HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Jan 6/13: CBA reached to end the Lockout. Rejoice! (Post#783)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2012, 07:58 PM
  #376
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Shouldn't the players decide what they deem fair? What is wrong with a democratic vote?
standard union protocol:

don't put something to a vote ... they might accept and then you are cut off at the knees for future negotiations.

Saw this a lot when I was in the working world. Both sides want to fight over the last nickel and dime ... even though in reality the amount of time missed working was far greater in value than the final details. Its like buying a car ... the salesman tries to convince you $30,000 isn't a lot of money and you can afford it, and then when you start discussing exactly how much, he tries to convince you knocking $100 off the asking price is a large amount of money.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:29 AM
  #377
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
standard union protocol:

don't put something to a vote ... they might accept and then you are cut off at the knees for future negotiations.

Saw this a lot when I was in the working world. Both sides want to fight over the last nickel and dime ... even though in reality the amount of time missed working was far greater in value than the final details. Its like buying a car ... the salesman tries to convince you $30,000 isn't a lot of money and you can afford it, and then when you start discussing exactly how much, he tries to convince you knocking $100 off the asking price is a large amount of money.
This is a fairly inaccurate representation of what happens. The reason you don't put it to a vote is because a union has hired/voted for leadership whose job it is to know significantly more about labour negotiations than the average worker. It's a pretty simple system. Your average union member doesn't have the time -- or the inclincation -- to learn the ins/outs of labour contracts, benefits, etc., so they pay someone to do it.

Having the workforce just vote on every agreement that's offered would be wildly counterproductive and would likely result in people over-weighing their short-term interests, as people are wired to do. Unions are negotiating for the long term.

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but people have some pretty dense views of the roles unions have played in building and maintaining workers rights in North America. They pulled workers out of the dark ages of factory fires and slave wages. There are certainly times they have over-stepped their bounds, or have built in systems to protect workers that should probably be fired, but on the whole I have a hard time imagining why people have such a negative view of them.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:20 PM
  #378
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,880
vCash: 500
NBA owner Mark Cuban on NHL lockout: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...l_lockout_cba/

Quote:
"And if a market like the (Dallas) Stars can't survive with whatever they do, they should be embarrassed, because this is your chance to fix this."
It doesn't take an expert to google ticket prices in the league, the average last season was $57.

Dallas' average was 29$, almost half the average. Cuban should keep his mouth shut. It doesn't work in Dallas because people don't care enough to go for the cost of a good CHL ticket.

The NHL doesn't work in the desert/south....I dont care that Tampa, Dallas, and Carolina (at least their fans seem passionate) won a cup....they don't pay the bills.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:53 PM
  #379
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
This is a fairly inaccurate representation of what happens. The reason you don't put it to a vote is because a union has hired/voted for leadership whose job it is to know significantly more about labour negotiations than the average worker. It's a pretty simple system. Your average union member doesn't have the time -- or the inclincation -- to learn the ins/outs of labour contracts, benefits, etc., so they pay someone to do it.

Having the workforce just vote on every agreement that's offered would be wildly counterproductive and would likely result in people over-weighing their short-term interests, as people are wired to do. Unions are negotiating for the long term.

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but people have some pretty dense views of the roles unions have played in building and maintaining workers rights in North America. They pulled workers out of the dark ages of factory fires and slave wages. There are certainly times they have over-stepped their bounds, or have built in systems to protect workers that should probably be fired, but on the whole I have a hard time imagining why people have such a negative view of them.
My frustration from this process is what appears to be a willful blindness on the part of NHLPA negotiators as to their bargaining position. In short, it's not very strong. The league drawing a line in the sand and not budging is a reflection of that power imbalance. It's all well and good to plan for the long term as you say, but I don't really see that happening either.

A sound NHLPA long term strategy would be to concede on many of the immediate contract and monetary issues in return for mechanisms that allow for more leverage in the next round of negotiations. Absent that, we'll be in the same boat 5-7 years from now playing the same game of chicken with the same millionaires versus billionaires dynamic - hint: the Mack truck will always beat the Prius. It's not interesting and does nothing but damage a sport who was just starting to re-establish a foothold on network television.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:04 PM
  #380
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Sidebar
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,509
vCash: 50
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...cba-right-here

Quote:
One NHL governor provided ESPN.com with the framework for a deal he insisted would be palatable to both sides. Assuming the elements that were discussed last week in New York were still in place -- like $300 million in "make-whole" monies, agreements on free agency and arbitration rights -- the governor said he believes the following elements would represent the middle ground in the outstanding contracting, CBA term and transition issues.

Letís call it the Do This Deal or Get Coal in Your Stocking for a Thousand Years deal.

-A nine-year CBA with a seven-year out for either side.
-A six-year contract limit with front-load/back-diving protection and eight-year limits for players who have been with a team for five years.
-Some simple buyout option as long as the buyouts are within the salary cap.

...

When the proposal was described to one high-profile veteran player, he agreed it was the kind of offer that at the very least could be put to a vote by the playersí association.

Another player familiar with the often-tumultuous nature of the negotiations agreed that the governor's offer should prompt a vote. He wasnít certain it would pass, but at least it would give an accurate gauge of the union membershipís feelings about settling. Such an offer would also show that the owners were negotiating as opposed to merely making demands, which is the perception many players were left with after a second attempt at mediation Wednesday in New Jersey.
Just do it guys, we miss hockey

__________________

Richer's Ghost made my avatar
Nuckles is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:06 PM
  #381
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
I just read that too....it just seems ridiculous the owners couldn't agree to that...

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:16 PM
  #382
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Sidebar
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,509
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I just read that too....it just seems ridiculous the owners couldn't agree to that...
Yep, as Elliotte Friedman stated in his article, the owners already won.
They got their 50/50 split, they got a term limit on contracts (although the length is still being negotiated), they're getting a reduced salary cap.

Honestly, Bettman and the owners are causing us to miss a good chunk of games because they want to play chicken by refusing to negotiate and only giving the NHLPA an unfair offer.
If they weren't so greedy by trying to see if the NHLPA will break, they could have been negotiating this whole time and we could have had a deal done a week ago.

Nuckles is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:27 PM
  #383
Reverend Mayhem
Registered User
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,851
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Maybe some owners will win, but owners like the Coyotes, Panthers, Ducks, Blue Jackets I think will hurt big time maybe teams like the Lightning, Hurricanes, Predators, and Avalanche will be hurt as well. Out of those teams, the Coyotes and Blue Jackets I think will have to move in the near future as a result of such an unnecessary lockout unfortunately. 8/30 teams possibly more hurt. I don't see that as a win given how stingy the NHL has been will losing money. I doubt it hurts the NHL, but as individual teams it will hurt and lots of growth made in the past 7 years will be all for naught.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:10 PM
  #384
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,359
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I just read that too....it just seems ridiculous the owners couldn't agree to that...
Assuming it's not some imaginary NHl guy and some imaginary players. Assuming he didn't just take the NHL offer and the NHLPA offer and draw a line down the middle. I hope the NHL doesn't move off 10 years - every fan should be demanding they don't move off that - we need as long a time as possible between lockouts/strikes.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:06 PM
  #385
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
My frustration from this process is what appears to be a willful blindness on the part of NHLPA negotiators as to their bargaining position. In short, it's not very strong. The league drawing a line in the sand and not budging is a reflection of that power imbalance. It's all well and good to plan for the long term as you say, but I don't really see that happening either.

A sound NHLPA long term strategy would be to concede on many of the immediate contract and monetary issues in return for mechanisms that allow for more leverage in the next round of negotiations. Absent that, we'll be in the same boat 5-7 years from now playing the same game of chicken with the same millionaires versus billionaires dynamic - hint: the Mack truck will always beat the Prius. It's not interesting and does nothing but damage a sport who was just starting to re-establish a foothold on network television.
That's not a problem with the union, but the league. Blaming the union seems completely illogical.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:08 PM
  #386
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
Yep, as Elliotte Friedman stated in his article, the owners already won.
They got their 50/50 split, they got a term limit on contracts (although the length is still being negotiated), they're getting a reduced salary cap.

Honestly, Bettman and the owners are causing us to miss a good chunk of games because they want to play chicken by refusing to negotiate and only giving the NHLPA an unfair offer.
If they weren't so greedy by trying to see if the NHLPA will break, they could have been negotiating this whole time and we could have had a deal done a week ago.
They could have probably had the deal they're going to end up with in October. They just wanted to try to break the union -- unsuccessfully, as it turned out. Bettman's legacy, I guess.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:08 PM
  #387
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
My frustration from this process is what appears to be a willful blindness on the part of NHLPA negotiators as to their bargaining position. In short, it's not very strong. The league drawing a line in the sand and not budging is a reflection of that power imbalance. It's all well and good to plan for the long term as you say, but I don't really see that happening either.

A sound NHLPA long term strategy would be to concede on many of the immediate contract and monetary issues in return for mechanisms that allow for more leverage in the next round of negotiations. Absent that, we'll be in the same boat 5-7 years from now playing the same game of chicken with the same millionaires versus billionaires dynamic - hint: the Mack truck will always beat the Prius. It's not interesting and does nothing but damage a sport who was just starting to re-establish a foothold on network television.


I'm glad you aren't a part of the bargaining committee. Wow.

When would you propose that the players bargaining position was better? Revenues are at record highs, franchise valuation has been growing and earlier on in the year Bettman had been crowing about how strong the league is. If the league were in serious financial trouble they'd have no leg to stand on but that isn't the case.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:23 PM
  #388
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post


I'm glad you aren't a part of the bargaining committee. Wow.

When would you propose that the players bargaining position was better? Revenues are at record highs, franchise valuation has been growing and earlier on in the year Bettman had been crowing about how strong the league is. If the league were in serious financial trouble they'd have no leg to stand on but that isn't the case.
Too bad it's not a matter of winning an argument. Too bad an outside arbiter isn't deciding how this thing is going to be resolved. Too bad 'fairness' has nothing to do with it at all. Then, maybe the NHLPA would 'have a leg to stand on'.

The real issue here is that the PA's bargaining position is lousy because they don't have viable options that the league truly fears. Until they do, they will continue to live in fear of a constant knife at their throat: Lockout.

You're right that the NHL is profitable. Great. Owners want a bigger piece of that pie and the PA has no real mechanism to deny them. It's a terrible situation to be in when the only real option you have is the nuclear one: decertification, which is the very definition of a pyrrhic victory assuming it's even deemed legal.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:33 PM
  #389
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,579
vCash: 500
This league is a ****in embarrassment. Being run like a mom and pop store.

LiquidSnake is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:35 PM
  #390
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
Too bad it's not a matter of winning an argument. Too bad an outside arbiter isn't deciding how this thing is going to be resolved. Too bad 'fairness' has nothing to do with it at all. Then, maybe the NHLPA would 'have a leg to stand on'.

The real issue here is that the PA's bargaining position is lousy because they don't have viable options that the league truly fears. Until they do, they will continue to live in fear of a constant knife at their throat: Lockout.

You're right that the NHL is profitable. Great. Owners want a bigger piece of that pie and the PA has no real mechanism to deny them. It's a terrible situation to be in when the only real option you have is the nuclear one: decertification, which is the very definition of a pyrrhic victory assuming it's even deemed legal.
They are denying them as we speak and will likely continue to do so. They have bargained in good faith and the owners haven't...Perhaps I'm in the minority here but I'd rather see no hockey for as long as it takes than see the owners try and wring more out of the PA by trying to strongarm them. If the owners aren't prepared to move I'd love to see decertification, even if it takes another year to resolve it.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:47 PM
  #391
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
This league is a ****in embarrassment. Being run like a mom and pop store.
My exact opinion as well.

And I think it will take them much longer to recover from this than the brainiacs think it will.

And the teams that will be hurt the most are the ones they are continually trying to rescue.

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:48 PM
  #392
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
They are denying them as we speak and will likely continue to do so. They have bargained in good faith and the owners haven't...Perhaps I'm in the minority here but I'd rather see no hockey for as long as it takes than see the owners try and wring more out of the PA by trying to strongarm them. If the owners aren't prepared to move I'd love to see decertification, even if it takes another year to resolve it.
You may love the idea of decertification and the two year+ court battle that would ensue (should they even get that far - the NFLPA failed in their recent attempt), but would 32-year old Daniel and Henrik Sedin? What about 34-year old Roberto Luongo? The players stand to lose as much, if not more, if the season is lost simply because of the limited time they are at their peak.

And to add to that: What would the Canucks look like two years from now with no opportunity to re-tool via trades, with their best chips losing their value during a critical time window for contention?

Like I said, pyrrhic victory for all those involved.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 08:55 PM
  #393
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
You may love the idea of decertification and the two year+ court battle that would ensue (should they even get that far - the NFLPA failed in their recent attempt), but would 32-year old Daniel and Henrik Sedin? What about 34-year old Roberto Luongo? The players stand to lose as much, if not more, if the season is lost simply because of the limited time they are at their peak.

And to add to that: What would the Canucks look like two years from now with no opportunity to re-tool via trades, with their best chips losing their value during a critical time window for contention?

Like I said, pyrrhic victory for all those involved.
Everyone would stand to lose out...Unfortunate, but thats how it goes...but it wouldn't even be on the table as an option if the owners bargained in good faith. Right is right and thats the side I'm on...even if it is a pyrrhic victory.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:57 PM
  #394
alternate
Registered User
 
alternate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
This is a fairly inaccurate representation of what happens. The reason you don't put it to a vote is because a union has hired/voted for leadership whose job it is to know significantly more about labour negotiations than the average worker. It's a pretty simple system. Your average union member doesn't have the time -- or the inclincation -- to learn the ins/outs of labour contracts, benefits, etc., so they pay someone to do it.

Having the workforce just vote on every agreement that's offered would be wildly counterproductive and would likely result in people over-weighing their short-term interests, as people are wired to do. Unions are negotiating for the long term.

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but people have some pretty dense views of the roles unions have played in building and maintaining workers rights in North America. They pulled workers out of the dark ages of factory fires and slave wages. There are certainly times they have over-stepped their bounds, or have built in systems to protect workers that should probably be fired, but on the whole I have a hard time imagining why people have such a negative view of them.
the thing is, this isn't a real world labour dispute. When you back the players you're not really backing "labour". This isnt about whether the union gets it's members $55,000/year instead of $44,000.

Both sides are more or less equals in this. This is negotiating the terms of a partnership more so than collective bargaining. If the owners really had this massive negotiating advantage, why would they stop at 50 per cent? Why not 33? Because it's a partnership--league needs both sides to survive and thrive.

IMO the 57% was always intended by the owners as a transition. From no cap to a split heavily favouring the players, then after the players see that there contracts will still climb under a cap system, an equitable 50-50 split. I don't see it as a concession by the players, but as obvious and natural.

At this point, I see it as more the players stringing things along, not even necessarily to get more, but just to prove a point. I think the players recognize more or less the maximum they'll take, but they want to inflict as much harm to the owners pocketbook as possible...sort of as a way of saying if the owners are going to lock the players out every CBA, then the players are going to drag it out as long as possible.

alternate is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:33 PM
  #395
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
That's not a problem with the union, but the league. Blaming the union seems completely illogical.
From a moral standpoint, I agree with the union's stance. The league is immensely successful. Why should the players shoulder the financial burden to solve a problem that exists because of wealth disparity across markets?

That's not fair. I don't blame the NHLPA for being outraged at the prospect of having to agree to such a blatantly lop-sided offer. They're angry. I get that.

But given the situation, from a purely strategic standpoint, they should only care about what they can reasonably expect to get given the lay of the land. How far can they push things before it's a net negative and what triggers and clauses can they work into the new cba to strengthen their position going forwards? That's the logical position to take. That's the position I expect a cold-eyed professional like Fehr to take.

Leave the dying on the hill/Alamo mentality to the rank and file members.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:01 PM
  #396
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
the thing is, this isn't a real world labour dispute. When you back the players you're not really backing "labour". This isnt about whether the union gets it's members $55,000/year instead of $44,000.

Both sides are more or less equals in this. This is negotiating the terms of a partnership more so than collective bargaining. If the owners really had this massive negotiating advantage, why would they stop at 50 per cent? Why not 33? Because it's a partnership--league needs both sides to survive and thrive.

IMO the 57% was always intended by the owners as a transition. From no cap to a split heavily favouring the players, then after the players see that there contracts will still climb under a cap system, an equitable 50-50 split. I don't see it as a concession by the players, but as obvious and natural.

At this point, I see it as more the players stringing things along, not even necessarily to get more, but just to prove a point. I think the players recognize more or less the maximum they'll take, but they want to inflict as much harm to the owners pocketbook as possible...sort of as a way of saying if the owners are going to lock the players out every CBA, then the players are going to drag it out as long as possible.
They're really not:

1) You've got a 3 billion dollar pie split 30-ways on one side and 720+ on the other.
2) NHL foot soldiers make much less than the league average salary, creating real financial discomfort as the strike wears on.
3)720+ is more vulnerable to fractiousness simply because of their numbers - Hamrlik a case in point.
4) 50-50 revenue sharing is bound to drop once the possibility of salvaging the season passes.

There's definitely a tipping point past which revenue sharing would be sufficiently skewed that large numbers of NHL players would play elsewhere. But I don't think that's 50/50.

It's definitely not 50/50 in the name of partnership. Union/management negotiations are by their nature adversarial. There's nothing wrong with that.

I do share your view that the PA is stringing things along out of vindictiveness but that they see the situation clearly. That's why I'm still optimistic the season will be saved.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:21 AM
  #397
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,616
vCash: 500
The back-diving contract issue has me scratching my head. It seems like something that could be easily skirted, the way the Devils skirted 35+ contracts several times by claiming injuries. If Luongo wanted to retire at 39, couldn't he say he had a back injury that made it too difficult to play goal? I can't imagine a scenario where an injured player retiring would result in a cap hit against the team.

If Crosby gets a concussion when hockey resumes and decides to retire, are the Pens on the hook for his whole deal, or is this just some random puntative measure against long contracts, no matter what reason the guy stops playing? Seems weird.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:34 PM
  #398
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
This is a fairly inaccurate representation of what happens. The reason you don't put it to a vote is because a union has hired/voted for leadership whose job it is to know significantly more about labour negotiations than the average worker. It's a pretty simple system. Your average union member doesn't have the time -- or the inclincation -- to learn the ins/outs of labour contracts, benefits, etc., so they pay someone to do it.

Having the workforce just vote on every agreement that's offered would be wildly counterproductive and would likely result in people over-weighing their short-term interests, as people are wired to do. Unions are negotiating for the long term.

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but people have some pretty dense views of the roles unions have played in building and maintaining workers rights in North America. They pulled workers out of the dark ages of factory fires and slave wages. There are certainly times they have over-stepped their bounds, or have built in systems to protect workers that should probably be fired, but on the whole I have a hard time imagining why people have such a negative view of them.
Actually I could have done pages on in and gone into a lot more detail. I have dealt with labour negotiations and had to resolve a wildcat strike. I am not anti union - I am anti big unions, big business and big governments ....and lawyers.

The issue that always pisses me off is that the unions I dealt with always took a strike vote early, and hung that over the negotiations heads, even when they were down to trivial details.

And I do not have a negative view of them. I am overjoyed at people making a wage they can live on. I want to see a $15/hr minimum wage like they have in Australia.

I do not agree that seniority should decide every job promotion, and think unions need to be taken to task on productivity. I do not think government employees should be allowed to strike, however I am all for forced mediation with governments, which most governments refuse to do.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:37 PM
  #399
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
Too bad it's not a matter of winning an argument. Too bad an outside arbiter isn't deciding how this thing is going to be resolved. Too bad 'fairness' has nothing to do with it at all. Then, maybe the NHLPA would 'have a leg to stand on'.

The real issue here is that the PA's bargaining position is lousy because they don't have viable options that the league truly fears. Until they do, they will continue to live in fear of a constant knife at their throat: Lockout.

You're right that the NHL is profitable. Great. Owners want a bigger piece of that pie and the PA has no real mechanism to deny them. It's a terrible situation to be in when the only real option you have is the nuclear one: decertification, which is the very definition of a pyrrhic victory assuming it's even deemed legal.



I agree with you to a certain extent. The PA's bargaining position is lousy. Was always lousy. IMO, this is why they should have gone nuclear (decertification) before there was even a lockout. The Bettman history was there. They had to know he would hardline again. It seemed the only logical course of action was to make the process so disagreeable so as to level the playing field: Decertify. IMO, Fehr chose the wrong strategy from the outset.


And I'm unsure how decertification is inherently a pyrrhic victory? I prefer to think of it as all or nothing, with the players probability to gain all far outweighing that of the owners. If follow it through, the end result is a free market. What high to mid-level player wouldn't want that? It's the low end guys that the boot, but then the league does not run on their backs. The product has always been the first two groups.


The PA should have disclaimed right after they were locked out.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:38 PM
  #400
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
Yep, as Elliotte Friedman stated in his article, the owners already won.
They got their 50/50 split, they got a term limit on contracts (although the length is still being negotiated), they're getting a reduced salary cap.

Honestly, Bettman and the owners are causing us to miss a good chunk of games because they want to play chicken by refusing to negotiate and only giving the NHLPA an unfair offer.
If they weren't so greedy by trying to see if the NHLPA will break, they could have been negotiating this whole time and we could have had a deal done a week ago.
and

Letís call it the Do This Deal or Get Coal in Your Stocking for a Thousand Years deal.

-A nine-year CBA with a seven-year out for either side.
-A six-year contract limit with front-load/back-diving protection and eight-year limits for players who have been with a team for five years.
-Some simple buyout option as long as the buyouts are within the salary cap.


We fans have been stating proposals like this for a while now. There is no reason why these idiots can't get their heads out of their butts and get it done. In reality, I suspect neither one of them is willing to make the first move cuz they know the ***** on the other side of the table will try to get a little more.

And I am tired of TSN refusing my comments 90% of the time.

billvanseattle 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 12:05 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.