Why did Ted Lindsay etc. try to unionize in Toronto and not Montreal?

[Canadarocks]

I've done some reading on the first attempt to form a players union and have seen the film Net Worth countless times. There's just something I'm not sure about. From what I understand, in order for the union to materialize, both a Canadian team and an American team had to vote to certify. Toronto was chosen but I can't understand why. Senator Molson of Montreal was the owner who was least against the union while Toronto owner Conn Smythe was adamantly against it. Montreal was also the team of the union's vice president Doug Harvey (like Detroit, the American choice, was the team of the union's president). I know the Toronto players did end up voting to certify but wouldn't it have been easier if it were Montreal? Or was Toronto chosen because it was the richer Canadian team, like Detroit was the richest American team? Is there something I don't know?

Click to read more...

 

[golfortennis]

This is a really interesting question. I think saying Molson was "least against the union" is kind of like saying Ivan the Terrible was less of a tyrant than Genghis Khan. I don't think Molson would have let a certification vote go through in Montreal either. Frankly I think Molson had the better connections to keep something from happening than Smythe did.

It could very well have been the fact that most of the Canadiens were french speaking, and while Harvey was on board, it would have been easier to get the Leafs en masse to vote in favor than the Habs. BUt that is just atheory. If there is a legal implication that led to it, someone else will need to explain that.

Hav eyou read the book as well? Lots of great info there. I can't believe anyone could ever read that book and walk away still thinking players make too much money/players need to take one for the team. They don't realize just how much like cattle the owners consider the players.

 

[pappyline]

This is a really interesting question. I think saying Molson was "least against the union" is kind of like saying Ivan the Terrible was less of a tyrant than Genghis Khan. I don't think Molson would have let a certification vote go through in Montreal either. Frankly I think Molson had the better connections to keep something from happening than Smythe did.

It could very well have been the fact that most of the Canadiens were french speaking, and while Harvey was on board, it would have been easier to get the Leafs en masse to vote in favor than the Habs. BUt that is just atheory. If there is a legal implication that led to it, someone else will need to explain that.

Hav eyou read the book as well? Lots of great info there. I can't believe anyone could ever read that book and walk away still thinking players make too much money/players need to take one for the team. They don't realize just how much like cattle the owners consider the players.

In a book I am currently reading, Bill Dineen relates a story that illustrates how badly players were treated in those days. As a rookie in 53-54, Dineen was making the rookie salary of $6000 but had a bonus clause if he reached 20 goals. Once he reached 17 goals, Adams had Dineen benched until the playoffs to avoid having to pay out a few extra dollars. At the beginning of the next season Adams called Dineen in & said they were giving him a helluva raise from $6000 to $6500. Not only that but they were increasing his daily meal money from $5.50 to $7.00. Later that preseason, LIndsay held a player's meeting to tell them a players association was being formed and that they were already having some effect in that the minimum salary had been raised to $6500 & meal money raised to $7.00.Dineen was still making the minimum salary.

Later in Dineen's short NHL career, he had a knee injury. Adams accused him of faking it. When he sustained a second knee injury he hid it from the team.

Just one example of many.

 

[Ogopogo*]

In a book I am currently reading, Bill Dineen relates a story that illustrates how badly players were treated in those days. As a rookie in 53-54, Dineen was making the rookie salary of $6000 but had a bonus clause if he reached 20 goals. Once he reached 17 goals, Adams had Dineen benched until the playoffs to avoid having to pay out a few extra dollars. At the beginning of the next season Adams called Dineen in & said they were giving him a helluva raise from $6000 to $6500. Not only that but they were increasing his daily meal money from $5.50 to $7.00. Later that preseason, LIndsay held a player's meeting to tell them a players association was being formed and that they were already having some effect in that the minimum salary had been raised to $6500 & meal money raised to $7.00.Dineen was still making the minimum salary.

Later in Dineen's short NHL career, he had a knee injury. Adams accused him of faking it. When he sustained a second knee injury he hid it from the team.

Just one example of many.

The thing is, as shady as that might sound, $6,500 was still a good amount of money to play a game. Dineen could have done anything he wanted for a living but he felt that 6 and a half grand was a good deal to play hockey.

Anyone is free to leave their employer at any time if they don't like how they are treated. Heck, I just did it 6 weeks ago. Staying at a job and whining about the treatment is idiotic, IMO. If you like it, stay. If you don't like it, go.

All this after the fact "we were treated poorly" stuff doesn't wash with me. If it was that bad they could have left and done something else for a living.

 

[Pwnasaurus]

All this after the fact "we were treated poorly" stuff doesn't wash with me. If it was that bad they could have left and done something else for a living.

I think it is mostly a product of former athletes not being resigned to the fact that modern day entertainers/athletes make a severely disproportionate salary compared to the average citizen.

 

[golfortennis]

The thing is, as shady as that might sound, $6,500 was still a good amount of money to play a game. Dineen could have done anything he wanted for a living but he felt that 6 and a half grand was a good deal to play hockey.

Anyone is free to leave their employer at any time if they don't like how they are treated. Heck, I just did it 6 weeks ago. Staying at a job and whining about the treatment is idiotic, IMO. If you like it, stay. If you don't like it, go.

All this after the fact "we were treated poorly" stuff doesn't wash with me. If it was that bad they could have left and done something else for a living.

Your post would have lots of credibility were it not for the bolded text. "PLaying a game" is what you, I and the rest of us on here do on Wednesday nights or sunday mornings at the local rink, and have a few beers after. At the end of the day, we don't have a plane to catch for the next city, no one cares how in shape we are or aren't, and people aren't paying money to see us skate.

There is no "playing a game" that relates to being in the national hockey league. I absolutely agree with you about the people being free to leave their employer.

But "playing a game" attempts to put it on a par with skating on a local pond after school. It reinforces the notion that despite the fact that a guy has his employer chosen for him for 8 or so years, has to be in tip top shape as a condition of his employment, has people yelling at him and ripping him the moment he screws up, has to read about himself in the papers, all the while these people who are yelling at him have paid a ton of money to watch him work; despite all that, "he makes too much money" without ever giving a reason where the money should go. It's jealousy and envy, nothing more.

It is a job. A good job, and for some a very lucrative job. But it is still a job. Calling it "playing a game" either insults people's intelliegence or demonstrates a lack of it.

 

[pappyline]

The thing is, as shady as that might sound, $6,500 was still a good amount of money to play a game. Dineen could have done anything he wanted for a living but he felt that 6 and a half grand was a good deal to play hockey.

Anyone is free to leave their employer at any time if they don't like how they are treated. Heck, I just did it 6 weeks ago. Staying at a job and whining about the treatment is idiotic, IMO. If you like it, stay. If you don't like it, go.

All this after the fact "we were treated poorly" stuff doesn't wash with me. If it was that bad they could have left and done something else for a living.

Hey the guy wanted to play major league hockey but couldn't go to the highest bidder. He was literally owned by the Red Wings. His alternative was to quit his profession & get a laborers job for couple of thou. Plus there is no excuse for an employer that literally owns you to lie to you which is what Adams did. Dineen's only recourse was too quit hockey and leave the profession he loved. Not much of a choice IMO.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Anyone is free to leave their employer at any time if they don't like how they are treated. Heck, I just did it 6 weeks ago. Staying at a job and whining about the treatment is idiotic, IMO. If you like it, stay. If you don't like it, go.

But if you want to play big league hockey, it's the only option. You make it sound like he could quit Ford and just head across the street to GM.

When you're dealing with a monopoly, and the owners have you over a barrel, free market examples don't apply.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Hey the guy wanted to play major league hockey but couldn't go to the highest bidder. He was literally owned by the Red Wings. His alternative was to quit his profession & get a laborers job for couple of thou. Plus there is no excuse for an employer that literally owns you to lie to you which is what Adams did. Dineen's only recourse was too quit hockey and leave the profession he loved. Not much of a choice IMO.

He was making more than he could have made at any other job so he continued to play. The so-called mistreatment was more desirable than doing something else for a living so he did it.

The Red Wings did not own him - he could have left to work anywhere. If he wanted to be in the NHL he had to abide by the rules of his employer - the NHL. If the NHL says you work in Detroit, that is the job - take it or leave it.

I left a profession I loved because I didn't agree with the way senior management treated me. That is life, hockey should be no different.

He signed the contract, there is no reason to be pissed off if he agreed to play for $6,500. If it wasn't enough $, don't sign the deal.

 

[Ogopogo*]

But if you want to play big league hockey, it's the only option. You make it sound like he could quit Ford and just head across the street to GM.

When you're dealing with a monopoly, and the owners have you over a barrel, free market examples don't apply.

Hockey is simply one line of work. He could have been a doctor, lawyer, farmer or anything else he wanted. He CHOSE hockey and he needs to live by the rules of that profession. If he didn't like it, he could leave.

There is no monopoly - he could do anything he wanted for a living and play hockey for fun like we all do. But he chose the profession and the working conditions associated with it.

 

[pappyline]

Hockey is simply one line of work. He could have been a doctor, lawyer, farmer or anything else he wanted. He CHOSE hockey and he needs to live by the rules of that profession. If he didn't like it, he could leave.

There is no monopoly - he could do anything he wanted for a living and play hockey for fun like we all do. But he chose the profession and the working conditions associated with it.

I think Gordie Howe would have made a fine doctor. He really should have done that instead of hockey.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

There is no monopoly - he could do anything he wanted for a living and play hockey for fun like we all do. But he chose the profession and the working conditions associated with it.

Before you continue to talk about monoplies and non-monopolies, I'd suggest reading something educational on the topic. I would recommend that you start here:

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5382/1/MPRA_paper_5382.pdf

 

[Ogopogo*]

Before you continue to talk about monoplies and non-monopolies, I'd suggest reading something educational on the topic. I would recommend that you start here:

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5382/1/MPRA_paper_5382.pdf

You like to miss the point and argue irrelevant topics.

Fact is, hockey players can do anything they want for a living - just like you and I. If you choose the NHL then you abide by the working conditions. If you think it is unfair, do whatever else you want instead.

Nobody other than the NHL was willing to pay $6,500/year for hockey players; that is life. Play or don't play but certainly don't whine after the fact about how you were treated - don't sign the freaking deal.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You like to miss the point and argue irrelevant topics.

It's exceptionally relevant to the topic, and if you had done any research on the history of 20th century labour law, you'd understand that. Everyone else in this thread seems to understand that, so I guess we've all "missed the point".

The fact that you seem to think that Ted Lindsay should have just decided to go be a doctor - now that's an irrelevant topic.

 

[Gilles Meloche]

There is a great movie on the subjest called "Net Worth".....I became a real big fan of Lindsay after watching that

 

[justsomeguy]

Think the major (no pun intended) reason they might have gone with Toronto rather than the Canadiens was that by and large, Habs players didn't have as much to gripe about in terms of the way the boss treated them compared to the guys in other uniforms.

Conn Smythe, however, ticked off more than a few of his players with his statements and decisions. might have been easier to rally the Leafs than the Canadiens.

 

[Canadarocks]

I feel like I just opened up a cans of worms but thanks to Bluesfan 75 for your reply. Your possibilities make sense. The reason was probably something like that. It's funny that I never thought of the French thing before.

 

[mcphee]

Think the major (no pun intended) reason they might have gone with Toronto rather than the Canadiens was that by and large, Habs players didn't have as much to gripe about in terms of the way the boss treated them compared to the guys in other uniforms.

Conn Smythe, however, ticked off more than a few of his players with his statements and decisions. might have been easier to rally the Leafs than the Canadiens.

Selke tended to keep former players around didn't he ? Guys like Readon, even Butch Bouchard ? There was probably less distance between players and management, and probably a harder situation in which to keep any organizational union details secret.

 

[pappyline]

Quite interesting that they went after Detroit & Toronto first. However, Adams of Detroit & Smythe of Toronto were the most badass management guys. Maybe they felt they would find the most player discontent on those 2 teams.

 

[Stonefly]

You like to miss the point and argue irrelevant topics.

Fact is, hockey players can do anything they want for a living - just like you and I. If you choose the NHL then you abide by the working conditions. If you think it is unfair, do whatever else you want instead.

Nobody other than the NHL was willing to pay $6,500/year for hockey players; that is life. Play or don't play but certainly don't whine after the fact about how you were treated - don't sign the freaking deal.

This isn't meant to be offensive it's just an observation from years of working with different types of people. I would bet that you are an accountant and if not an accountant you definitely work with numbers. I've worked with many accountants over the years and they have all had identical personalities. The only thing that matters to them are the numbers. Black and white. People and how they are treated is of no concern.

All employers have a responsibility to treat their employees with respect and decency. Cheating a player out of his bonus isn't really doing that is it? That's abuse of power.

 

[reckoning]

Adams called Dineen in & said they were giving him a helluva raise from $6000 to $6500. Not only that but they were increasing his daily meal money from $5.50 to $7.00. Later that preseason, LIndsay held a player's meeting to tell them a players association was being formed and that they were already having some effect in that the minimum salary had been raised to $6500 & meal money raised to $7.00.Dineen was still making the minimum salary.

In the book Money Players, Terry Crisp mentioned going through a similiar situation when he played:

"I'd made $8,000 the year before and wanted a raise, so Eagleson called me up and said "I got you $10,000". I was really excited and told one of my teammates about the raise Eagleson got me, and this guy replied "They just raised the minimum salary to $10,000. You didn't get anything." Three weeks later I get a legal bill from Eagleson for $720 for negotiating the contract."

-Money Players by Bruce Dowbiggin pgs 47-48
​

Eagleson

 

[pappyline]

In the book Money Players, Terry Crisp mentioned going through a similiar situation when he played:

"I'd made $8,000 the year before and wanted a raise, so Eagleson called me up and said "I got you $10,000". I was really excited and told one of my teammates about the raise Eagleson got me, and this guy replied "They just raised the minimum salary to $10,000. You didn't get anything." Three weeks later I get a legal bill from Eagleson for $720 for negotiating the contract."

-Money Players by Bruce Dowbiggin pgs 47-48
​

Eagleson

That is so typical. They really conned these small town/farm Canadian boys. Then their "saviour" Eagleson came around and conned them again. The WHA was really the best thing that ever happened to the players. It gave them bargaining power & broke the NHL monopoly.

 

[justsomeguy]

Selke tended to keep former players around didn't he ? Guys like Readon, even Butch Bouchard ? There was probably less distance between players and management, and probably a harder situation in which to keep any organizational union details secret.

Yes. a lot of former Habs players ended up coaching farm teams. They had more of a family feeling than the other clubs, which were modelled more along plantation lines.

Lindsay once said that what amazed him the most about the union attempt was that they were able to get all six teams onside and not have a word of it leak to management anywhere before they filed for accreditation.

 

[Ogopogo*]

This isn't meant to be offensive it's just an observation from years of working with different types of people. I would bet that you are an accountant and if not an accountant you definitely work with numbers. I've worked with many accountants over the years and they have all had identical personalities. The only thing that matters to them are the numbers. Black and white. People and how they are treated is of no concern.

All employers have a responsibility to treat their employees with respect and decency. Cheating a player out of his bonus isn't really doing that is it? That's abuse of power.

I agree with you that employers should treat their employees with respect but you and I know that many employers don't. I have had enough different employers in my career to know that when I am not treated with respect, it is time to move on rather than to bellyache about it and complain to everyone that will listen. I see hockey as the same deal; if it was so bad for the players they could have walked away - but they didn't. They still felt it was a good deal so they stayed.

BTW, I am not actually an accountant, I am in sales.

 

[Stonefly]

I agree with you that employers should treat their employees with respect but you and I know that many employers don't. I have had enough different employers in my career to know that when I am not treated with respect, it is time to move on rather than to bellyache about it and complain to everyone that will listen. I see hockey as the same deal; if it was so bad for the players they could have walked away - but they didn't. They still felt it was a good deal so they stayed.

BTW, I am not actually an accountant, I am in sales.

But you dream of being an accountant right?

I understand where you're coming from, that no one has to take being treated that way. But the fact is, going back to personality types, there are people who aren't like you and will take the abuse.
Then there are people like you who won't take the abuse and will find another employer. And then there are the types who get sick of being taken advantage of and try to effect change by doing something about it like Ted and Doug.
To criticize someone for putting up with it would be to criticize their personality. Just my thoughts on that.