View Single Post
12-11-2012, 12:20 AM
Registered User
mossey3535's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,636
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MeHateHe View Post
I love the Internet game of I-know-more-about-stuff-than-you, but if having four friends who sat on a bargaining committee makes you smarter than me, then I am perfectly fine with that. The question was asked about the process. I've been in the process several times, augmented by lots of good training, so I responded about what I know. Feel free to doubt my bona fides.

My experience tells me that good union leadership outlines likely contingencies before the process starts. Consultations happen when unexpected events happen or when the process has broken down. It's not just about it being too onerous; it engenders doubt among the membership. It throws a wrench into bargaining. There are tremendous risks, and the likelihood of a positive payoff is slim.
I didn't say I was smarter than you, just that I understand how collective bargaining works. You're the one who is casting doubt on how much the rest of us 'understand' the collective bargaining process.

I didn't doubt your bona fides either, but as you've just said there are unexpected circumstances which call for consultation with the membership. Surely a major development like risking an entire season might call for a gauging of the temperature of the union members?

Further, I'm assuming that you were a part of a strong union leadership that was properly engaged with it's members - what I doubt is whether the NHLPA is an example of such leadership. In my opinion and experience they are not acting like one. There is a moral obligation to lead and maintain solidarity but there is an equal obligation to look out for the interests of the membership.

mossey3535 is offline