View Single Post
11-20-2012, 11:14 PM
Registered User
DAChampion's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,550
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Yes, because that's exactly what people are saying..

You sound like the republicans just making crap up about Obama and exaggerating.
Your point has been that the players have no legitimacy to complain because they are well-off. You are the one who brought up water quality in the third world and the plight of the Palestinians as contrasts to the players.

In general a lot of people feel that the owners should get more money on the basis that players are overpaid. It's part of the legacy of 50 years of pro-corporate propaganda. The same is true of auto companies: more people are bothered by the high wages of auto-assembly workers than by the bonuses of the chief executives.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I have been saying it right from my first post on the matter, I think a 12% rollback isn't a huge demand.
That's what unions across North America believed at various times, most of whom have now ended up with nothing and their former members are ruined. Have you not heard about Hostess? The workers' pensions might be getting taken away.

You are a Pollyanna -- you believe that "everything is going to be fine, it always is", the truth is things don't always end up fine. Most people don't subscribe to that rose-colored view, with good reason.

If you want to end up with a piece of pie, you need to fight. If the union doesn't fight, they would have lost 25% this time (the NHL's first offer), they would lose 25% in the next lockout in 5 years, 30% or 40% in the lockout five years after that, and eventually lose all their rights such as pensions, health insurance, and guarantees to still get paid even if they suffer an injury on the ice.

DAChampion is online now