What is stopping the formation of a new PA

[BRM]

Sorry if this has been brought up before but was wondering if anyone with more knowledge of labor relations knows what is stopping a group of players, say lead by Corey Hirsh and Rob Ray, to start up a new Association and negotiate with the league.

The NHLPA's contract has expired and if there is competition from another group to provide the entertainers for the league then it would only seem resonable for the league to take other offers.

Just wanted opinions

BRM

Click to read more...

 

[thinkwild]

Well I dont have knowledge of labour relations, but I'll say the players are stoppping that. Because they dont want that. Maybe Rob Ray, Hirsch, heck even some buddies from their beer leagues can start a union all they wish, but currently the legally recognized bargaining entity is the current NHLPA the players have chosen and are sticking with. Sorry, I imagine this must be very upsetting news.

If Bettman imposes a CBA and invites them to cross as strikebreakers, they are free to do so. I wonder if strikebreakers would be unionized.

 

[me2]

Sorry if this has been brought up before but was wondering if anyone with more knowledge of labor relations knows what is stopping a group of players, say lead by Corey Hirsh and Rob Ray, to start up a new Association and negotiate with the league.

The NHLPA's contract has expired and if there is competition from another group to provide the entertainers for the league then it would only seem resonable for the league to take other offers.

Just wanted opinions

BRM

This may vary from area to area, but the one I read was along the following lines

To start a new union/replace the existing union with another/no union you need

1. about 20-30% of the employees to organise a vote. These employees*.

2. At the meeting they all vote and they need 50+% to either scrap the union as representive or appoint a new union.


Alternatively, the union members could vote on their course of action at a union meeting. If Goodenow objected they vote him out too. If the lowest 51% of the union want to do something they can pass it and richest 49% just have to take it. Those rich ones can leave the union if they want but what the poorer players negotiate in the CBA, is still forced on the rich players (who still have to pay union a due).

*Hirsh does not work there he can't vote.

 

[me2]

If Bettman imposes a CBA and invites them to cross as strikebreakers, they are free to do so. I wonder if strikebreakers would be unionized.

In some areas strike breakers have precedence of employment. If they union returns to work the strike breakers keep their jobs and the union guys must wait until a vacancy appears.

At least that is my reading of it

http://www.ocpathink.org/ViewResearchAndIdeasStory.asp?ID=119


Replacement Workers
Employees who strike to obtain better wages, hours, and working conditions are referred to as “economic strikers.†Workers may, however, be hired to replace them, and these replacements need not be let go when the strike is ended. As a practical matter, the economic striker may lose his job, but it is unlawful for an employer to express it in those terms.


These rules probably vary from state to state and country to country.



Union Unfair Labor Practices
The NLRA is primarily concerned with the legal rights of employees to engage in union and collective bargaining activities, so the legal restrictions on labor unions’ dealings with employees are less intrusive than those on employers’ relationships with employees. However, seven areas exist in which a labor union may be charged with an unfair labor practice.

1. Restraining or coercing employees who are attempting to exercise their rights guaranteed by the NLRA or interfering with an employer in the selection of his representatives for collective bargaining or grievance adjustment purposes. Examples of this include

a. acts of force or violence on the picket line or during a strike;
b. threatening employees with the loss of their jobs unless they support a union; or
c. fining employees for crossing a picket line after they resigned from the union.

2. Causing an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of Subsection 8(a)(3) or to discriminate against an employee for whom membership in the union has been denied or terminated for reasons other than nonpayment of the periodic dues and initiation fees required under a union security clause. Examples of this include

a. causing an employer to discharge employees because they disagreed with union policy; or
b. seeking the discharge of an employee for failure to pay a union fine.

3. Refusing to bargain with employers in good faith. Examples of this include

a. refusing to negotiate a mandatory subject of bargaining; or
b. insisting on the inclusion of an illegal contract provision.

4. Striking, picketing, or threatening such actions to force an employer to

a. join a labor organization or use only vendors or service suppliers whose employees are represented by a labor union;
b. cease doing business with another employer;
c. assign particular work to employees represented by a particular union; or
d. cease doing business with another employer.

5. Charging prospective members exorbitant or discriminatory initiation fees.

6. Causing or attempting to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other thing of value for services that are not performed or not to be performed.

7. Picketing or threatening to picket an employer to force it to confer recognition on the picketing union as its employees’ bargaining representative after

a. the employer has lawfully recognized a different labor union;
b. a certified NLRB election has been conducted in the past 12 months; or,
c. the picketing has been conducted for 30 days without a petition for an election being filed with the NLRB.

 

[thinkwild]

Except the difference here of course is the GMs actually do want to sign those players back. What kind contract is a strikebreaker going to get? Is Lowe going to load up his team with 20 $1mil/3 year contracts, and then be stuck with them when the players and owners strike a deal?

The players dont really need to cause picket line violence. The whole point is that they dont think replacements will work, or make the owners any money. And they wouldnt have to shut down all the games. They could all gather and shut down one - like the Toronto game on a Saturday night for Hockey night in Canada. No violence required. Just stopping the bus from entering. And if CAW and the Canadian Labour unions are onside because of the strikebreaking activities, players may have a lot of other support in shutting down the game. A few conveniently parked semi's at the ACC might do it. Only need to hit the rich teams.

 

[kingsfan]

In some areas strike breakers have precedence of employment. If they union returns to work the strike breakers keep their jobs and the union guys must wait until a vacancy appears.

At least that is my reading of it

http://www.ocpathink.org/ViewResearchAndIdeasStory.asp?ID=119


Replacement Workers
Employees who strike to obtain better wages, hours, and working conditions are referred to as “economic strikers.†Workers may, however, be hired to replace them, and these replacements need not be let go when the strike is ended. As a practical matter, the economic striker may lose his job, but it is unlawful for an employer to express it in those terms.


These rules probably vary from state to state and country to country.

Thing is though, these players are not striking, they are locked out and don;t have a CBA anymore. That has to change things I'd imagine. Not sure how though.

 

[me2]

Thing is though, these players are not striking, they are locked out and don;t have a CBA anymore. That has to change things I'd imagine. Not sure how though.

It does. The NHL can do much until the players strike. That would only happen if the NHL went to impasse and the impasse CBA was unacceptable to union. So then it switches from a lockout to a strike (and MAYBE replacement players come in).

 

[me2]

Except the difference here of course is the GMs actually do want to sign those players back. What kind contract is a strikebreaker going to get? Is Lowe going to load up his team with 20 $1mil/3 year contracts, and then be stuck with them when the players and owners strike a deal?

The players dont really need to cause picket line violence. The whole point is that they dont think replacements will work, or make the owners any money. And they wouldnt have to shut down all the games. They could all gather and shut down one - like the Toronto game on a Saturday night for Hockey night in Canada. No violence required. Just stopping the bus from entering. And if CAW and the Canadian Labour unions are onside because of the strikebreaking activities, players may have a lot of other support in shutting down the game. A few conveniently parked semi's at the ACC might do it. Only need to hit the rich teams.

Don't they have to give notice of a strike? If so the NHL would just schedule broadcast of some other game. More importantly they'd be regard as a**holes. The NHLPA and the players would lose most of their remaining support from the fans. If they don't even regard that fan unhappiness as serious that be regarded a double a**holes. Not a good move.

 

[YellHockey*]

Don't they have to give notice of a strike? If so the NHL would just schedule broadcast of some other game.

And that would cost the CBC millions to do so. If the CBC had to resort to Boston-Buffalo instead of Toronto-Montreal it would dramatically affect ratings. And if it didn't it would be because the replacement players were a bust with the fans to begin with.

More importantly they'd be regard as a**holes. The NHLPA and the players would lose most of their remaining support from the fans. If they don't even regard that fan unhappiness as serious that be regarded a double a**holes. Not a good move.

Hardly. The fans who are against the players will continue to be against the players. They already view any statement by the players, other then "I'll accept a salary cap" as a personal insult.

The fans who aren't supporting the owners will have the intelligence to understand the players actions.

 

[thinkwild]

Not a good move because they will lose fan support? Gee, I wonder what that would be like for them. Not a good move because the Toronto owners will lose lots of money? Gee what a shame. Strikebreaking is just not a good move is it?

 

[GabbyDugan]

The majority of members could petition to de-certify the NHLPA as the authorized bargaining agent for players in the employ of members of the NHL. However, I don't think they would dream of doing this.

The NHLPA controls millions of dollars of assets in investments. In addition , the NHLPA has build up a lot of goodwill over the years in the marketplace (Publications, television programmes, branded apparel, etc.), and the association has exclusive control of the trademarks and copyrights that trade on this long standing goodwill. Who would control all these assets if a new players association developed?

THE NHLPA has legal recognition in all jurisdictions where the NHL does business, and it could take months or possibly years to gain recognition for a new bargaining unit (For instance, what if the Detroit Red Wings voted to decertify, and the Vancouver Canucks refused to go to the British Columbia Labour Relations Board for de-certification? )

The NHLPA administers pensions for former players, and a new bargaining unit would be starting pension funding from scratch....some players may have vested pension money in the NHLPA that can't be transferred to another entity).

 

[thinkwild]

The pension fund makes for an interesting situation. As you say, their becoming a more corporate entity, would seem to take away their decertification bargaining chip a bit. It is like two corporations negotiating a deal with each other.

 

[me2]

And that would cost the CBC millions to do so. If the CBC had to resort to Boston-Buffalo instead of Toronto-Montreal it would dramatically affect ratings. And if it didn't it would be because the replacement players were a bust with the fans to begin with.

There wouldn't be any replacement players playing. There wouldn't be a game. The NHL would have 3 days to arrange an alternative.

Hardly. The fans who are against the players will continue to be against the players.

Every person that bought a ticket to that game would care.

 

[me2]

Not a good move because they will lose fan support? Gee, I wonder what that would be like for them. Not a good move because the Toronto owners will lose lots of money? Gee what a shame. Strikebreaking is just not a good move is it?

Be entirely funny if 30% of their yearly wage was bonus tied to completing a full season and fan satisfaction.

 

[shakes]

Be entirely funny if 30% of their yearly wage was bonus tied to completing a full season and fan satisfaction.

You honestly think anybody would accept a contract like that?!

The players dont really need to cause picket line violence. The whole point is that they dont think replacements will work, or make the owners any money. And they wouldnt have to shut down all the games. They could all gather and shut down one - like the Toronto game on a Saturday night for Hockey night in Canada. No violence required. Just stopping the bus from entering. And if CAW and the Canadian Labour unions are onside because of the strikebreaking activities, players may have a lot of other support in shutting down the game. A few conveniently parked semi's at the ACC might do it. Only need to hit the rich teams.

You can be guaranteed that this is exactly what the NHLPA would organize. You can also be assured that the other unions would be fully behind this action. Which begs the question.. how would they broadcast and run the season if TV crews, ushers, ticket takers, food service workers and any other union that helps run the operation of the arenas are not allowed to cross the picket lines.

 

[djhn579]

You honestly think anybody would accept a contract like that?!



You can be guaranteed that this is exactly what the NHLPA would organize. You can also be assured that the other unions would be fully behind this action. Which begs the question.. how would they broadcast and run the season if TV crews, ushers, ticket takers, food service workers and any other union that helps run the operation of the arenas are not allowed to cross the picket lines.

That could happen. But when salaries are tied to revenues, and the strikes decrease league revenues to under $1B, the players share would be 50% to 60% of that... That would drop the average league salary under $1M. Wouldn't that be kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Anyway, you are working on the assumption that the union would have a majority of players willing to strike. If the NHL put in some salary increases and security for the lowest paid players, do you think the union would be able to muster a majority for a strike vote? Especially after the league is shut down for a year or more? Many of the lowest paid players would be happy to be playing again so they can pay their bills and get a few years of good earnings from their short NHL careers.

As for other unions, is a guy making less than $15.00 per hour going to not work to support guys that are making $1000.00 per minute?

Edit: Even if they did want to organize strikes for specific games, that would be a breach of contract (they would have a signed CBA) and the NHL would file an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB. And if I was the NHL, I would be looking at instituting a league wide lockout if they tried that for a second game.

 

[dawgbone]

You can be guaranteed that this is exactly what the NHLPA would organize. You can also be assured that the other unions would be fully behind this action. Which begs the question.. how would they broadcast and run the season if TV crews, ushers, ticket takers, food service workers and any other union that helps run the operation of the arenas are not allowed to cross the picket lines.

So now they are going to prevent people not involved from making a living? That's nice.

All hail the NHLPA and the CAW!!!!

 

[shakes]

So now they are going to prevent people not involved from making a living? That's nice.

All hail the NHLPA and the CAW!!!!

Hey.. the NHLPA has a right to strike and set up pickets. If other unions choose to respect that decision and have their members not cross a picket line then that is their right isn't it? Just like the right of the owners to lock the players out until they get the deal they want or until they break the union.

 

[SENSible1*]

Just like the right of the owners to lock the players out until they get the deal they want or until they break the union.

Rights are great.

 

[shakes]

Rights are great.

Indeed

 

[dawgbone]

Hey.. the NHLPA has a right to strike and set up pickets. If other unions choose to respect that decision and have their members not cross a picket line then that is their right isn't it? Just like the right of the owners to lock the players out until they get the deal they want or until they break the union.

Are you dumb enough to beleive the Ushers would side with the players instead of going back to work? Or the food service workers? Or the camera crew operators?

Here's a hint... they won't. They have no reason to.

This isn't some CAW reps who in between shifts at the plant go and stand in front of the ACC... they are still making money and making a living.

Ushers, camera crews, etc... aren't. They won't not work to help the players, just like the players wouldn't do it for them.

 

[djhn579]

You honestly think anybody would accept a contract like that?!



You can be guaranteed that this is exactly what the NHLPA would organize. You can also be assured that the other unions would be fully behind this action. Which begs the question.. how would they broadcast and run the season if TV crews, ushers, ticket takers, food service workers and any other union that helps run the operation of the arenas are not allowed to cross the picket lines.

b) With the existence of a CBA - only during freedom period

Art. 253, Labor Code. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. -- When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. HOWEVER, EITHER PARTY CAN SERVE A WRITTEN NOTICE TO TERMINATE OR MODIFY THE AGREEMENT AT LEAST SIXTY (60) DAYS PRIOR TO ITS EXPIRATION DATE. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.

Violations of a CBA, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the CBA. Gross violations of the CBA shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the agreement (Art. 260, LC).

The “No Strike-No Lockout Clause†is not an infringement or undue restriction of the constitutional right to strike, because said clause is applicable only to ECONOMIC STRIKES, but not to ULP strikes. In other words, even during the effectivity of the CBA, the Union may still strike if the company commits ULP as enumerated in Article 248 of the Labor Code. (PHIL. METAL FOUNDRIES VS. CIR, 90 SCRA 135)


The last CBA had a no strike clause, and I can't see the NHL not insisting that a no strike clause be included in the next CBA. If that is the case, if the NHLPA did try to strike, it would be a "flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the agreement (Art. 260, LC)." I would assume that this would leave the NHLPA open to fines and/or possibly jail time for the union leaders.

Once they sign the new CBA, if they do not like the terms, they can't change them until the CBA expires. They will either have to sign the CBA or remain on strike until they are satisfied. They can't sign a CBA and go on strike again.

http://boracay.vasia.com/ablelaw/cba.htm

 

[shakes]

Are you dumb enough to beleive the Ushers would side with the players instead of going back to work? Or the food service workers? Or the camera crew operators?

Here's a hint... they won't. They have no reason to.

This isn't some CAW reps who in between shifts at the plant go and stand in front of the ACC... they are still making money and making a living.

Ushers, camera crews, etc... aren't. They won't not work to help the players, just like the players wouldn't do it for them.

Probably about as dumb as someone who thinks that other Unions at a leadership level don't support other unions in their fight against management. This does include advising their members not to cross the picket lines of another striking membership.

 

[shakes]

The last CBA had a no strike clause, and I can't see the NHL not insisting that a no strike clause be included in the next CBA. If that is the case, if the NHLPA did try to strike, it would be a "flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the agreement (Art. 260, LC)." I would assume that this would leave the NHLPA open to fines and/or possibly jail time for the union leaders.

Once they sign the new CBA, if they do not like the terms, they can't change them until the CBA expires. They will either have to sign the CBA or remain on strike until they are satisfied. They can't sign a CBA and go on strike again.

http://boracay.vasia.com/ablelaw/cba.htm

I was talking about if the NHL declares an impasse and tries to use replacement players. I think this would allow the players to strike without signing anything.

 

[gary69]

That could happen. But when salaries are tied to revenues, and the strikes decrease league revenues to under $1B, the players share would be 50% to 60% of that... That would drop the average league salary under $1M. Wouldn't that be kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Anyway, you are working on the assumption that the union would have a majority of players willing to strike. If the NHL put in some salary increases and security for the lowest paid players, do you think the union would be able to muster a majority for a strike vote? Especially after the league is shut down for a year or more? Many of the lowest paid players would be happy to be playing again so they can pay their bills and get a few years of good earnings from their short NHL careers.

As for other unions, is a guy making less than $15.00 per hour going to not work to support guys that are making $1000.00 per minute?

Edit: Even if they did want to organize strikes for specific games, that would be a breach of contract (they would have a signed CBA) and the NHL would file an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB. And if I was the NHL, I would be looking at instituting a league wide lockout if they tried that for a second game.

I undestood that the situation talked about was that the players didn't sign the new imposed CBA (after impasse) and decided to strike instead. And then owners used replacement players and whoever NHLer decided to cross.

Now the owners are locking out their own replacement players?

And as for stopping certain games and TV broadcasts to proceed smoothly, this certainly can be done with the help of other labor unions, result being that in the future games fewer and fewer fans will bother even to try to get into games and TV stations would begin to lose their interest in replacement hockey.

And with all kinds of lawsuits flying around everywhere, it would surely seem to make more sense to most owners to get rid of their "no hard cap -no CBA" - stance, and find a compromise.