HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHLPA Proposal (PDF)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2004, 01:59 AM
  #26
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Sorry but proposals must contain more than one subject of bargaining. To negotiatiate on only one subject of bargaining and refusing to bargain on any other mandatory subject of bargaing is a no no. Mandatory subjects of bargaining include wages, conditions of work, arbitration and free agency.
They gave proposals. You are incorrect in my opinion.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 02:15 AM
  #27
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
They gave proposals. You are incorrect in my opinion.
Have you read these "proposals" most of them don't even qualify as paragraphs. And no matter what you and I think, the NLRB has very specific guidelines. I suggest you might want to read up on them.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 03:31 AM
  #28
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,731
vCash: 500
Nobody ever talked about the length of the proposals. Daly gave summaries of what their offers were about, these were not the official offers...

Sanderson is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 03:48 AM
  #29
no13matssundin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
To the average hockey fan, they'll hear that the players are prepared to give back a quarter of their salary and that's about it. The players are willing to cut a quarter of their salary and the owners won't accept it?.
That, my friend, is the whole idea behind this "proposal". Its a PR stunt to make the average hockey fan say EXACTLY that, without putting forth a framework that solves the SYSTEMATIC problems of the league. I'll give Goodenow this: hes smart and hes playing the public, but this is no solution... 20 cents on 45 mil? No linkage? and the 24% rollaback is a one time thing... as Brian Burke said on TSN: "Any time you ask the PA to guarentee those numbers, they wont because Goodenow & co. have promised that theyll eventually get it back. This is a quick fix and not a systematic solution"

And after reading through the thing, its clear thats all it is.

no13matssundin is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 05:41 AM
  #30
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Do you have any idea what bargaining in bad faith is?

3. Take it or leave it bargaining is a huge no no. Negotiation is just that. The NLRB demands that both sides come to the table with the clear intent on give and take to get an agreement
Do you know what bargaining in bad faith is?
Because what you just said simply isn't true according to the NLRB:

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_file...p#questionID87
"Bargaining obligations are imposed equally on the employer and the representative of its employees. It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other. The obligation does not, however, compel either party to agree to a proposal by the other, nor does it require either party to make a concession to the other.

The NHL and NHLPA are meeting. They are having negotiations. That is good faith bargaining.

And I noticed that you continue to ignore threads where anyone dares to point out you're wrong:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.p...23#post2207823

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 06:23 AM
  #31
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Have you read these "proposals" most of them don't even qualify as paragraphs. And no matter what you and I think, the NLRB has very specific guidelines. I suggest you might want to read up on them.
Don't confuse a press release with an actual proposal. Just because you haven't seen a full proposal doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

ceber is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 06:32 AM
  #32
Shane
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpion88
Good thing they included Arturs Irbe in this critical meeting. His input would have been absolutely crutial in making these decisions!!
Well, despite him being shafted by the Hurricanes last year, he still is an NHLPA vice president and has every right to be there as Trent Klatt, Vinnie Damphousse, Bill Guerin, Daniel Alfredsson, and Bob Boughner.

Shane is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 06:44 AM
  #33
Benji Frank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,650
vCash: 500
For whatever reason, my laptop only opens blank pages.

Does anyone have a link that provides a more detailed summary of the 6 components?? Mainly interested in how the 24% wll be phased in over 3 years as it says on the NHLPA front page. The wording on this is pretty significant considering how many contracts are up now and after this year. I'm starting to think this coupled with only a 20% luxury tax at 45 million might not really mean a whole lot in comparison to all the PR the offer generated for the PA. I guess it depends on what type of counter-offer they're willing to accept.......

Benji Frank is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 06:47 AM
  #34
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Use this link to read the entire PDF. Summaries don't cut the mustard.
http://www.nhlpa.com/Proposal/PDFTransferFile.asp

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:02 AM
  #35
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Do you have any idea what bargaining in bad faith is?

my 4.0GPA, with 95% in Human resources, suggests I have a pretty good understanding.


Last edited by MacDaddy TLC*: 12-10-2004 at 11:11 AM.
MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:08 AM
  #36
Lionel Hutz
Registered User
 
Lionel Hutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Locking the Lounge??
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Do you have any idea what bargaining in bad faith is? What has the NHL done to bargain in bad faith, let me see, the NLRB would view all of the following bargaining in bad faith.

1. They have not tabled a formal proposal since negotiations started, 6 one paragraph concepts are not proposals

2. Like it or not the union has made 2 proposals, neither the league has offered a counter proposal

3. Take it or leave it bargaining is a huge no no. Negotiation is just that. The NLRB demands that both sides come to the table with the clear intent on give and take to get an agreement

4. Proposing items that are mandatory subjects of bargaining that are designed to frustrate the process of bargaining is a no no. They like to refer to this as surface bargaining.

5. It is highly illegal not to provide the books when you start screaming financial circumstance. This does not mean the Levitt report, the PA is entitled under law to the real books. Oh and if the owners want to go to impasse they're goona have to cough up with the real books to the NLRB

6. The league has already been taken to the board over there lack of providing a list of locked out players

Add it all up you get bad faith. The players are playing by all the labor laws.
I have a good idea what bargaining in bad faith is. Those six factors do not even come close.

Lionel Hutz is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:24 AM
  #37
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Hutz
I have a good idea what bargaining in bad faith is. Those six factors do not even come close.
Oh really the NLRB and US Supreme Court disagrees

#6 - http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_file...21/321-142.pdf

http://www.braunconsulting.com/bcg/n.../bargain2.html
http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/o...5/95-6048.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=369&invol=736
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=361&invol=477

Let me know if you would like any further case cites I can provide them.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:46 AM
  #38
Lionel Hutz
Registered User
 
Lionel Hutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Locking the Lounge??
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,982
vCash: 500
"When faced with a bad faith bargaining complaint, a labour board will be very reluctant to evaluate the reasonableness of either party's proposals. The requirements of “good faith” and “reasonable efforts” are procedural ones designed to ensure no more than that (1) the employer recognize the union as exclusive bargaining agent, and (2) the parties engage in a full, free,honest and rational discussion of their differences. Within these requirements the parties remain free to bargain hard and to steadfastly disagree."

This is a quote from the labour relations board.

#2 is easily satisfied in this case. The NHL has been open to talking and has accepted the NHLPA's request when they made it. The fact the NHL wants to sit back and say "we need a link betweent revenue and salaries, and we won't negotiate until then" is not bad faith. They are clearly stating what they feel the league needs.

Thanks for the links, but I'm not convinced. Based on what I've been taught about bad faith negotiations, I see none here.

Lionel Hutz is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:06 PM
  #39
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benji Frank
For whatever reason, my laptop only opens blank pages.
Not "only" blank pages for me, but certainly lots of them. Can anybody please confirm to me whether you are able or not to view the entire text of the report? Or has the NHLPA only constructed/released a rough framework with lots of blank spots?

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:29 PM
  #40
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Yesterday I was getting a 235 page PDF document. I couldn't print it though or download and save it. Today i couldn't even get onto the page.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:34 PM
  #41
Brodeur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 12,063
vCash: 500
Maybe it's just me, but the 508 million saved over the next three years is inflated? The proposal notes that 269 million would be saved via the 24% rollback for the 2004-05 season. But that assumes a full 2004-05 season. So with a half season, the rollback would be more like 140 million for a shortened 2004-05 season.

Brodeur is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:18 PM
  #42
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwisshockeyAcademy
So what you are saying is that this was a proposal aimed at the average hockey fan as the NHLPA try to end the lockout by turning fans against the owners without trying to solve the problems at hand.
And what are the problems at hand?

Quote:
They may win a few fans with the proposal but it will not be the average fan that signs on the dotted line. The owners are going get a deal that works for them and this was not the one.
If the owners no longer have the support of the fans, they'll finally accept the best deal they can get or they'll risk the vast majority of fans tuning them out completely. If they don't have the fans, it won't matter what system is in place because they'll have lost a lot more.

Quote:
You know full well that a 24% cut in the current setup can be made back incredibly quickly. Yes the guys on current contracts do have to lay on the grenade to a degree but it will keep the current system intact and that is not a system that the owners will agree to.
How will the cut be made back incredibly quickly? Teams figured out that signing offer sheets is futile so there goes that method of escalation. As well, players like Iginla can be taken to arbitration so he can no longer set the high level mark for salaries by holding out.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:23 PM
  #43
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
Yesterday I was getting a 235 page PDF document. I couldn't print it though or download and save it. Today i couldn't even get onto the page.

i've got the whole file now. It is over 235 pages. I have managed to download the PDF file and will print it out and read it over the weekend.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 02:56 PM
  #44
wint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
I just went through it. Most of the proposal consists of team-by-team and player-by-player tables accounting for the savings promised by the proposal. There's the 24% rollback, lower entry-level contracts (that still leave the door open for unlimited bonuses for players who achieve top-15 stats league-wide), the light tax, revenue sharing, and changes to the arbitration and qualifying offer (QO) systems.

The best thing in the proposal was that owners can opt for arbitration in two cases:
1. When teams believe their QO would be overvaluing a player, they can take the player to arbitration BEFORE offering the QO.
2. Owners can, at the time of making their QO, elect to take a player to arbitration in the case that the player does not end up accepting the QO and does not himself want to go to arbitration. This ensures that there is no holdout.

But the PA avoided many other discussed changes to the arbitration/QO system:
1. QO's never get lower than 100% of previous salary (though the level at which players are only due 100% of their previous salary is cut from the average NHL salary to $1 million)
2. No "either or" arbitration (arbitrators can still pick a number in between)
3. Teams can only take 1 player a year and 2 players every 3 years to arbitration.
4. In both cases, teams must decide which player to take to arbitration BEFORE any offer is submitted, accepted, or declined.

But the most interesting part of the document, IMO, was pg. 15-17, a set of 3 examples of prior arbitration hearings (Martin Biron, Ruslan Salei, and Ruslan Fedotenko). The pages detail the comparables used by both the teams and the players in the hearing, and I could not believe the comparables used by the teams. NOT ONE of the team's comparables was at or below the salary award they requested from the arbitrator. In fact, of the 14 comparables listed by the teams, only 1 was not also used as a comparable by the player!

For example, Buffalo included Dunham (who was making $3.6 million) as a comparable for Biron in their case to get a $2.2 million award. What are they thinking? Are these representative of all arbitration cases? Is there any question why the league is bleeding money if this is how teams behave in arbitration cases?

wint is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:09 PM
  #45
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Those were interesting arbitration comparables werent they. I guess there wasnt a lot to draw from.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:23 PM
  #46
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Let me know if you would like any further case cites I can provide them.
Why, so you can ignore it when people point out the holes in them?

This first case is irrelevant. It says that a union interfered with the conduct of the business, and that even then it *WAS NOT* bad faith bargaining. As long as they're meeting and discussing, it's good faith.

Also irrelevant. The employer unilaterally implemented wages and benefits, circumventing the union, and the ongoing negotiations. That *is* bad faith.
Has the NHL implemented a CBA unilaterally? No.

Now this case is interesting, but goes way beyond our current situation. Requested information was not shared. They declared an impasse. They unilaterally implemented an agreement. And note that even the NRLB couldn't agree, as Cohen dissented.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:42 PM
  #47
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Why, so you can ignore it when people point out the holes in them?



This first case is irrelevant. It says that a union interfered with the conduct of the business, and that even then it *WAS NOT* bad faith bargaining. As long as they're meeting and discussing, it's good faith.



Also irrelevant. The employer unilaterally implemented wages and benefits, circumventing the union, and the ongoing negotiations. That *is* bad faith.
Has the NHL implemented a CBA unilaterally? No.



Now this case is interesting, but goes way beyond our current situation. Requested information was not shared. They declared an impasse. They unilaterally implemented an agreement. And note that even the NRLB couldn't agree, as Cohen dissented.


Ha, ha, ha. I love it when some wannabe labour lawyer gets smoked & doesnt have the cajones to deal with it.

Sammy* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:44 PM
  #48
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wint
The best thing in the proposal was that owners can opt for arbitration in two cases:
1. When teams believe their QO would be overvaluing a player, they can take the player to arbitration BEFORE offering the QO.
2. Owners can, at the time of making their QO, elect to take a player to arbitration in the case that the player does not end up accepting the QO and does not himself want to go to arbitration. This ensures that there is no holdout.
I don't know about best thing. The owner QO stuff is pretty toothless. You can use it on one player a year. But, not every year. And as you point out below, there's a limited number of comparables. So chances are, you won't be able to find anyone who's lower paid. So you're pretty much better off offering the QO.

But it would allow a GM to get a player signed, instead of a long holdout. That's it's primary benefit. Perhaps that just means that agents would have more players hold out so the owners won't be able to take them all to arbitration.

Quote:
For example, Buffalo included Dunham (who was making $3.6 million) as a comparable for Biron in their case to get a $2.2 million award. What are they thinking? Are these representative of all arbitration cases? Is there any question why the league is bleeding money if this is how teams behave in arbitration cases?
I expect they include some players making more money, so it doesn't look like they're trying to lowball the guy. But it shows why arbitration is insidious. Going there is a guaranteed raise, usually hefty because of the "tide raises all boats" aspect. Biron now becomes a comparable for some other goalie making less than him, and so on...

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 05:21 PM
  #49
wint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
I expect they include some players making more money, so it doesn't look like they're trying to lowball the guy.
But that's the weird thing...they're not. None of the owners' comparables in any of the 3 cases were at or below the award they were seeking. Half of them were at or ABOVE what the PLAYER was seeking.

So maybe there just weren't any lower-salaried comparables available? I can't believe that. Roberto Luongo is making $2.4 million. Roloson $2.2 million. Legace $1.3 million. Robert Esche $775,000. And the team brings up Mike Dunham at $3.6 million as a comparable to Martin Biron? I assume there must be some kind of strict guidelines about what can be used a comparable, but even still, it is hard to believe that Buffalo was doing their best to control salary escalation. Here is the case as it appears in the NHLPA's proposal:

Martin Biron
Club request: $2.2mil
Player request: $3.05mil
Award: $2.8mil

Club Comparables
Aebischer: $2.5mil
Cloutier: $3.05mil
Dunham: $3.6mil
Lalime: $2.9mil
Vokoun: $3mil

Player Comparables
Aebischer: $2.5mil
Cloutier: $3.05mil
Dunham: $3.6mil
Lalime: $2.9mil

How is that a well-presented case by the Sabres?


Last edited by wint: 12-10-2004 at 05:51 PM.
wint is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 05:41 PM
  #50
Lionel Hutz
Registered User
 
Lionel Hutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Locking the Lounge??
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Why, so you can ignore it when people point out the holes in them?

This first case is irrelevant. It says that a union interfered with the conduct of the business, and that even then it *WAS NOT* bad faith bargaining. As long as they're meeting and discussing, it's good faith.

Also irrelevant. The employer unilaterally implemented wages and benefits, circumventing the union, and the ongoing negotiations. That *is* bad faith.
Has the NHL implemented a CBA unilaterally? No.

Now this case is interesting, but goes way beyond our current situation. Requested information was not shared. They declared an impasse. They unilaterally implemented an agreement. And note that even the NRLB couldn't agree, as Cohen dissented.
Ha, to be honest, I didn't read them and relied on my own knowledge of bad faith.

Those cases really do contradict the posters point.

Lionel Hutz is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.