View Single Post
08-30-2012, 05:01 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Why do you introduce all these examples of GM inanity? They're irrelevant to this discussion. And you're evading the main point, namely, that demanding pay while striking is so one-sided it's bizarre. Striking workers can't get unemployment benefits for a matter of time precisely because they're refusing to work. If the government won't pay for an indefinite vacation, why should the owners? Tell us about any contract you know of in any industry in the world where this is practiced. If you can't think of any, then stop prattling and vote for closure of the thread. I hope poster bcv aslo responds because he's just as out to sea as you are.
I would have thought someone who had almost completed a PhD program would have more knowledge of collective agreements. Collective agreements contain anything the two parties have agreed to include. For example almost all collective agreements will contain exclusions for certain positions and many will identify crucial essential positions which will be required by law to work and be paid during the strike. Not being completely familiar with the fine print of the NHL/NHLPA agreement my question was to see if anyone knew of anything in the collective agreement which expressly forbade players from being paid during a work stoppage. Several posters have indicated that the signing bonuses are still paid in the event of a lock-out or strike, serving as an end run around the collective agreement. Your replies to this post like your autobiograpghy posted elsewhere seem to indicate a somewhat arrested development so I'll overlook the juvenile tone of your posts.

habakkuk is offline   Reply With Quote