pay. I am not sure the NHL wants to take that chance.

Also since the unions have been voluntarity recognized by the NHL signing a prior CBA covering employees in the province, the replacement worker bans in BC and Quebec would apply.
 

Reilly311

Guest
someone give me a link to Eklund's chat. I want to go in there and spam.
 

two out of three*

Guest
Can somebody PM me a link to the chat? I just want to see whats goin on.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
incawg said:
We could have used them about 6 months ago methinks. Too little, too late.
According to the press conferences last week the US federal mediators have been involved for quite awhile.

They will not be that useful since for mediation there has to be somewhere to get to as common ground and that has not been the case given the philosophical divide".
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Wetcoaster said:
Pretty hard to get an impasse declaration past the NLRB when Daly goes on The Score the other day and indicates that the NHL is prepared to move off linkage and owners are pressuring players to contact the union to push Goodenow for a settlement - an unfair labour practise.

You keep saying this as fact, but it's really speculation. Call me crazy, but I doubt the league would so readily abandon the impasse option as you claim nor do I think Bob Batterman would so easily allow the league to walk right into an unfair labor practice claim. You may believe otherwise, and that's fine, but it's speculation on your part.

As for "pressuring players", where has that been stated?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Wet-
Isn't it an unfair labor praactice for the employer to contact the employee at all during a lockout?
 

incawg

Registered User
Mar 7, 2003
4,009
0
Canuckland
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
According to the press conferences last week the US federal mediators have been involved for quite awhile.

They will not be that useful since for mediation there has to be somewhere to get to as common ground and that has not been the case given the philosophical divide".

Both the NHL and the PA have resisted using any from of mediation from the get-go. Their involvement thus far has been strictly for legal purpases. Philisophical divide or not, they should have been involved sooner and in a much greater capacity. Heck, one of the goals of mediation is to find the common ground that has thus far been elusive.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
transplant99 said:
Of all the nonsense you have posted about this thing...here is another case of it.

This is absolutely made up by you. One source please that suggests the gag order was lifted to "pressure" players to contact the union.

Utter BS.
Mike Brophy on the Sportsnet panel reported it along with a claim that many players and several teams were responding to that pressure. He said he assumed the players were burning up the phone lines talking to one another so that was why he had been unable to get them on the telephone?????? He then cited it as proof that the NHLPA was beginning to crumble. Nick Kypreos just shook his head and Bill Watters who has been pro-owner replied that he had seen nothing thus far that the union was wavering even with the gag order lifted.

There is your source.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
CarlRacki said:
You keep saying this as fact, but it's really speculation. Call me crazy, but I doubt the league would so readily abandon the impasse option as you claim nor do I think Bob Batterman would so easily allow the league to walk right into an unfair labor practice claim. You may believe otherwise, and that's fine, but it's speculation on your part.

As for "pressuring players", where has that been stated?
Mike Brophy on SportsNet.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
hockeytown9321 said:
Wet-
Isn't it an unfair labor praactice for the employer to contact the employee at all during a lockout?

From my reading of the National Labor Relations Act, it is not an unfair labor act unless the contact is done for the purpose of interfering with the employees' rights.

From the NLRB web site:

"The NLRA forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or engaging in concerted activities, or refraining from any such activity. Similarly, labor Organizations may not restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights."

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/engulp.asp

From the National Labor Relations Act:

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;

(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this Act [subchapter], or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act [in this subsection] as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later, (i) if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title], in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made, and (ii) unless following an election held as provided in section 9(e) [section 159(e) of this title] within one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the Board shall have certified that at least a majority of the employees eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind the authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement: Provided further, That no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for nonmembership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;

(4) to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act [subchapter];

(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title].

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/manuals/rules/act.asp
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
Mike Brophy on SportsNet.


So you believe him that the owners and GM's are "pressuring the players", but feel his is lying when he states the PA is crumbling, right?
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Wetcoaster said:
Mike Brophy on the Sportsnet panel reported it along with a claim that many players and several teams were responding to that pressure. He said he assumed the players were burning up the phone lines talking to one another so that was why he had been unable to get them on the telephone?????? He then cited it as proof that the NHLPA was beginning to crumble. Nick Kypreos just shook his head and Bill Watters who has been pro-owner replied that he had seen nothing thus far that the union was wavering even with the gag order lifted.

There is your source.

So, just so we're clear, you'e saying it's true because a guy on Sportsnet believes it might be true because it would explain why he couldn't get a hold of some of his sources?
I'm not a labor attorney, but I doubt that would hold up in front of the NLRB.
 
Last edited:

ladybugblue

Registered User
May 5, 2004
2,427
0
Edmonton, AB
CarlRacki said:
So, just so we're clear, you';e saying it's true because a guy on Sportsnet believes it might be true because it would explain why he couldn't get a hold of some of his sources?
I'm not a labor attorney, but I doubt that would hold up in front of the NLRB.

I am with you here...I think some pro-player posters are coming to a realization that an impasse may be tried (successful or not) and they don't like it. I think the NHL has met all of the legal requirements of an impasse at this point in time. Whether you agree with the NHL or not doesn't really matter as they will do what they think is best for the league (complications or not i.e., immigration or what not).

NO ONE know how this is all going to work out and to ASSUME anything on how the courts or anyone else will treat this is completely absurd! You can't really compare this dispute with any other league and know what will happen...maybe the NHL wins their impasse or not I think some posters don't like that this will not turn out how they would like...we don't have control and we will all just have to wait and see.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
incawg said:
Both the NHL and the PA have resisted using any from of mediation from the get-go. Their involvement thus far has been strictly for legal purpases. Philisophical divide or not, they should have been involved sooner and in a much greater capacity. Heck, one of the goals of mediation is to find the common ground that has thus far been elusive.

According to Bill Daly, they were involved before the lockout. Also according to Daly, the mediator assigned to the NHL stated that he could not be of much help because they were stuck and divided on one key but major philosophical issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->