View Single Post
Old
09-16-2004, 08:36 PM
  #34
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
bull****... The NHL is not a market or an industry... The NHL is a franchisee that operates in the professional hockey industry... The franchises operate under the franchisee... Nothing 'legal' says that the individual franchises should be competing for labour (other than the current CBA)... All the franchises belong and operate under the same company!!!
They are not. Anti-trust law says this. The NHL is not a company. The individual teams are companies. They could be organized this way, but they are not, and are very unlikely to adopt the model. It would have the NHL negotiating and paying all contracts as well as collecting all revenue.

I don't want to disuss this with you unless you are prepared to do the work. Read the case law and get a basic understanding as to how anti-trust legislation and labour legislation work together. They often conflict. The courts have declared very clearly that labour trumps anti-trust if there is a valid CBA, expired or not, that was freely negotiated between employees and employers. Otherwise, anti-trust legislation prevails.

Deathfromabove is correct in his post above as near as I can tell. If the NHL can declare an impasse - not exactly easy - they can effectively convert the lockout to a strike. Once at that point, they can try to get players to cross the line in the United States. There are jurisdictions - Quebec and BC, I think - where that is not legal. If it gets that far it will be interesting to see what happens.

If the Union decertifies, it becomes moot. I think the union will decertify as soon as the season is cancelled and several players will get ready to file collusion lawsuits. That was the baseball player's ultimate threat and it is the ultimate threat for hockey players too.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline