In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

Not trying to be argumentive here, but it seems the above is a textbook example of what seems to be a guiding principle.  The only thing different here, is the dollar signs.  Should the volume of money, change what we consider to be right/wrong, good/bad?

Again, not looking to argue, just interested in your thoughts. 

 

[/QUOTE]

Sure why not ? 

Last I heard over 130 players have gone to Europe to make decent money ( where's their guiding principals ? ). Others live in their expensive homes living off their big bank accounts waiting for a resolution not having to worry about looking for work to survive. 

Guiding principles for the average worker during work stoppages are based on losing/having to sell their homes or look for another job to provide for their families.  

Guiding principals for NHL players are not based on the same concerns. 

People are trying to compare the two. The NHLPA and their negotiations should be compared to other professional sports and what they have done in recent negotiations. Not Joe Schmoe's union and their fight for average wages. 

Two different animals because of .........yes........... the volume of money involved.

 

[/QUOTE]

I was referring to your guiding principals, not theirs, and would suggest trying to keep your home while sufferring through a strike isn't about "values", but simply not being a part of the other 2%.

  Anyway, I agree labour unions are much different than professional sport unions, in terms of their overall responsibilities.

That's a pretty good point scooter, and something that kind of bugs me about the "player side" of these negotiations.  As I've said in other threads, this whole stupidity is more about the Crosbys, and Ovechkins, than the majority.  It rankles me that those are the ones standing out publicly, as they're the ones treated with silver spoons to start with. 

Over half of those good enough to make the NHL, play less than 100 games, and around 5%.....their first NHL game is also their last.  When just those 2 points are considered, that amounts to several "dreams' being dashed as a result of this lockout.  Not because some guys weren't deserving, or good enough...not because they were self absorbed, or greedy.....they just got screwed, and everything they worked their whole life for is gone.  And because of the comittment involved in their pursuit, most don't have much to fall back on.

In response to scooter244's comment:

What about the fringe players, ones who may only have a year of two to play NHL Hockey?  Maybe they finally made the roster last year, and made the NHL minimum, and have lost a year's wages (presumably), and maybe will never get their roster spot back because a new crop of youger cheap players is on board.  Any sympathy for them?

[/QUOTE]

More importantly, do I think their union has sympathy for them by taking the hard stance they have taken ? Nope. Does the union know that your scenario might happen to these players ? Certainly they do. My thoughts are that these lower players would have given in a long time ago because of knowing their time frame for making this kind of money is a lot less then the ones at the top. But like in any union the voices at the top are heard. Not from the bottom. 

The lower echelon employee ( different pay scales ) is affected the most. The ones making the bigger cash on a lesser scale. I've been on both ends of that scale and union negotiations have benefitted the higher wage earner always. Never even across the board or the other way around. 

No difference with these talks in my opinion. The 3rd and 4th liners will be the ones who'll take the biggest hit if a lockout continues. It s#cks but it's a way of life when it comes to contract negotiations.  

In response to stevegm's comment:

Sure why not ? 

Last I heard over 130 players have gone to Europe to make decent money ( where's their guiding principals ? ). Others live in their expensive homes living off their big bank accounts waiting for a resolution not having to worry about looking for work to survive. 

Guiding principles for the average worker during work stoppages are based on losing/having to sell their homes or look for another job to provide for their families.  

Guiding principals for NHL players are not based on the same concerns. 

People are trying to compare the two. The NHLPA and their negotiations should be compared to other professional sports and what they have done in recent negotiations. Not Joe Schmoe's union and their fight for average wages. 

Two different animals because of .........yes........... the volume of money involved.

 

[/QUOTE]

I was referring to your guiding principals, not theirs, and would suggest trying to keep your home while sufferring through a strike isn't about "values", but simply not being a part of the other 2%.

  Anyway, I agree labour unions are much different than professional sport unions, in terms of their overall responsibilities.

[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what this means.

I think unions are good in the right circumstances.  Autoworkers union is an example of a good union.  Teachers union, on the other hand, just doesn't make sense.  Kids need the best teachers teaching them to give them the best possible chance of succeeding in life.  Anything that challenges that (tenure for a bad teacher) is not in the interest of the child or the future of our country.

 

So, I'm for standing up for unions rights in general. :)

 

Guiding principles for the average worker during work stoppages are based on losing/having to sell their homes or look for another job to provide for their families.  

Guiding principals for NHL players are not based on the same concerns. 

People are trying to compare the two. The NHLPA and their negotiations should be compared to other professional sports and what they have done in recent negotiations. Not Joe Schmoe's union and their fight for average wages. 

Two different animals because of .........yes........... the volume of money involved.

 

[/QUOTE]

I was referring to your guiding principals, not theirs, and would suggest trying to keep your home while sufferring through a strike isn't about "values", but simply not being a part of the other 2%.

  Anyway, I agree labour unions are much different than professional sport unions, in terms of their overall responsibilities.

[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what this means.

[/QUOTE]

..that not losing your house isn't about guiding principles, rather the reality of doing what you need to, if you're not super wealthy.( in that 2% category)

cheers

"As anyone who reads a newspaper or news website these day can attest, that collapse of the unions and guilds has led to a correlating collapse in the quality of journalism. Kent, Cronkite, Murrow, Bernstein, Rather, Jennings, Woodward, Sinclair, Green, Frum (Barbara, not her kid), all of the giants of my industry were union people. Hannity, O'Reilly, Breitbart, Beck, Ollbermann, Coulter, Grace, Blitzer, Drudge, Eklund, the list is massive, are not, and as such are not held to the same standard of conduct"

Sorry, Red, I follow what you are saying to a point, but your list is terribly convienient in its overwhelming, obvious political bias.

I'd also say that you are comparing people we called "journalists" against many people who are properly called "entertainers" today and are not remotely expected to have the same ethical standards as a traditional journalist.  And I say that regardless of politics... regardless of speaking about Beck or Olbermann.

Walter Cronkite's job in reporting was not remotely comparable to Ann Coulter's job of opinion. Apples and oranges.

And if you want to make such professional and ethical comparisons, you would be far better off comparing the print journalists of just a few years ago with the unprofessional, untrained children typing away from their Moms' basements today and calling themselves "professional" bloggers.

"I have to wonder about these stories and how they started and get passed along as hearsay. There's probably a lot more to it than this version. I'd have to hear the employee's version before I took it as credible. Employers have been known to stretch the truth and most have a general bias against unions

The US Colleges and universities are some of the best in the world. The reason for the poor performance of the elementary level schools has more to do with political and cultural ideology than union teacher's"

Sorry, but your extreme union bias easily reveals your political ideology as well. Every comment is an assumption that anything negative said about the unions is a "stretch of the truth" even though you don't know that.   However, anything bad about your union teachers schools are the fault of some "political and cultural ideology" that you are very, very far to the left of.

This is a grand example of many of the posts in this thread proving the point of the OP... that most people's support of either the players or the NHL probably reflects their personal political biases.  I know mine does.

 

 

In response to SoxFanInIL's comment:

Are you saying that a person with a political ideology is incapable of forming opinions based on intuitive and analytical thinking?

In response to SoxFanInIL's comment:

Nice retort, yet keep in mind the information age is also different from the industrial age.  So when comparing journalist and "entertainers", the truth is it is a different world of communication... the world is flat.  Now, the balance in reporting the "news" is not liberal and is for the most part like the two party system in the United States, bought and sold.  If one does note historical trends, ie. refernce to the pendulum, the United States is in a conservative period. Those same conservatives created the debtor nation in the early 1980s, monetary policies are debt driven.  Yet we may not speak of those labels for both ends of the spectrum, liberal and conseravative, are playing party to formulating a US corporate/government entity that would make Orwell smile.  China is a quasi corporate/government.  My fear is the US is as well.  I love my freedoms too much to be a global citizen.  

The unions are like what Red stated, really not a factor in today's business world.  Like the "liberal" media perception, the union is a hold over from the days of the 1970s.   The world is diferent when the US finances debt with Chinese wealth.  Book has the best comment on this thread!  The NHLPA is not a union!  

Unions are not a factor? 

Ask Ford Motor Corp about that.

You are so 60s NAS.  God bless you.  I fight those attitudes each day, I hope till I die.  "The whole" is historically an engima.