View Single Post
01-07-2013, 09:59 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 269
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Yeah, all that blather is meaningless. Why? Because unions in most industries don't represent a group of people negotiating exclusive service contracts with their employers on an individual basis.

In a pro sports negotiation in which it is clear from the very beginning that the pie will be shrinking, the union's job is to negotiate the most freedom of movement and most job security and financial security possible. In this atmosphere, it was clear the job security was going to take a hit as well, but the union's job is still to maximize what's possible in that situation. In these things, the NHLPA was successful because they were able to use the league's stronger desire to shrink the pie, as opposed to restrict the players, as leverage. 50% is 50%. Beyond the promotion of parity (also a unique concern to pro sports that doesn't exist in other collective bargaining), the league doesn't care at all whether or not a guy can get a 7 year deal instead of a 5 year deal. 50% is 50%.
I don't understand how we can say they were "successful". As a collective, I'd argue the NHLPA are easily worse off considering that the vast majority lost significant pay cheques for revenue neutral concessions.

This wining vs losing is the reason that these discussions are so poisonous. Lockouts/Strikes are supposed to be driven by the fact that the employer can't generate profit and the employees cannot generate salaries to drive to a result. When people are arbitrarily focusing on winning / losing based on "intangibles", you get this complete screw up that was the NHL lockout.

Let's look at this another way:
If back in Nov, the players association suddenly said "we want to re-prioritize and replace the make whole provisions, with these contracting rights changes", I find it incredibly hard to believe a deal wouldn't have happened almost immediately.

This would never fly because there is no way, the PA would consciously trade 300 million real tangible dollars for net neutral concessions.

And yet, we are going to argue that these net neutral concessions were worth the 700-800 million lost in prolonging this lockout?

Oni is offline   Reply With Quote