Thread: We are BACK!!!! NHL AND NHLPA REACH DEAL ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Originally Posted by x-wingcamewest

You mean they are not?

Unions have problems just like everything. But look at life for workers before unions and after unions. For many workers every day was life-threatening and in some places virtual slavery where workers were paid less than the employer-owned town charged them to eat and sleep so all they ever did was incur more and more debt. It hasn't been that way for many many years but it's BECAUSE of unions that almost no workers in America have to deal with that crap anymore. But if unions went away like Tea Partiers want, all that stuff would come back.

I've been in a union, negotiated as a union member, been in management, and been side-by-side with owners and CEO-types negitiating "against" unions. I've seen it all and overall in today's world it's as even a playing field as it's ever been. Sometimes ownership has the upper hand and sometimes the union does...and in both cases, it's bad. In my experience, it's best when both sides have roughly equal power.

Per Pierre LeBrun of ESPN
-----
Where we are:

1. CBA term -- The NHL wants a 10-year deal with a mutual opt-out after eight years. The NHLPA was last willing to go eight years with the union’s unilateral right to opt out after six years.

2. Individual term limits on player contracts -- The NHL wants five-year limits (with seven years allowed for players re-signing with own teams); the NHLPA last countered with eight-year limits.

3. Salary variability on contracts -- The NHL wants 5 percent year-to-year salary variability limits on all contracts; the NHLPA last proposed no year less than 25 percent of value of highest year only in contracts of seven years or more.

4. "Cap Benefit Recapture" formula -- This is the Roberto Luongo back-diving contract rule, penalizing teams with cap hits even if a player retires before the end of his contract. The NHL has different versions of how it works, but regardless, all of the NHL’s versions apply to all existing contacts of five years or more; the NHLPA applies only to remaining terms of seven years or more.

5. Salary cap -- The NHL is at $60 million with a one-year transition/grace period to get there; the NHLPA is at $67.25 million and never going lower.

6. Payroll range -- The NHLPA wants at most plus or minus 20 percent of the midpoint, the NHL has a more involved formula.

7. Transition rules -- This will be a tricky one, perhaps the last issue to get resolved. The NHL doesn’t want any more money spent outside the system; the NHLPA wants compliance buyouts plus a cap on escrow to facilitate the transition for teams to get under a smaller cap and players to go down to 50-50 of hockey-related revenue. But the league sees that as money that would be outside the system.

-----

With a Jan 2 deadline for a disclaimer to be filed, it looks like they are pretty far apart to me. Any two to tackle will take some gritty-time, but all 7 looks to be tough to do in the next 11 days. tick, tick, tick....

Originally Posted by aragorn

Per Pierre LeBrun of ESPN
-----
Where we are:

1. CBA term -- The NHL wants a 10-year deal with a mutual opt-out after eight years. The NHLPA was last willing to go eight years with the union’s unilateral right to opt out after six years.

2. Individual term limits on player contracts -- The NHL wants five-year limits (with seven years allowed for players re-signing with own teams); the NHLPA last countered with eight-year limits.

3. Salary variability on contracts -- The NHL wants 5 percent year-to-year salary variability limits on all contracts; the NHLPA last proposed no year less than 25 percent of value of highest year only in contracts of seven years or more.

4. "Cap Benefit Recapture" formula -- This is the Roberto Luongo back-diving contract rule, penalizing teams with cap hits even if a player retires before the end of his contract. The NHL has different versions of how it works, but regardless, all of the NHL’s versions apply to all existing contacts of five years or more; the NHLPA applies only to remaining terms of seven years or more.

5. Salary cap -- The NHL is at $60 million with a one-year transition/grace period to get there; the NHLPA is at $67.25 million and never going lower.

6. Payroll range -- The NHLPA wants at most plus or minus 20 percent of the midpoint, the NHL has a more involved formula.

7. Transition rules -- This will be a tricky one, perhaps the last issue to get resolved. The NHL doesn’t want any more money spent outside the system; the NHLPA wants compliance buyouts plus a cap on escrow to facilitate the transition for teams to get under a smaller cap and players to go down to 50-50 of hockey-related revenue. But the league sees that as money that would be outside the system.

-----

With a Jan 2 deadline for a disclaimer to be filed, it looks like they are pretty far apart to me. Any two to tackle will take some gritty-time, but all 7 looks to be tough to do in the next 11 days. tick, tick, tick....

Doesn't look good.

Originally Posted by jt

. . .

Originally Posted by Bogey

They CAN'T police themselves.

That would be collusion and then they would be in serious legal trouble.

Originally Posted by AngelEyes

Bogey, I don't think that Thud meant "collusion" when he used the phrase "police themselves". I think he meant that many of the franchises have continually shown that they don't have the necessary self control when it comes to individual team operating costs, especially salaries.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Thud

Exactly.

So if you're, say, the Predators or, say, the Wild...how would you compete but also show the "necessary self-control"?

I appreciate those of you that breakdown the different scenarios. I don't have the time nor the energy to get that involved especially since I have no stake in the game, except for watching. They are an interesting read.

Thanks again,

Originally Posted by jt

Unions have problems just like everything. But look at life for workers before unions and after unions. For many workers every day was life-threatening and in some places virtual slavery where workers were paid less than the employer-owned town charged them to eat and sleep so all they ever did was incur more and more debt. It hasn't been that way for many many years but it's BECAUSE of unions that almost no workers in America have to deal with that crap anymore. But if unions went away like Tea Partiers want, all that stuff would come back.

I've been in a union, negotiated as a union member, been in management, and been side-by-side with owners and CEO-types negitiating "against" unions. I've seen it all and overall in today's world it's as even a playing field as it's ever been. Sometimes ownership has the upper hand and sometimes the union does...and in both cases, it's bad. In my experience, it's best when both sides have roughly equal power.

You perspective about the positive impacts on our lives are exceptionally biased to your political belief. Unions did have a place and play a role but those positives have turned to negatives with many examples where they have gone too far. Of particular note is where unions are now in place en mass for government jobs. Were the being exposed to sub-human treatment by the people of this country who are their employers? All the modern affect of union impact is today is much higher taxes, near bankrupt governments, and maybe some ex-bakers looking for new jobs.

Originally Posted by Rocket

You perspective about the positive impacts on our lives are exceptionally biased to your political belief. Unions did have a place and play a role but those positives have turned to negatives with many examples where they have gone too far. Of particular note is where unions are now in place en mass for government jobs. Were the being exposed to sub-human treatment by the people of this country who are their employers? All the modern affect of union impact is today is much higher taxes, near bankrupt governments, and maybe some ex-bakers looking for new jobs.

I don't think it's a bias at all. I think it's reasoned...but to each their own...

I agree with you completely that some union efforts have turned to negatives and have gone too far but to imply that it's all unions is ridiculous.

As to government, keep in mind that most of the high paying government jobs aren't union at all. Most of those folks are contract employees who get no benefit from unions. For the rest of them, they don't get what you think they get. The typical/average state/local/schools retiree gets about a 25% (of their salary) pension with no health benefit...and no 401(k) type retirement fund. It's not exactly a windfall. The ones who get the windfall retirements are mostly non-union. The exception is police and fire people and that's a whole different issue that's got nothing to do with unions and unionizing and everything to do with politics and voters being pussies.