Lockout discussion thread 2.0
View Single Post
11-21-2012, 10:13 AM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Originally Posted by
Factory unions were once very powerful. An acquaintance once worked in an auto-assembly plant in the 1970s, in real terms, they were making well over $100,000/year with great benefits. Since then that money has been transferred to management, and GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc have lost market share to foreign companies which still have strong unions.
One shouldn't make any mistakes with ideologues like Jeremy Jacobs. The long-term goal of his ilk is should be seen as reducing everybody else to zero. They will never stop fighting. They will never give up. They will never play nice. So neither should the other side. The owners have not earned the players trust. They have 180% more now than they did before the last lockout, they won the last lockout, and their first request was a 25% paycut for the players.
Contraction is an economic non-starter for the NHL as I have already explained. However, reducing players to zero or close to zero would simply be about restoring the NHL to where it was before ~1970 or so. It has a historical precedent in the peanuts Maurice Richard was paid.
In 1970, north americans use to buy goods made in the USA/CANADA
The reason why people aren't making 100K a year on a assembly line is because someone else in the world could do it for a fraction.
Hockey players are not going to be replaced by cheaper foreign labour.
I don't think Wing Wang Hoo of china is going to be replacing Brian Gionta any time soon, even if both are about the same size.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by coolasprICE