View Single Post
Old
11-02-2012, 04:40 PM
  #87
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Because you keep using general language like:
The owners have all the leverage because they are rich.

Well, In the case of Ford and the UAW, Ford should have all the leverage, right?

In the case of the steel workers vs the steel company, the company should have all the leverage right?
Ford and companies like them do not have a monopoly like the NHL and other major pro sports do in the U.S. Ford would lose millions and millions of dollars to similar companies and would be way behind their competition if a strike got ugly. Employees at those companies have some leverage due to the presence of viable competition in their market space.

The NHL has no competition in the U.S. within their target customer market. The owners are billionaires with a plethora of other business ventures and investments and will still be fabulously wealthy even without their NHL investment. The owners can hold out as long as they want and they know it. The players will have to cave at some point b/c the vast majority of the players have nowhere else to turn to make a substantial amount of money and need that income to enjoy their preferred lifestyle. The owners are significantly more business and financially savvy, more well connected and have far more experience in negotiations like these with their vast business experience. What happened in 1994 in MLB forever changed these types of negotiations and it will never happen again unless MLB, the NFL, NHL or NBA have viable competitors in the U.S. that destroys its monopoly. The players have no shot at winning and their best hope is a tie with roughly equal concessions. It's just a simple understanding of business and economics and the leverage wealthy people will have in monopolies.


Last edited by Roy S: 11-02-2012 at 06:09 PM.
Roy S is offline   Reply With Quote