Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8747518/nhlpa-makes-preliminary-move-break-union

    " In the United States, antitrust laws prohibit owners from locking out employees who don't belong to a union, with the punishment triple the wages lost during the lockout. As long as the NHL players continue to negotiate under Fehr as part of the NHLPA, they don't receive that protection.

    But if they're no longer a union through decertification, that changes the dynamics of the entire lockout. Then, they can file antitrust lawsuits, targeting the wallets of their owners with a pretty compelling case. "

     

    Before I didn't know that the punishment could be "triple the wages lost during the lockout"

    Would the owners take this chance of going to court ?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from xdrive. Show xdrive's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    i dont think so, i thought there was another sport where something like this went down and the owners won in court, cant remember the details though

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mannyortez3424. Show mannyortez3424's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    I think the NBA threatened to do this last year and it actually kick-started talks...

    Could be wrong though...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8747518/nhlpa-makes-preliminary-move-break-union

    " In the United States, antitrust laws prohibit owners from locking out employees who don't belong to a union, with the punishment triple the wages lost during the lockout. As long as the NHL players continue to negotiate under Fehr as part of the NHLPA, they don't receive that protection.

    But if they're no longer a union through decertification, that changes the dynamics of the entire lockout. Then, they can file antitrust lawsuits, targeting the wallets of their owners with a pretty compelling case. "

     

    Before I didn't know that the punishment could be "triple the wages lost during the lockout"

    Would the owners take this chance of going to court ?



    They likely would,imo, claiming the NHL isn't the only pro league for the players to ply their trade ( KHL, Sweden,Czech,Fin etc) unlike pro football, basketball. I think the owners like their chances, again imo.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wheatskins. Show Wheatskins's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    The 'triple the wages lost" will only commence the day following de-certification. It would not apply to the first 88 days of the lockout.

    Both sides are starting to grate my stones. If they want to tear their eyes out over the money I give them, at least they can do it in private not in front of my face. I feel totally insulted, at this point, almost enough not to give them one more cent of my money.

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    In response to mannyortez3424's comment:

    I think the NBA threatened to do this last year and it actually kick-started talks...Could be wrong though...



    NBA did the same vote and the NFL threatened. In both cases yes it did kick start something.

     

    Yah 50 that was a point that an attorney from Canada made. My guess would be a good counter would be "why should I have to leave my country to work ?".

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

                        http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=647723

    " NEW YORK -- Today, in response to information indicating that NHL Players have or will be asked to vote to authorize the National Hockey League Players' Association's Executive Board to proceed to "disclaim interest" in continuing to represent the Players in collective bargaining, the National Hockey League filed a Class Action Complaint in Federal Court in New York seeking a Declaration confirming the ongoing legality of the lockout.

    Simultaneously with the filing of its Complaint, the NHL also filed an Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that by threatening to "disclaim interest," the NHLPA has engaged in an unlawful subversion of the collective bargaining process and conduct that constitutes bad faith bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act. "

    How can a "disclaim interest" be a subversion when their isn't a current CBA ?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    I don't think there are enough players that even understand what this means to get them to vote on it, let alone enough that would support it.

    This has gone from a drama to a LifeTime drama in a flash.  These guys are just hockey players.  If they canceled the LEAGUE and that was that, all of our lives would go on.  The US Justice system has more than enough to do these days.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    In response to Wheatskins' comment:

    The 'triple the wages lost" will only commence the day following de-certification. It would not apply to the first 88 days of the lockout.

    Both sides are starting to grate my stones. If they want to tear their eyes out over the money I give them, at least they can do it in private not in front of my face. I feel totally insulted, at this point, almost enough not to give them one more cent of my money.

     

     




    now you're talkin

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2012-12-18/nhl-lockout-news-2012-decertification-disclaimer-contracts-sidney-crosby-maple-l

    "14. In the event that the court does not grant the declarations described in paragraphs 9 through 13, the NHL requests a declaration that, if the NHLPA's decertification or disclaimer were not deemed invalid by the NLRB, and the collective bargaining relationship between the parties were not otherwise to continue, all existing contracts between NHL players and NHL teams (known as Standard Player's Contracts or "SPCs") would be void and unenforceable. "

    "The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has the power to provide that clean slate with Paragraph 14"

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Would a threat of disolving the union make the owners move off their demands ?

    I believe the whole disclaimer/decertification route was first tried by the NFLPA under Gene Upshaw.  The courts didn't rule in their favour, and the NFL has pretty much written their own ticket ever since.  Roll the dice and sometimes you lose.

    The NBAPA and NFLPA both went this route and deals arrived before the courts could rule (if I'm summarizing that accurately).

    The NHLPA is going to the well one time too many, I think.  The NHL has basically gotten out in front to have more certainty about how the court would rule in the event of a disclaimer.  If the NHL has the right to void all contracts if there's a disclaimer, do you think Alex "65 points" Ovechkin is going to gladly walk away from $10M+ for the next decade?  He might lose $4M a year if that happened.  Maybe even more.  Lecavalier, Parise, Suter, Weber - how many of those guys would go from knowing they have their careers locked in at goofy money for a decade or more to the possibility that they don't see 1/3rd of what they thought they had in their hands?  The NHL always has the option to 'cave' on the remaining rights issues and avoid triple salary awards as the NBA and NFL did.  They would likely act en masse and with little real sense of an alternative.  There's more of a spread with the players, more guys with more skin on the line.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share