View Single Post
Old
11-13-2012, 06:24 PM
  #92
vadim sharifijanov
Rrbata
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The NHL has a monopoly on elite level hockey in North America, that's limitation enough.



That compares to the assignment of NHL players to farm clubs. I don't have an issue with that. Your example is not comparable to the Entry Draft however. A valid comparison would be an "Entry Draft" held by the 30 top car manufacturers in North America assigning entry-level workers to certain manufacturers. Worker A can only work for Ford, Worker B can only work for GM and so on. Does that sound legal to you?



The preservation of the health care system is in the public interest. Like all young men in my country I was obliged to serve either in the army (for 6 months) or in a social service provider (for 9 months). I had to work in a nursing home and even though it wasn't my choice to serve at all in the first place, I accept that the state can force you to do so for the common good of the people. But only the state (monopoly on the use of force), with private enterprises (like the NHL) it's a different matter. Public interest? The NHL Entry Draft only serves the business interests of NHL franchises and maybe (just maybe) the interests of North American hockey fans. That's not enough to deny employees their rights/freedoms (and we're talking about rights/freedoms here for they are accepted and observed as such in other business and industries).



I have explicitly stated that it's not slavery we're talking about.
i know i said i'd stop talking about this, but i think i've figured out where the logical fault line in your argument lies.

a hockey player does not have an inalienable right to play hockey at the highest level. one: he can play high level hockey in europe if he so chooses. but furthermore, the NHL doesn't have a monopoly, it has merely cornered the marketplace at the highest level. young mike comrie (or whomever else) doesn't like it, he can go play in the AHL, or the ECHL. or he can probably make similar millions playing in omsk.

in your scenario, if ford and GM decided to join forces and any entry level employee entering that conglomerate has to go where the companies want her or him to go, well that employee can go work for chrysler. if chrysler joins the conglomerate too, there are other less high profile auto manufacturers.

the question is about entitlement. and that's why i take issue with talking about "freedom" here. if it truly were the case that the NHL cornered the market on all professional hockey in north america (or just the united states, or just canada), then we have a problem. but there are alternatives. just because those alternatives are not as desirable as the big league, doesn't mean they don't exist. therein lies the legal rub.


a different case would be the one given above about health care in ontario. the province of ontario has a monopoly on the health care system in that province. a doctor with a non-canadian degree that wants to work in, say, toronto has to spend two years (maybe four, but i think it's two) in whatever underserved town the province desires. now in that case, i might be inclined to call it a labour freedom issue (i certainly also see the "public good" side of that argument, but the ontario government is also creating an uneven playing field that possibly unfairly protects its own-- MDs with canadian degrees). but the NHL, not truly a labour freedom issue.

the actual legalities of the NHL as a business enterprise, i can't say. i'm not a lawyer. but i think what you're suggesting is tantamount to saying, "i want a job at x corporation. but i don't want to work where x corporation wants to place me. i am unwilling to work at y corporation, which is an inferior organization and where i can't make maximum money. x corporation is impinging on my freedom."

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote