Two quick Impasse questions

[txomisc]

Yep. There is nothing the NHLPA could do to stop one of its members from crossing the line. Well nothing other than try to pressure him not to. They can't legally stop anyone from doing it.

So what you are saying is The Messenger is full of it?

 

[Buffaloed]

Hmm... You can't bring in replacements?

I could, but it would take 2-3 years to restore the place to its former quality. So we're probably looking at 2008 to get back to where we were in 2005. And the quality we'd have in 2008 with replacements wouldn't be nearly the same as the quality we'd have if we kept all the original people in 2005. Replacements aren't nearly the panacea they're made out to be and can profoundly regress an organization. The PATCO labor dispute is a good example of that when carried to the extreme. I'm in agreement with Bob McKenzie in that the best course of action for the NHL is to continue the lockout indefinitely; no impasse, no replacement players. The vow by the NHL that there will be hockey next season suggests they won't follow that course.

 

[Buffaloed]

So if anyone chose to resign they could theoretically play?

Yes, they can play if they resign. It's still a gamble, but it's a lot less risky than impasse.

 

[Mess]

So what you are saying is The Messenger is full of it?

First off you are taking this out of context ..

OPTION 1
What Buffaloed suggested in his post is that an option to the NHL is to keep the lockup going and bring in NON-NHLPA and union players and sign them .. Players have no choice of crossing a picket line as there is no strike ..its a lockout just like we have now ..

OPTION 2
The other option for replacement players is Impasse and Implementation .. In this case the NHL drops the Lockout stance .. declares IMPASSE and inserts it last CBA offer .. The NHLPA goes on strike and fights it in court at which time NHLPA players could cross ..

I am talking about option #1 and you are talking about option #2 .. They're completely different in both consequences and results expected ... in the first option there is no court challenge by the NHLPA .. Its the same as we had this year technically other than you will see minor league players, rather then blank arena's ..

OPTION #1 is designed to starve out the players and get them to agree to a new cba .. OPTION #2 is UNION BUSTING hoping NHLers cross the picket line and the NHL gets to use its own CBA without UNION involvement (but it is full of legal challenges) ..

 

[Mess]

So what you are saying is The Messenger is full of it?

Here read Bob MacKenzie article

Now it gets interesting.

Number three is to play an 82-game schedule next season using exclusively replacement players, that is, any players outside of the NHLPA membership who want to play under whatever terms and conditions the NHL decides to set. A collective bargaining agreement would not have to be in place. In fact, no NHLPA member, even if he wanted to, would be permitted by the league to cross a line and play in this circumstance. Number four is the same as number three, but a reduced 60-game schedule, which might make more economic sense.

Number five is to play an 82-game schedule next season by declaring legal impasse, implementing a new CBA and using a combination of replacement players and whatever NHLPA members who would cross the line to play.Number six is the same as number five, but again, with a reduced schedule to 60 games.

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=117649

 

[thinkwild]

What about Yashin, Jagr, Turgeon, Leclair, players with many years of big contract left? If they wanted to cross, returning under their old, non-rolled back salaries to play out their contracts, would they be allowed to? At some point, can they sue for breach of contract? Or is the $300mil lockout fund meant to buy out those contracts if they return?

 

[Buffaloed]

First off you are taking this out of context ..

OPTION 1
What Buffaloed suggested in his post is that an option to the NHL is to keep the lockup going and bring in NON-NHLPA and union players and sign them .. Players have no choice of crossing a picket line as there is no strike ..its a lockout just like we have now ..

It wasn't taken out of context. The question was raised that if the NHL pursued Option 1 as you call it, whether a player could quit the union, thus becoming a non-NHLPA member and be free to sign a contract. The law is clear that a player is free to do that. The post in question is shown below and your response was incorrect. I don't care for inflammatory remarks saying someone is "full of it", but the claim of being taken out of context has a foul odor to it.

Sounds weird. Could a player not declare himself no longer a part of the NHLPA?

NO .... Any player that has paid Union fees in the past year or 2 is considered a NHLPA member .. Even UFA who may not currently be paying union fees are still members ..

 

[txomisc]

First off you are taking this out of context ..

OPTION 1
What Buffaloed suggested in his post is that an option to the NHL is to keep the lockup going and bring in NON-NHLPA and union players and sign them .. Players have no choice of crossing a picket line as there is no strike ..its a lockout just like we have now ..

OPTION 2
The other option for replacement players is Impasse and Implementation .. In this case the NHL drops the Lockout stance .. declares IMPASSE and inserts it last CBA offer .. The NHLPA goes on strike and fights it in court at which time NHLPA players could cross ..

I am talking about option #1 and you are talking about option #2 .. They're completely different in both consequences and results expected ... in the first option there is no court challenge by the NHLPA .. Its the same as we had this year technically other than you will see minor league players, rather then blank arena's ..

OPTION #1 is designed to starve out the players and get them to agree to a new cba .. OPTION #2 is UNION BUSTING hoping NHLers cross the picket line and the NHL gets to use its own CBA without UNION involvement (but it is full of legal challenges) ..

Buffaloed spoke of the idea that only nonNHLPA members could play under this proposed idea. I asked if NHLPA members could remove themselves from the NHLPA if they so chose.
You said "NO .... Any player that has paid Union fees in the past year or 2 is considered a NHLPA member .. Even UFA who may not currently be paying union fees are still members .."
The second part is true, if a player so chooses, but the "NO" statement was obviously b.s.

 

[Mess]

It wasn't taken out of context. The question was raised that if the NHL pursued Option 1 as you call it, whether a player could quit the union, thus becoming a non-NHLPA member and be free to sign a contract. The law is clear that a player is free to do that. The post in question is shown below and your response was incorrect. I don't care for inflammatory remarks saying someone is "full of it", but the claim of being taken out of context has a foul odor to it.

Did you see my above post by BOB Mackenzie ..

NO NHLPA player could be a replacement player even if he wanted to .. Even if a Player resigned from the Union .. That act would be a violation of bargaining in GOOD FAITH ..and the NHLPA would file UNFAIR LABOUR practices with the courts immediately. Why would the NHL risk this if it intention in the first place is to avoid court action and if they wanted to move to impasse in the future this act would never pass the NLRB at a future time ..

The reason the NHL would choose this option is to avoid any legal action so they would stay away from any player that did drop the union and would not touch them with a 10 foot pole, as no CBA is in place.. Also if the player has a legal existing contract signed will a member of the NHLPA can simple drop the union as his contract is a guaranteed contract ..

 

[Buffaloed]

What about Yashin, Jagr, Turgeon, Leclair, players with many years of big contract left? If they wanted to cross, returning under their old, non-rolled back salaries to play out their contracts, would they be allowed to? At some point, can they sue for breach of contract? Or is the $300mil lockout fund meant to buy out those contracts if they return?

Their contracts are void until they're recognized in a new CBA or other agreement. They have no grounds to sue for breach of contract other than to collect deferred money. If the NHL goes the non-impasse replacement player route, players that quit the union would have to sign completely new contracts.

 

[txomisc]

Here read Bob MacKenzie article

Now it gets interesting.

Number three is to play an 82-game schedule next season using exclusively replacement players, that is, any players outside of the NHLPA membership who want to play under whatever terms and conditions the NHL decides to set. A collective bargaining agreement would not have to be in place. In fact, no NHLPA member, even if he wanted to, would be permitted by the league to cross a line and play in this circumstance. Number four is the same as number three, but a reduced 60-game schedule, which might make more economic sense.

Number five is to play an 82-game schedule next season by declaring legal impasse, implementing a new CBA and using a combination of replacement players and whatever NHLPA members who would cross the line to play.Number six is the same as number five, but again, with a reduced schedule to 60 games.

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=117649

Yes and once again, my question was, could NHLPA members choose to leave the NHLPA in order to play under such a scenario. Your response was "NO"

 

[txomisc]

Did you see my above post by BOB Mackenzie ..

NO NHLPA player could be a replacement player even if he wanted to .. Even if a Player resigned from the Union .. That act would be a violation of bargaining in GOOD FAITH ..and the NHLPA would file UNFAIR LABOUR practices with the courts immediately. Why would the NHL risk this if it intention in the first place is to avoid court action and if they wanted to move to impasse in the future this act would never pass the NLRB at a future time ..

The reason the NHL would choose this option is to avoid any legal action so they would stay away from any player that did drop the union and would not touch them with a 10 foot pole, as no CBA is in place.. Also if the player has a legal existing contract signed will a member of the NHLPA can simple drop the union as his contract is a guaranteed contract ..

How is a player deciding to leave the union an act of bargaining in bad faith? Who is the player bargaining with?
edit: Nowhere in that post do i see bob mckenzie mention that a player could not leave the union and play.

 

[Mess]

How is a player deciding to leave the union an act of bargaining in bad faith? Who is the player bargaining with?

Not the Player the NHL !!!!!

The option really is an end around the legal method of IMPASSE being declared .. and don't forget the lockout is still in existance in this option .. SO no player can cross .. The NHL would have to convince the player to drop his union membership and sign and NHL deal .. Owners and players are really not suposed to be in conract in a labour dispute, so this would take all sorts of rules being broken and for what purpose so a few 3rd and 4th liners could play instead of AHLers ..

Why would the NHL risk all this .??.

If they wanted to they would just go the IMPASSE route in the first place if it thought a lot of players would cross the line ..

This NON-NHLPA option is intended to get the NHLPA to Cave in eventually .. the Impasse route requires putting your trust in the courts and the rulings ..

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Did you see my above post by BOB Mackenzie ..

NO NHLPA player could be a replacement player even if he wanted to .. Even if a Player resigned from the Union .. That act would be a violation of bargaining in GOOD FAITH ..and the NHLPA would file UNFAIR LABOUR practices with the courts immediately. Why would the NHL risk this if it intention in the first place is to avoid court action and if they wanted to move to impasse in the future this act would never pass the NLRB at a future time ..

The reason the NHL would choose this option is to avoid any legal action so they would stay away from any player that did drop the union and would not touch them with a 10 foot pole, as no CBA is in place.. Also if the player has a legal existing contract signed will a member of the NHLPA can simple drop the union as his contract is a guaranteed contract ..

I think I can clarify this. I think the way McKenzie has worded the possible scenario is causing some confusion.

NHLPA members currently on the official/legally locked out list of players would not be brought in as replacements, regardless of any subsequent resignation, as the union would still be legally locked out.

Messenger is correct.

 

[thinkwild]

Their contracts are void until they're recognized in a new CBA or other agreement. They have no grounds to sue for breach of contract other than to collect deferred money. If the NHL goes the non-impasse replacement player route, players that quit the union would have to sign completely new contracts.

THe players have no option but to voluntarily tear up their old contracts? That doesnt sit right without a negotiated settlement or a lawsuit. How can the law justify that?

 

[txomisc]

Not the Player the NHL !!!!!

The option really is an end around the legal method of IMPASSE being declared .. and don't forget the lockout is still in existance in this option .. SO no player can cross .. The NHL would have to convince the player to drop his union membership and sign and NHL deal .. Owners and players are really not suposed to be in conract in a labour dispute, so this would take all sorts of rules being broken and for what purpose so a few 3rd and 4th liners could play instead of AHLers ..

Why would the NHL risk all this .??.

If they wanted to they would just go the IMPASSE route in the first place if it thought a lot of players would cross the line ..

This NON-NHLPA option is intended to get the NHLPA to Cave in eventually .. the Impasse route requires putting your trust in the courts and the rulings ..

I really don't think a player choosing to leave the NHLPA in order to play hockey results in the NHL bargaining in bad faith. The owner is not making a player leave the union, the player is freely making his own choice to leave the union. If it was bad faith bargaining then the PA would more than likely tell some of its guys to pleave the PA and try to play in the NHL simply to get the NHL in trouble.

 

[Mess]

Yes and once again, my question was, could NHLPA members choose to leave the NHLPA in order to play under such a scenario. Your response was "NO"

In fact also to add more info for you ...

IF the NHL went the IMPASSE route and the player crossed a picket line to play .. He would be forfeiting his Union membership as the NHLPA would revoke his membership and he would forever be alone in all his dealings on any contracts and the NHL could do anything they wanted to the player and the NHLPA would not back him up .. Breaking away from a union has serious long-term consequences ..

If the player droped the union and played as a replacement as in your question .. What would happen to that player in the future when a new CBA was signed .. He would most likely be thrown out of the NHL with all the other replacement players .. So what ever the player gained to play next year could and would likely be the end of his career when the dispute is over .. SO no player would do it really ..

 

[Buffaloed]

Did you see my above post by BOB Mackenzie ..

NO NHLPA player could be a replacement player even if he wanted to .. Even if a Player resigned from the Union .. That act would be a violation of bargaining in GOOD FAITH ..and the NHLPA would file UNFAIR LABOUR practices with the courts immediately. Why would the NHL risk this if it intention in the first place is to avoid court action and if they wanted to move to impasse in the future this act would never pass the NLRB at a future time ..

What NLRB decisions are you basing this on? It's not unfair labor practice as long as hiring is done in compliance with the new policies. If special inducements are offered then it's unfair. It needs to be made clear that Bob McKenzie stated:

A collective bargaining agreement would not have to be in place. In fact, no NHLPA member, even if he wanted to, would be permitted by the league to cross a line and play in this circumstance.

McKenzie made no comment on what would happen if players resigned from the NHLPA to sign with NHL teams. Those opinions are your own.

The reason the NHL would choose this option is to avoid any legal action so they would stay away from any player that did drop the union and would not touch them with a 10 foot pole, as no CBA is in place.. Also if the player has a legal existing contract signed will a member of the NHLPA can simple drop the union as his contract is a guaranteed contract ..

On the contrary, union members who resigned would be able to sue the NHL for discriminaton if they weren't offered contracts. The NHL can't discriminate against the best qualified candidates for a job because the applicants are former union members. It's not an option to deny them employment. If it comes to this, what the NHL has to be careful of is rogue owners making under the table offers to star players. If a team waves $10 million under Kovalchuk's nose to quit the union to sign with their team, then it becomes unfair labor practices.

 

[txomisc]

In fact also to add more info for you ...

IF the NHL went the IMPASSE route and the player crossed a picket line to play .. He would be forfeiting his Union membership as the NHLPA would revoke his membership and he would forever be alone in all his dealings on any contracts and the NHL could do anything they wanted to the player and the NHLPA would not back him up .. Breaking away from a union has serious long-term consequences ..

If the player droped the union and played as a replacement as in your question .. What would happen to that player in the future when a new CBA was signed .. He would most likely be thrown out of the NHL with all the other replacement players .. So what ever the player gained to play next year could and would likely be the end of his career when the dispute is over .. SO no player would do it really ..

Whether a player would do it or not was not my question. My question was
could a player do it. You said no.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

On the contrary, union members who resigned would be able to sue the NHL for discriminaton if they weren't offered contracts. The NHL can't discriminate against the best qualified candidates for a job because the applicants are former union members. It's not an option to deny them employment.

That part is true.

Keep in mind such players would be regarded as temporary employees. It is worth a 10 or 25-game Professional Try Out agreement to cross the line?

 

[Mess]

What NLRB decisions are you basing this on? It's not unfair labor practice as long as hiring is done in compliance with the new policies. If special inducements are offered then it's unfair. It needs to be made clear that Bob McKenzie stated:

A collective bargaining agreement would not have to be in place. In fact, no NHLPA member, even if he wanted to, would be permitted by the league to cross a line and play in this circumstance.

McKenzie made no comment on what would happen if players resigned from the NHLPA to sign with NHL teams. Those opinions are your own..

The reason Bob didn't mention it IMO is it would NEVER HAPPEN really .. Even if the player did it .. The NHL would not touch him as that could get them in big trouble in the future .. Why would they risk it ?? ..The have chosen an option to avoid legal issues and then they start signing players that drop their union ..

How many players are you suggesting will be committing career suicide by doing it.?? The would forever be out of the union and no AGENT could represent them as then they would suffer possible NHLPA decertification of their agent licences ..

Think of the player consequenses once the dispute was over .. The NHL could not work forever under this no CBA no rules world and permanent lockout stance when it ends .. Both the NHL and the player could face long term issues ..

On the contrary, union members who resigned would be able to sue the NHL for discriminaton if they weren't offered contracts. The NHL can't discriminate against the best qualified candidates for a job because the applicants are former union members. It's not an option to deny them employment. If it comes to this, what the NHL has to be careful of is rogue owners making under the table offers to star players. If a team waves $10 million under Kovalchuk's nose to quit the union to sign with their team, then it becomes unfair labor practices.

Again why would this happen ?? We have a lockout to reduce salaries and now you believe rogue owners will be making 10 mil contracts .. Remember no CBA means no Cap and also no guaranteed contracts .. If Kovalchuk as in your example did this and the dispute ended and a new CBA was put in place..the contract signed as a Replacement would be voided .. and a new one being signed .. How do you see a player even considering this option ?? It would be career suicide .. He would have no future Union membership, no Agent ..and his teammates and team chemistry would be terrible .. Don't forget as a Replacement player Kovalchuk is not bound to Atlanta .. He could get that 10 million offer from NYR ?? Then what .. This would be total chaos in the NHL .. Why would they simply just stick to what Bob Mackenzie said and stay away .. ??

 

[Buffaloed]

THe players have no option but to voluntarily tear up their old contracts? That doesnt sit right without a negotiated settlement or a lawsuit. How can the law justify that?

If you read the previous CBA, you'll find a section called "Standard Player Contract". The old contracts are recognized as part of that CBA. They're only in effect as long as that CBA is in effect. The CBA is the master agreement that governs all the agreements it contains unless stated otherwise. That CBA is expired, hence all standard player contracts are void unless recognized in a new agreement. The players gave up the right to personal services contracts in exchange for the benefits of the contracts that union membership would bring. They don't have individual contractual rights in that system. The CBA determines how contracts are honored and structured. That's why a new CBA could mandate a 24% rollback in salaries to existing contracts. If a member doesn't want to give up 24% he has no say in it if thats what the NHL and NHLPA agree to.

 

[Mess]

Whether a player would do it or not was not my question. My question was
could a player do it. You said no.

Why would he do it is the better question ???

If he drops out of the union and face all the issues involved with it .. then he would have to be 100 % convinced that the NHL is going to sign him .. To get that guaruantee he would have to be in discussion with and NHL GM and be negotiating a new contract ... You honestly don't see the problem the NHL could get in by doing this??

Remember the Scott Steven NHL tampering charges and the fines and penalties the NHL teams faced ..

Ever little action in Labour disputes is watched under a magnifying glass ..

I am saying that the NHL would go no where near a player that did this because of all the problems and if that is the case why would the player do it ??

The player could freely retire or go play in Europe and not pay any more union fees and it would be the same effect .. The player that would risk this could likely get the same money in Europe .. without all the hassle ..

 

[txomisc]

Why would he do it is the better question ???

If he drops out of the union and face all the issues involved with it .. then he would have to be 100 % convinced that the NHL is going to sign him .. To get that guaruantee he would have to be in discussion with and NHL GM and be negotiating a new contract ... You honestly don't see the problem the NHL could get in by doing this??

Remember the Scott Steven NHL tampering charges and the fines and penalties the NHL teams faced ..

Ever little action in Labour disputes is watched under a magnifying glass ..

I am saying that the NHL would go no where near a player that did this because of all the problems and if that is the case why would the player do it ??

It has been stated that the NHL would basically have to sign those players. They would not be able to discriminate against them, they could be sued. The players would absolutely know they were going to be signed by a team because they would know they were better players than others teams would sign (hence they are already in the nhl while others arent)

 

[Mess]

It has been stated that the NHL would basically have to sign those players. They would not be able to discriminate against them, they could be sued. The players would absolutely know they were going to be signed by a team because they would know they were better players than others teams would sign (hence they are already in the nhl while others arent)

That is not correct .. No employee in any industry can force an Employer to hire him .

Not sure where this confusion came from??

If you quit your job .. Could you go to a competitor and demand they hire you?? ..and if they don't then you feel you could sue them ..

Sue who ?? .. If you are no longer a Union member of your own choice you can't sue them the NHLPA.. and since you are no longer a member and have no contract with the NHL ..

How could you sue the NHL ?? and which team you are a UFA .. Sue them for what amount ??.

You don't see Kariya and Palffy suing the NHL, teams signed other low level UFA players before as its their option who they sign ..not obligated to sign best player but what they can afford and who they chose to . .

If you were a Euro born player .. you would even have less rights IMO .. They could not force a Foreign country to hire them in any court in North America.

I am really missing what you are saying here.

Could you please explain this .. Who would sue Who ??