| 0 |
Subject: Lockout vs Strike
Posted by: The Left Wings
- [6142019] Fri, Oct 01, 2004, 07:15
I just noticed this. A lockout is when the employers "lock" the doors to prevent the labour from working. A strike is when the labour refuses to work.
The NLL players have just gone on strike. But in the NHL, it is the owners who lock the players out. Why don't the NHL players go on strike before they get locked out, and why don't the NLL owners lock the players out? |
| 1 | The Dienasty
ID: 3810111222
Fri, Oct 01, 2004, 07:58
|
If the NHL players went on strike before they got locked out then the public perception would have been that they wanted even MORE money on top the large, league crippling salaries that they were already paid...
The NHL owners, having no other recourse and being the more desperate of the two sides, initiated first and thus the whole situation is called a "lockout" and not a "strike".
|
| 3 | The Dienasty
ID: 3810111222
Fri, Oct 01, 2004, 08:04
|
I guess what i was getting at is that while both labor disputes have the same resulting work stoppage scenario, they are based on essentially opposite principles.
NHL (Lockout) = Owners want change. Players want essentially no change.
NLL (Strike) = Players want change. Owners want essentially no change.
The side that acts first gets thier term used to describe the situation.
|
| 4 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Fri, Oct 01, 2004, 18:24
|
I see. That makes sense. Thanks.
|
| 5 | holt
ID: 497552
Mon, Oct 04, 2004, 17:14
|
didn't even realize that there was a professional lacrosse league. had to do a search for NLL.
I don't know much about hockey - I just like playing roto-hockey. someone please explain how the players ever got such huge salaries in the first place. I mean, hockey's not extremely popular and I doubt that the TV ratings are real great.
|
| 6 | Silentz
ID: 479231410
Mon, Oct 04, 2004, 17:57
|
Holt, lots of reasons. Arbirtration, free agency, and stupid business decisions by owners all contributed to the current state. THN had an interesting article in a recent issue about the trend-setting deals that have caused the current situation. If I can find a link to it, I'll put it up. There are a few deals where teams made outrageous offers to other teams' stars (the Rangers for Sakic, Carolina for Yzerman for example), and rather than let the star player go, the current team matched the offers. Other teams have found ways to skirt the entry level rules, paying rookies much more than they should.
It's a big hairy mess, and no one is blameless here really.
|
| 7 | StLCards
ID: 56827248
Thu, Oct 07, 2004, 15:19
|
It used to be that players salaries were not disclosed, therefore, even the other players didn't know what each other made. Once the salaries started being disclosed, then the "star(s)" suddenly realized they were underpaid as compared to others and the upward trend started.
|
| 8 | holt
ID: 497552
Sat, Oct 09, 2004, 05:00
|
well obviously the owners need to make a profit, and the players want to play and earn what they're worth.
I know this won't happen, but it seems like a reasonable solution would be to have arbitrators come in and look at the revenue figures, look at payrolls and expenses, and then come up with an across the board salary slash (5%, 10%, whatever the figure would be) or a slary cap or whatever.
I know owners are to blame for a lot of this, but it's frustrating when players just refuse to accept that they make more cash than the game can support. their greed drives up ticket and concession prices. seems like they'd rather see the NHL crumble than accept any kind of reduction on their contracts. just once it would be nice to see a union and ownership actually work together for a solution. but instead they're adversaries like usual.
I'm not even real sure what this whole dispute is about. maybe I'm way off-base on this stuff. but the general public doesn't seem to have much awareness or concern that there may not be an NHL season. that should tell the players something.
|
| 9 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Oct 11, 2004, 21:44
|
Don't follow hockey much, but generally, the employers lock-out employees when there is no contract. Employees strike when there is a contract and they are not honoring it. Is that right?
|
| 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 2343587
Mon, Oct 11, 2004, 21:47
|
Not always. Very often, employees strike after they have been working after a contracr has expired but there is ittle or no progress in talks of a new one.
|
| 11 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Sun, Oct 17, 2004, 07:43
|
Well, the stupid thing is that the owners were competing against each other instead of working with each other. They were the ones who are responsible for driving up the salaries. The salaries won't get as high as they are right now if nobody make such offers.
The owners are basically asking the players to accept a salary cap to protect the owners/GMs from themselves. In a sense, it is unfair to the players, but they also have to realize that they (the players) are the ones who are destroying the game.
They should fold 4 franchises and go back to 4 divisions of 7 teams, because the talents are really spread out and every team has a bunch of crappy players. I was against the latest expansion ever since it was announced, and I'm still against it today. But of course, the NHLPA will never agree to it, because that means some of their players will lose their jobs, and this is exactly what a union is for.
|
| 12 | Ira
ID: 89232616
Tue, Oct 26, 2004, 18:24
|
Mike Ribeiro's gonna get in trouble for saying this:
link
|
| 13 | esposo
ID: 451053219
Fri, Nov 12, 2004, 18:32
|
post #12 - Ribeiro almost sounds like he is in favor of collusion. Collusion has been a sticky problem in MLB, when owners secretly discuss what they are going to pay a free agent. Then "miraculously" no one offers the player anything close to what he was worth in the previous season's market.
post #8 - "owners need to make a profit" - this is an interesting comment, Geoge Bush made no money while he owned the Rangers, he made a huge profit off the sale of his portion of the team
post #11 - contraction would make a ton of sense, but again, the current owner would need some major compensation; these same owners must be careful that the whole league doesn't fold
I am rambling, know little about this, and I wish pro hockey would return, I am getting tried of the Grand Rapids Griffins and the Michigan college hockey scene
|
| 14 | Valkyrie
ID: 5310211612
Tue, Nov 16, 2004, 17:39
|
I am a die hard capitalist except when it comes to professional sports entertainment. I am tired of the pampered players and overly rich owners. Since pro sports are public entertainment and enjoy antitrust exemptions I think all pro sports teams should be "nationalized" i.e. owned by the cities where they reside, no player shouild be able to make more than the president of the United States and all TV revenues and savings i.e. profits should be split 50% to cities as added tax revenue or ROI or whatever you want to call it and the remaining 50% should reduce ticket and concession prices for the fans. Call me a socialist but most of us would and do play these games for free and so would the overpaid players.
|
| 15 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Thu, Nov 18, 2004, 23:14
|
I can't imagine how you can let the market go free AND outlaw collusion at the same time without destroying the game itself. The NHL is sufferring the exact problems right now. The owners are the employers. They don't have to own a team if its not making them any money. And they sure don't have to hire anybody if this extra player causes his profit margin to drop. If you don't let GMs discuss what a player should be paid, then there must be a salary cap.
Contraction MAKES sense. They shouldn't have gone through the last 4 expansion teams. But now that the NHLPA have like 120 extra members, there's no way it would let the NHL cut those players due to contraction. I'm sure that it won't be hard to find 4 owners who would gladly shut down their teams.
I just watched a Martin Brodeur interview on The Score. He's just like most other players, who act like they want to play and it's the owners who are prohibiting them from playing. What's worse is that when he was asked how he feels when almost all of the Canadian polls show that the people are siding with the owners, he implies that the people don't know about the situation, and that the NHL's public relations department really did the job well in swaying the publics' view towards them. He also said that he was making $140k in 1994, and now he's making what he's making. He's very happy with the job the union did in 1994, and for that he'll back them up all the way.
This is completely pissing me off. Just cuz you got lucky, doesn't mean you'd remain lucky forever. Just take what you earned that you didn't deserve to earn and run with it.
This is not unlike the university tuition situation here in British Columbia. We had a 6-year tuition freeze that ended 2 years ago. Since then, the tuition almost doubled, and people complained. The deal is that the tuition at, for example, at UBC (which is a world class research institution in science), went from extremely cheap ($2500 a year) to still the cheapest amongst the biggest Canadian universities at $4500 a year (there are about a dozen smaller universities that cost less, and most of them only apply to Quebec residents). The people just don't understand that if it wasn't for the 6-year freeze, the tuition could be at like $6000 now. So just consider yourself very lucky to have the 6-year freeze, and pay what you should really pay.
And the NHL players should consider themselves to be very lucky that the owners messed up big time the last 10 years, and from now on, earn what they are really worth.
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|