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

[mcphee]

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.

Well, that line made me laugh anyways.

There were abuses over the years from players having no security, being cheated, being discrimanted against for reasons of color,language or religion, and I have to think that rebelling against working conditions and putting forth the idea that the players are the product is something to be proud of.

I'm not a union guy by nature, I'm seething today about one of my daughter's teachers who is woefully inadequate but will gleefully coast the next 20 years until retirement. otoh, accepting poor conditions and walking away doesn't quite seem to be the way to go.

 

[Kirby Mandrake]

fiction

 

[Canadarocks]

From what I know, work conditions were bad almost everywhere and if a hockey player left the NHL, he'd probably find it worse off. I don't know whose side that takes in the argument though. On one hand, hockey players had less to complain about than many other common workers but, on the other hand, they also didn't have many other options.

 

[pappyline]

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.

Hey, I take offense to that. I am an accountant but focus more on what I see than the numbers. One shouldn't generalize.

On this topic. Hell, we all wanted to be NHL players regardless of the working conditions. Doesn't mean we should have been underpaid & forced to play with injuries.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I would agree with you if he were allowed to play for and own a team that could challenge for the Stanley Cup. By claiming ownership of the Stanley Cup and excluding players from owning teams to challenge for it, the NHL did indeed create a monopoly. It's like Universal Studios claiming ownership of the Oscars and not allowing films made by actors or other studios to be nominated for Best Picture.

I still don't know how Mario Lemieux was able to own and play for the Penguins. My guess is that active players can only be minority owners of a team.

But honestly, what difference does that make? We are talking about a job - earning a living. Winning the cup really doesn't play into this discussion at all.

 

[Stonefly]

Hey, I take offense to that. I am an accountant but focus more on what I see than the numbers. One shouldn't generalize.

On this topic. Hell, we all wanted to be NHL players regardless of the working conditions. Doesn't mean we should have been underpaid & forced to play with injuries.

Sorry Pappyline, there are exceptions to every rule it seems. I would never have guessed you were an accountant. Generally speaking though accountants will all be quite similar. If for instance a group of accountants took a Myers Briggs test I would be willing to bet the vast majority would have the same four letters categorizing them. So again, no offense intended.

 

[FissionFire]

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.

From my understanding, Toronto was chosen because they felt that with Harvey in Montreal they could deliver that city but Toronto was the tough sell. A big part of making the union work was getting all the players to buy into it and Toronto was the team they needed to win over.

In the US, Detroit was the only logical choice. The Norris family for all purposes ran both the Wings and Hawks and had a tremendous amount of influence over the Rangers and Bruins. Also because they knew without Gordie Howe on board they'd never sell a union to all the players. Basically the unionizers knew that if they won over Detroit, the rest of the American teams would follow suit. The union chose the toughest targets because those were the ones they needed to win over to make it succeed.

Ted Lindsay was an SOB on the ice, but the players of the NHL should be eternally grateful for his trailblazing in that area. His efforts cost him alot personally and career wise.

Mr. Lindsay worked doggedly for the cause and many of his fellow players who supported the association were benched or sent to obscurity in the minor leagues. He and Harvey then became convinced that only a union could win the demands, and set up a schedule to get players' support on record to be certified as a union. In a defiant gesture, the Toronto Maple Leafs and Detroit Red Wings were targeted for certification votes. While Montreal's ownership was not opposing a union, Toronto's Conn Smythe was adamantly against it. In the United States, the four teams were controlled or under obligations to the Norris syndicate, but Detroit was the jewel. Despite Smythe's efforts, the Toronto Maple Leafs players unanimously voted to organize. Next was the turn of Detroit to organize, and the Norrises would fight back.

An interview with Lindsay where he talks some about the unionization effort: http://videos.fansub.tv/tube.php/yt... DETROIT RED WING Ted Lindsay speaks in 1995/

When McLaughlin died in 1944, Norris helped longtime Black Hawks president Bill Tobin put together a syndicate that bought the team from the McLaughlin estate. It was generally understood, however, that Norris called the shots. He had bought Chicago Stadium in 1936, thus making him the Black Hawks' landlord. Earlier in the decade, he had bought enough stock in Madison Square Garden to become its largest stockholder, and while he did not buy majority control (he was forbidden from doing so by the NHL constitution), he had enough support from the board that he effectively controlled the New York Rangers as well.

 

[Wetcoaster]

An interview with Lindsay where he talks some about the unionization effort:

When McLaughlin died in 1944, Norris helped longtime Black Hawks president Bill Tobin put together a syndicate that bought the team from the McLaughlin estate. It was generally understood, however, that Norris called the shots. He had bought Chicago Stadium in 1936, thus making him the Black Hawks' landlord. Earlier in the decade, he had bought enough stock in Madison Square Garden to become its largest stockholder, and while he did not buy majority control (he was forbidden from doing so by the NHL constitution), he had enough support from the board that he effectively controlled the New York Rangers as well.

http://videos.fansub.tv/tube.php/yt... DETROIT RED WING Ted Lindsay speaks in 1995/

This why the NHL was often referred to as the Norris House League in those days. The following quote is taken from a Sports Illustrated article written in October 1957 and gives some insight into what was going on at the time with the Players' Association.

Because of the NHL's peculiar setup, it is sometimes called the Norris House League, and there's more truth than impudence in this piece of flippancy. As we have noted, the Norris interests own two of the six NHL franchises outright and have heavy holdings in a third, a situation which virtually gives them control of the league. Jim Norris is chairman of the board of the Chicago Black Hawks. His brother, Bruce, is listed as president of the Detroit Red Wings. His sisters, Eleanor and Marguerite, are co-owners with Bruce. The family owns a controlling interest in the Madison Square Garden Corporation, which operates the New York Rangers, so that this club also is a Norris enterprise. When the Norris interests took over control of Madison Square Garden in 1955, with Jim as president, he appointed General John Reed Kilpatrick president of the Rangers as a concession to public opinion (something which rarely bothers Jim much). The three Norris clubs swap players as needed, in odd or ton lots, without giving the matter a second thought (see box).

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1132954/3/index.htm

 

[justsomeguy]

I still don't know how Mario Lemieux was able to own and play for the Penguins. My guess is that active players can only be minority owners of a team.

The club owed him a whack of money in salary from his glory years that he deferrerd to reduce taxes at the time. When the payments came due, the club was pretty much broke so they had to give him equity in lieu of the owed monies.

If they'd owed him more, he might well have ended up as sole proprietor.

 

[Kirby Mandrake]

not me

 

[Ogopogo*]

Because it was almost certainly a primary factor in choosing hockey player as a job. Consider this:
If you wanted to go to space you would have to get a job with NASA. If you chose not to work for NASA your chances of going to space would be slim, but not none. If you wanted to win a Stanley Cup you would have to get a job with the NHL. If you chose not to work for the NHL your chances of winning a Stanley Cup would be none. If NASA claimed exclusive rights to space that would also be a monopoly.
Ted Lindsay or any other hockey player should have had the free market right to own their own NHL team or start their own league and be able to challenge the NHL for the Stanley Cup.

Kirb, you are putting far too much weight on a 35 pound piece of stainless steel. There are hundreds of other reasons for playing pro hockey - if the Stanley Cup didn't exist do you honestly think Ovechkin would go back to Russia to be a soldier in the Red Army and Crosby would run a fishing boat in the Atlantic?

 

[Kirby Mandrake]

not me

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

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.

Not a relevant analogy. I'm an accountant. It's what I do best. Let's say for example there are 6 accounting firms. If I don't like the way I'm being treated by my accounting firms, I can choose to go to one of the other accounting firms and go to the highest bidder. I don't need to change my profession from what I do best. Why should I become a doctor, farmer or whatever, if what I do best is accounting? Our industry allows freedom of movement.

What Dineen did best was play hockey. In order to play hockey he had to be owned by one of the 6 teams. If he didn't like what how he was treated, he had very little leverage because the 6 big teams acted like a cartel. These are unfair labour practices and if they did that in my industry they'd be sued.