View Single Post
Old
11-24-2004, 03:35 PM
  #51
bling
Registered User
 
bling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,934
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to bling
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Now, back to reality. I was the best at what I did for the company I worked for years ago. I was part of a union and when we went on strike I got a whole $55 a week.
But compared to your wages at the time, I am sure your $55 a week was a larger percentage than is $10,000 a month for most hockey players.

For a union comprised of wealthy men as is the NHLPA it only makes sense that they would have a strike fund to help their members meet expenses in a lockout situation, there is nothing sinister or underhanded about this.

As you yourself tell us, eye, your union gave a stipend for your strike. This is not even a strike by the NHLPA but a refusal by the team owners to allow the players to work (for the NHL), even more reason for the union brethern to recieve some sort of compensation.

bling is offline