Because they wouldn't be getting half, they would be getting an 1/8th, not saying they aren't overpaid, but without the union you can't expect them to be paid fair just because they're supposed to be. There is always an exception to the rule and some abuse it. As for garbage men, they are being paid to clean up everybody's trash of who knows what, they don't get paid enough in my opinion.
- Boosinicka

One eighth??? You think you can hire a janitor for 7000 a year? Doubt it. You'd have to hide them on a boat and import them from africa for that.

There are some arguments to be made that some unions are useful in terms of worker safety and such, but honestly, there are hundreds of organizations dedicated to it, like WHMIS, and whatever.

There may be some instances that unions are needed. Its possible. The thing is, their damage, nuisance, costs, and blatant stupidity FAR outweighs that, to the point the usefulness of them is no longer visible to me.

They need to be abolished.

And I don't hate the oilers. I was just rattling chains yesterday.
- prock

Sounds like someone who's gotten kicked out of the union. Not everyone is educated in the code of business. Workers can be easily taken advantage of without realizing it. Unions give people rights and a voice with education in the matter. Like that guy is an amazing electrician and when it comes to his business he would make the pencil pushers look silly, and vice versa. If it weren't for unions you wouldn't get paid for what you are worth, so which is better?
- Boosinicka

on unions im for haveing a choice to be in one or not... when i was in alberta, i was happy not being in a union. My bro (plumber) is happy being in one. Being back in qc, i hate that i HAVE to be in one. But youre right saying that they make sure the owners of businesses dont take advantage of me as a worker....

Bettman's done a great job at portraying the NHL as the lesser of two evils. I fail to see how the NHLPA has hit a wall. The NHL would have you believe they have gave more than the PA to this point but really what have they given? They've offered to take 7% of their HRR as opposed to 14% from their initial offer, that seems like the NHLPA has given the 7% if you want to say anyone has given anything. Extend UFA to 28/8 from the 27/7 it was last year, that seems like they're taking away a year of contract rights. I think the PA is getting a bad rap from everyone because of Bettman's exquisite media work. All that being said, they both need to get a deal so we don't have to watch Toronto and Hamilton on a Saturday anymore.

on unions im for haveing a choice to be in one or not... when i was in alberta, i was happy not being in a union. My bro (plumber) is happy being in one. Being back in qc, i hate that i HAVE to be in one. But youre right saying that they make sure the owners of businesses dont take advantage of me as a worker....
- munky123

this a valid point.

One eighth??? You think you can hire a janitor for 7000 a year? Doubt it. You'd have to hide them on a boat and import them from africa for that.
- prock

Exactly what they would do in a non-union infrastructure, it's actually a quite serious scenario. Worked with a chinese welder who readily admits coming to canada in a sea can.

Bettman's done a great job at portraying the NHL as the lesser of two evils. I fail to see how the NHLPA has hit a wall. The NHL would have you believe they have gave more than the PA to this point but really what have they given? They've offered to take 7% of their HRR as opposed to 14% from their initial offer, that seems like the NHLPA has given the 7% if you want to say anyone has given anything. Extend UFA to 28/8 from the 27/7 it was last year, that seems like they're taking away a year of contract rights. I think the PA is getting a bad rap from everyone because of Bettman's exquisite media work. All that being said, they both need to get a deal so we don't have to watch Toronto and Hamilton on a Saturday anymore.
- PuckingOpinion

Sounds like someone who's gotten kicked out of the union. Not everyone is educated in the code of business. Workers can be easily taken advantage of without realizing it. Unions give people rights and a voice with education in the matter. Like that guy is an amazing electrician and when it comes to his business he would make the pencil pushers look silly, and vice versa. If it weren't for unions you wouldn't get paid for what you are worth, so which is better?
- Boosinicka

Unions have bankrupted more businesses than almost anything else. Go figure!

Bettman's done a great job at portraying the NHL as the lesser of two evils. I fail to see how the NHLPA has hit a wall. The NHL would have you believe they have gave more than the PA to this point but really what have they given? They've offered to take 7% of their HRR as opposed to 14% from their initial offer, that seems like the NHLPA has given the 7% if you want to say anyone has given anything. Extend UFA to 28/8 from the 27/7 it was last year, that seems like they're taking away a year of contract rights. I think the PA is getting a bad rap from everyone because of Bettman's exquisite media work. All that being said, they both need to get a deal so we don't have to watch Toronto and Hamilton on a Saturday anymore.
- PuckingOpinion

Oh really?

They have given 7%? From what exactly? From 57%?

They no longer have 57%. They have zero% They are being offered 50%.

They have GIVEN absolutely nothing, they are only fighting for how much they can take.

... although I will agree on the Saturday Toronto / Hamilton.

GSP makes his comeback tonight!

Oh really?

They have given 7%? From what exactly? From 57%?

They no longer have 57%. They have zero% They are being offered 50%.

They have GIVEN absolutely nothing, they are only fighting for how much they can take.
- Aetherial

Oh really?

When you go potentially from 57% the previous year, to potentially 50%, you aren't taking anything. You're giving. And you're really saying that the players don't deserve any of the revenue, and are negotiating from zero? Your premise is ridiculous. Because how can they take, when according to you there is nothing. Hockey isn't being played, there is zero revenue coming if from games played. So the NHL doesn't have anything either. That's a two way street.

There is only one side that has offered to make a concession to either side. And that's the players. The NHL is the side that has only offered to TAKE.

And whether you want to admit it or not. The expired CBA is a basis for these negotiations. And factors from that CBA have been used by both sides to formulate proposals.

Oh really?

They have given 7%? From what exactly? From 57%?

They no longer have 57%. They have zero% They are being offered 50%.

They have GIVEN absolutely nothing, they are only fighting for how much they can take.

... although I will agree on the Saturday Toronto / Hamilton.

GSP makes his comeback tonight!
- Aetherial

57 to 50 is 7, the difference is 7. That's undisputable math. If you think that they are starting at zero then the owners have still given nothing either, which was my entire point, but to say the players are starting at zero is stricty your opinion and doesn't reflect reality. If they were in fact starting at zero then why wouldn't the owners offer a ridiculous 30%? Because they knew they were starting at 57% and trying to get the players down to 50/50, thus takig 7% from them and not giving anything on the matter.

57 to 50 is 7, the difference is 7. That's undisputable math. If you think that they are starting at zero then the owners have still given nothing either, which was my entire point, but to say the players are starting at zero is stricty your opinion and doesn't reflect reality. If they were in fact starting at zero then why wouldn't the owners offer a ridiculous 30%? Because they knew they were starting at 57% and trying to get the players down to 50/50, thus takig 7% from them and not giving anything on the matter.
- PuckingOpinion

The entire Hockey World is using the last CBA and the HRR ratio from last year as a comparison and a basis for formulating opinions on the matter. As well as both the PA and the NHL are using it to make proposals.

Most of this is difficult to read. But most NHL owners built their own fortunes. It wasn't some mythical 1% of the population that led to an economic crisis, it was governments, and a couple specific corporations. That doesn't justify you discriminating against people based on income anymore than one black man stealing your wallet justifies you discriminating based on race. Your political ignorance aside, owners have offered solid business plans. Players are refusing to accept them.

You are free to have the opinion that millionaire employees shouldn't have to work under the same economic principles as normal employees, but it's just silly. Nobody is really pushing to take away the advantages when it comes to working as a professional athlete, unless I missed where electricians get signed to guaranteed multi-year contracts, regardless of injury or performance, as a standard. But capitalism isn't suddenly thrown out of the window when you as soon as you make 7 digits or more. The KHL's salary cap is something like 30 million in US dollars. If the most you can make as an electrician working anywhere but Company N is 100k a year, you don't go to Company N and demand to make 200k a year, and start playing the victim and refusing a deal because your next contract with them will only be for 185k a year. Because you are still well ahead of your next best option. The same principle applies here, but somehow, a couple of the posters here are too brainwashed by union type rhetoric to grasp that.

And where exactly is someone saying to void current contracts? Most posters, including me, were on the players side, and continue to be, when the owners were proposing to rollback salary. But the proposals are well past that. Current contracts would be fully honored, it would just likely mean contracts in the future would be lower. Additionally, your statement of "If you **** with signed contracts you open a can of worms...." is completely ignorant of history. They changed signed contracts less than a decade ago under the old CBA. I don't think they should here, but it's proven quite possible to do without major issue.
- Antilles

I agree, it is hard to read. I tend to push submit before rereading and then im left redfaced with my terrible sentence structure and poor grammar, or the fact i missed a point i wanted to say or that its come out completely wrong... proofreading escapes me it seems.

I am not as versed in business as some and ive been viewing this lockout pretty black and white. BUt I have a hard time seeing sports equate to the capitalistic model of todays business world. Dont get me wrong i understand what youre saying. Why i bring up my job, I get that my salary is based on the markets and the biggest part is economic growth. If people dont work and make money they cant pay me to build or fix stuff for them ( very raw and basic breakdown), also if i dont work i dont get paid. Plain jane simple.

when it comes to sports, like you stated they, the players, get paid to be hurt or are guaranteed a certain pay even for not performing, ala gomez. Not many other professions afford that to you. But that is sports, its never a sure thing and we as fan or consumers pay for it regardless if a player is bad or under performs. its what creates the passion and all sorts of feelings for the sport, the rivalries and all. Its a game tho, hockey is not a necessity of life and it in no way impacts the global economy. so for me, different economic rules can be drafted or negotiated when it comes to the NHL.

From what i understand owners don't own teams as their sole bread and butter, its a hobby or a passion. as long as they make some moeny or dont lose money they are happy. The economic issues in the NHL are a result of poor managing IMO. Its not the players fault teams lose money... the NHL's business model made a ton of cash but because of some of the decisions the ownership group has made there are teams that cant keep up with the stronger teams. Again not the fault of players...So the reap what you soe attitude for me comes forth. In the end im for 50/50, but its not going to be off the players backs, in the form of immediate pay cuts. The owners are billionaires, come up with a model that works, better, and have it in no way affect the players immediately and im game. Personally i still feel theres parts i cant articualet with out proper face to face discussion. haha o well

Ill be more pro player, regardless of the logic on the business side of things because the players are the ones on the front lines. most become cripples (albeit rich ones) for my own personal pleasure. Ive never been a fan of the capitalistic model we live in and have no problem calling myself a hypocrite because as much as i hate it i benefit and live a comfortable life because of it. Cant we leave sports out of it....dont worry i know the awnser

You're right about discrimination based on wealth. My point was that i think people now a days, of all race and sex are angry at wealthy people in general. They equate alot of the worlds economic issues with rich people. For the ost part imo they re right, but discrimination of any kind wont get us anywhere as people.... we are a sad species complaining about #firstworldproblems anyway

The entire Hockey World is using the last CBA and the HRR ratio from last year as a comparison and a basis for formulating opinions on the matter. As well as both the PA and the NHL are using it to make proposals.
- MJL

Agreed.

Exactly what they would do in a non-union infrastructure, it's actually a quite serious scenario. Worked with a chinese welder who readily admits coming to canada in a sea can.
- Boosinicka

You're totally right. Can you imagine? Having a fresh off the boat immigrant from China who can't speak a word of English teaching your kids math, with a 7 year old Nigerian named Mokimbe mopping the halls? You stop at Loblaws on the way home, and there is a mexican chained to the cash register?

Thank god the unions are there to save us from this nightmare.

I haven't looked at how it would affect things. But I like the idea of a luxury tax. I'm sure there is going to parity arguments though.
- MJL

Depends how it's used. If it's used only to enable teams to honor current contract obligations, than parity shouldn't be an issue. Depends what it's used for, and what restrictions we put on it. (Used as a means of honoring current contracts vs being used as a way to attract additional talent)

Oh really?

When you go potentially from 57% the previous year, to potentially 50%, you aren't taking anything. You're giving. And you're really saying that the players don't deserve any of the revenue, and are negotiating from zero? Your premise is ridiculous. Because how can they take, when according to you there is nothing. Hockey isn't being played, there is zero revenue coming if from games played. So the NHL doesn't have anything either. That's a two way street.

There is only one side that has offered to make a concession to either side. And that's the players. The NHL is the side that has only offered to TAKE.

And whether you want to admit it or not. The expired CBA is a basis for these negotiations. And factors from that CBA have been used by both sides to formulate proposals.
- MJL

"Basis for negiotiations?"

Hahahah ! So what? It doesn't change the fact that there is no CBA and the players do not currently have 57%. They don't even have their contracts guaranteed.

Previous year.
Previous CBA.

It is gone, done, remember it fondly, but it is ridiculous to say the players are negotiating by giving from something they simply (yes it is simple) do not have.

You can't deny it or refute it. The rest of your drivel is meaningless.

The entire Hockey World is using the last CBA and the HRR ratio from last year as a comparison and a basis for formulating opinions on the matter. As well as both the PA and the NHL are using it to make proposals.
- MJL

Soooo ... once again, what does the PA have?

What is your point?

Using something "as a basis" is not the same as the PA having anything to "give".

Keep scrambling though. Your missing logic is pretty amusing.

57 to 50 is 7, the difference is 7. That's undisputable math. If you think that they are starting at zero then the owners have still given nothing either, which was my entire point, but to say the players are starting at zero is stricty your opinion and doesn't reflect reality. If they were in fact starting at zero then why wouldn't the owners offer a ridiculous 30%? Because they knew they were starting at 57% and trying to get the players down to 50/50, thus takig 7% from them and not giving anything on the matter.
- PuckingOpinion

Uh no.

57-7 = 50, check.

Unfortunately what is indisputable is...

1) The players no longer HAVE 57%. you can't even begin to argue it.
2) The owners are offering to give 50%, you can't even begin to argue that.

It is exactly as I said. The players are negotiating to get whatever they can. Hey, more power to them. They are entitled to fight for whatever they want.

... but don't tell me about what they are "giving" when they have nothing.

Soooo ... once again, what does the PA have?

What is your point?

Using something "as a basis" is not the same as the PA having anything to "give".

Keep scrambling though. Your missing logic is pretty amusing.
- Aetherial

Its the typical union attitude. They don't have to earn it, its theirs. They're not getting the same as they did before, or even more, it the cap ends up going above the old dollar amount, since its not the same percentage, they've had it taken away. Future dollars, that they don't have currently, and they haven't earned, are getting taken away.

Too many people have such a sense of entitlement.

"Basis for negiotiations?"

Hahahah ! So what? It doesn't change the fact that there is no CBA and the players do not currently have 57%. They don't even have their contracts guaranteed.

Previous year.
Previous CBA.

It is gone, done, remember it fondly, but it is ridiculous to say the players are negotiating by giving from something they simply (yes it is simple) do not have.

You can't deny it or refute it. The rest of your drivel is meaningless.
- Aetherial

I guess we have to review past conversations again. The players have signed and approved contracts. So don't tell me they don't have anything. And while the last CBA agreement has expired, it still does in fact exist. And the percentage the players earned in the last CBA is still a reference point for the negotiations that are still on going. For everyone in the Hockey World, and for anyone who follows the sport. Except apparently for you.

Its the typical union attitude. They don't have to earn it, its theirs. They're not getting the same as they did before, or even more, it the cap ends up going above the old dollar amount, since its not the same percentage, they've had it taken away. Future dollars, that they don't have currently, and they haven't earned, are getting taken away.

Too many people have such a sense of entitlement.
- prock

Not only that, they are telling us that they are GIVING billions away that they have not earned and there is no guarantee, even under the OLD CBA that they would earn it.

Their logic is so full of holes and flawed it is laughable.

Soooo ... once again, what does the PA have?

What is your point?

Using something "as a basis" is not the same as the PA having anything to "give".

Keep scrambling though. Your missing logic is pretty amusing.
- Aetherial

They have their contracts, that's what they have. Maybe you can make a note to leave for yourself somewhere, because you seem to have trouble remembering that.

I guess we have to review past conversations again. The players have signed and approved contracts. So don't tell me they don't have anything. And while the last CBA agreement has expired, it still does in fact exist. And the percentage the players earned in the last CBA is still a reference point for the negotiations that are still on going. For everyone in the Hockey World, and for anyone who follows the sport. Except apparently for you.
- MJL

Re: the bolded.

What do they have then?

Why don't you tell me.

Oh wait... they have a "reference point".

I'll just head out for dinner now and offer to pay the tab with a "reference point" to money I USED to have in my pocket, and I will complain about the price while I am at it. I'll let you know how that works out.

Still waiting for a sensible argument from you.

Uh no.

57-7 = 50, check.

Unfortunately what is indisputable is...

1) The players no longer HAVE 57%. you can't even begin to argue it.
2) The owners are offering to give 50%, you can't even begin to argue that.

It is exactly as I said. The players are negotiating to get whatever they can. Hey, more power to them. They are entitled to fight for whatever they want.

... but don't tell me about what they are "giving" when they have nothing.
- Aetherial

How can the Owners give when they have nothing? There is no CBA, remember? Isn't that what you said about the players. There is no CBA so how can the players give something. I'm curious why the same doesn't apply to the Owners. Seems very convenient.