View Single Post
Old
11-23-2004, 08:45 PM
  #10
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave
Except the players NEED a league to play in and the owners can always hire scabs. Goodenow said never when he doesn't exactly have the power in the situation.
Who says they can? There is this assumption that the NHL can wave a magic wand and get the NLRB to allow them to impose a CBA. If they tried right now, the NLRB would laugh them out of court. They will probably laugh them out of court even if they get specific and do table a real offer and make several efforts to negotiate it.

MLB could not make an impasse stick when they tried the "salary cap or nothing" strategy. The NLRB rejected the idea that the parties were at impasse in a situation that was not dissimilar. Why does anyone believe the NHL owners will be any more successful?

The one advantage MLB had was they could use strikebreakers because the players were on strike. It was a shortlived effort because the fans could see that the teams being fielded were bush league and they obviously weren't buying, but still the league could try. This is not a strike. It is a lockout. You can't use replacements to break a lockout.

The NHL has to put some real specific proposals on the table and they have to negotiate them in good faith. They haven't even started the process.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline