View Single Post
Old
11-25-2004, 09:41 AM
  #16
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakes
You honestly think anybody would accept a contract like that?!



You can be guaranteed that this is exactly what the NHLPA would organize. You can also be assured that the other unions would be fully behind this action. Which begs the question.. how would they broadcast and run the season if TV crews, ushers, ticket takers, food service workers and any other union that helps run the operation of the arenas are not allowed to cross the picket lines.
That could happen. But when salaries are tied to revenues, and the strikes decrease league revenues to under $1B, the players share would be 50% to 60% of that... That would drop the average league salary under $1M. Wouldn't that be kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Anyway, you are working on the assumption that the union would have a majority of players willing to strike. If the NHL put in some salary increases and security for the lowest paid players, do you think the union would be able to muster a majority for a strike vote? Especially after the league is shut down for a year or more? Many of the lowest paid players would be happy to be playing again so they can pay their bills and get a few years of good earnings from their short NHL careers.

As for other unions, is a guy making less than $15.00 per hour going to not work to support guys that are making $1000.00 per minute?

Edit: Even if they did want to organize strikes for specific games, that would be a breach of contract (they would have a signed CBA) and the NHL would file an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB. And if I was the NHL, I would be looking at instituting a league wide lockout if they tried that for a second game.


Last edited by djhn579: 11-25-2004 at 09:46 AM.
djhn579 is offline