View Single Post
07-16-2012, 10:29 AM
joshjull's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,840
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Your subjectivity and biases pervade your entire post. Anyways, initial collective-bargaining proposals are almost always one-sided proposals representing everything the party proposing wants, and then some. There's also an element of strategy to it, as well. You create as many bargaining chips as possible, and you determine when you're going to use each chip. Also, it's a sad truth in America that this is how people bargain: they anchor themselves to extreme proposals and negotiate from there. Do I wish it wasn't like this? Of course. But that's just the way it is now, and I'm sure the players are going to ask for the same or a better deal than they have now.
Actually thats not the case at all. As someone who is in a union (as is my wife), I've been involved in many of these things. Rarely, if ever, do the employees come with a list of ridiculous or pie in the sky demands because they have zero leverage to get them. Management usually comes at this from two angles. In one they are looking for a quick resolution, so they offer good terms that may need just a bit of tweeking in negotiations for an agreement. Since things are going well and they see little reason for a protracted battle. In another approach they come hard at the union, because they want or in some cases need big concessions since things aren't going as well. Or they just want to weaken (or even crush) the union and the battle has little to do with the relative success or failure of the business.

Oh, those poor players. They submitted to a CBA they hate so much that they extended it twice and would operate under it for time immemorial if they had their way. Let's all feel bad for those poor players who worked under obscene working conditions since 2005-06.
The option to extend it twice was part of the CBA and considering the union was still getting its house in order, it made a lot of sense.

No, let's not, because player/management bargaining relationships in the professional sports context is not analogous to "typical" union/management relationships in the private sector. Professional athletes have leverage and bargaining power in a way that hotel employees and janitors can only dream of. Professional athletes cannot be adequately replaced. It's much easier to replace a grocery store cashier.

The players wield significant power this time around, and will not be steamrolled. This is not a situation analogous to "typical" bargaining relationships.
I agree to a some extent that the relationship is not analogous. But there are unions in various professions that can't be adequately replaced. At least in terms of being done quickly during a labor dispute. My job, for example, as a professional firefighter. The city couldn't go out and get 700+ professional FFs to replace us during a labor dispute.

You're again operating from a premise that the most recent CBA was terrible for the players. Time has judged that agreement to be extremely beneficial for the players, as evidenced by the union's extension of the agreement on multiple occasions. And we all know the players would love to continue operating under the current agreement. As it turns out, it was a great deal for the players.
Its was a deal thats worked out great in the long run for both sides with record revenues coming in. But intially the players took a big hit and had to work their way back. I also don't think anyone is arguing the players are suffering. Most are saying its not unreasonable for the players to not want to give up much if anything after the last time around.

But you want management to take the bargaining table a philosophy that since they were the perceived winners the last time at the bargaining table, they should be "nicer" with their proposals this time around. Come on.
Perceived winners? They were without question the winners of the last CBA negotiations. When the smoke cleared the NHLPA leadership was in disarray, the players took a 24% across the board pay cut and went from 75% to 55% share of league revenues.

Who's insulted? You? Some other posters? Talking heads? Who's the arbiter or reasonableness? You?
I could certainly understand if the players were not happy with the initial proposal. It not only reduces their percentage of league wide revenue. Its also reduces what is considered as league wide revenue. Essentially a smaller cut of a smaller pie. Its also takes away the majority of the salary escalators players still have.

You want this to be a simple issue, but it isn't. There's far too much strategy and cat-and-mouse to these negotiations. Of course they're not going to get concessions to this extent. Of course the union isn't going to get anything close to what their initial offer will be. But, this is the process, whether you like it or not.
His point is it doesn't have to be like this and he is right. If the owners came in with a less aggressive proposal then it would be a smaller gap to bridge. The players have little leverage to demand much beyond what they have.

All the hand-wringing is the only thing that's "ridiculous" about the past three days
Its not ridiuclous that some posters are worried about losing some of the season. There is plenty of recent sports history to back that concern.

I was firmly in the owners corner last time around. They badly needed to change to the financial structure of the league. I felt it was worth losing a season if they got that. But the biggest issue now IMO is some franchises are struggling due to not having the revenue streams to support payroll. The owners want to fix that on the players backs by resetting salaries again. What needs working out is something among the owners, better revenue sharing. If they don't fix the revenue issues for those teams struggling to fund payroll. Then the problem isn't dealt with and will be back next round of negotiations.

Last edited by joshjull: 07-16-2012 at 10:47 AM.
joshjull is offline