The easy solution is to have a workout schedule for all the players, which I'm sure they already do. You can still workout outside of those hours, but you obviously won't be paid for them. Bankers don't get paid for doing math on their own time, right?
ALL Flint Firebirds (OHL) players quit team
- Thread starter Stand Witness
- Start date
- Status
But this is the fear some have is if the Chl players get paid for every hour there with the team such as travel etc your going to see the public sector say we should get that as well and likely get it.
It already happens (with trades people specifically), so I'm not sure why the CHL doing it would make a difference.
A union can bargain for whatever they wish.
However, players must be paid a provincially mandated minimum wage for all hours where they are required to be on "work duty", even if that duty is travelling.
Yeah, it could bankrupt teams, but that has nothing to do with employee rights & protections.
No what it would do is set a trend Canada wide that i don't know if any court would be willing to want to go down.
As a a rule trades people are paid for travel which in most cases is no more then 2-3 hours a day
But thats the issue there are some that want players to be paid any time there with the team either be it required by the team or own there own.
Not sure what you're talking about.
Employees legally have to be compensated at least minimum wage for when they are working. Traveling for work, is working.
There's no road to go down... it's black & white.
Yes and no public sector workers have there hotel and meals paid for but they don't get paid extra.
LadyStanley
Registered User
In the US there's a "per diem" paid for those traveling. Most folks use the per diem values set by the GSA based on state/county/city http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104877.
Per diem **can** just cover accommodations and meals. (IOW if you spend less, you reimburse the company of those funds.) Sometimes companies provide funds above and beyond accommodations and meals to cover some of the sundry things that you don't have because you are not home (dry cleaning/laundry, for instance).
From experience, there are many who negotiate lower accommodation rates and eat at cheaper restaurants so they can bank that extra $$ while traveling.
I know the NHL teams provide players with meal $$s for those meals the team does NOT cover on the road. (IOW, they'll do the pre-game lunch, but players would be on their own for the post game "dinner" -- unless the team is flying out and dinner is served on the plane.)
That's because they're not working when sleeping in a hotel.
However, the time that they're actively travelling for work, absolutely counts towards any calculations as to if they're earning minimum wage.
It's not a "yes and no" thing. It's simply you accepting the fact that team workouts, bus trips, etc. Will be have to be compensated at at least minimum wage if they become employees.
DoyleG
Reality sucks, Princesses!
Wrong.
Whether you are traveling or sleeping in a hotel is irrelevant. You are considered to be working the minute you leave your residence to the minute that you arrive home.
In the Canadian civil service context, incidentals are paid for someone who is on a temporary detail, and this includes all departments ranging from Revenue Canada to DND to Indian/Northern Affairs, to DFAIT.
In terms of meals and hotels, most public service will be reimbursed up to a certain amount. The TBS sets the max reimbursement rates for hotels and the maximum allowed for individual meals. Those rates are updated on a regular basis.
This exists as well in the private sector with the only difference being much more restrictive rules on reimbursment (ie. need to provide receipts for all expenses).
Ask your self who are so many that want players to be paid so aginst a flat salary.
Yes and thats what chl players should be on not hourly wages as in hockey it would be abused big time chl player would or could be making more then some pro players.
Not sure where you're getting that.
Hourly employees (who travel for work) would not get compensated for time when they're not working or traveling.
There's nothing wrong with a flat salary, as long as everyone accepts the very basic premise that a flat salary does not exempt you from minimum wage requirements, which are calculated on an hourly basis.
No they wouldn't. Unless it really is a job and they're not students.
BadgerBruce
Elbows Up
- Aug 8, 2013
- 1,571
- 2,530
With respect to everyone, the issue here is not about paying players -- a worthwhile discussion topic in its own right -- but about the Flint players essentially "quitting."
There is an unwritten but mutually understood pact between CHL players and the respective leagues/ownership groups. It goes something like this:
Players are drafted by any of 60 teams and they do not get to choose where they go. It's a bit of a lottery in the sense that some players end up on teams with superior coaching staffs and enviable player development track records, while other players end up on the opposite end of the spectrum and the majority end up somewhere in the middle.
What the players want is a sort of "minimum standard" to ensure that they have a fair opportunity to develop into future professionals. The CHL calls itself "the best development league in the world," and the player's more than anyone else need this to be true. Their futures depend on it.
But when a CHL team is not offering the best development opportunity in the world and is not adhering to a minimum standard of professionalism, the players (most of whom are 18-20) do not have a formal process they can follow to ensure their voices are heard.
In the case of the Flint players, they saw the actions of the owner and the general manager as failing to meet the minimum standard the "best development league in the world" should maintain. Their futures as hockey players were put at risk by the actions of the business leadership of the company. Worse, by all accounts 23 of the 24 active players got the same message: We Don't Matter.
In a more perfect CHL world, players would have a formal mechanism whereby their displeasure could be voiced. But in the absence of this formal mechanism, all 24 saw but one viable option: show solidarity and essentially "strike" until their demands were met, demands that amounted to nothing more than the Flint Firebirds providing a minimum standard of professional player development.
In my own experience, groups of people who are under the control of others will resort to the oldest labour relations tactic in the book, strike action, when they have no other option. This is one of the reasons why I am personally strongly in favour of the CHL voluntarily recognizing the right of these players to have some say, some tangible input, into their junior hockey lives. Perhaps this is through a players' association, a union, or simply a players advisory group. But they need a way to have their say and to protect themselves from threats to their futures.
There is an unwritten but mutually understood pact between CHL players and the respective leagues/ownership groups. It goes something like this:
Players are drafted by any of 60 teams and they do not get to choose where they go. It's a bit of a lottery in the sense that some players end up on teams with superior coaching staffs and enviable player development track records, while other players end up on the opposite end of the spectrum and the majority end up somewhere in the middle.
What the players want is a sort of "minimum standard" to ensure that they have a fair opportunity to develop into future professionals. The CHL calls itself "the best development league in the world," and the player's more than anyone else need this to be true. Their futures depend on it.
But when a CHL team is not offering the best development opportunity in the world and is not adhering to a minimum standard of professionalism, the players (most of whom are 18-20) do not have a formal process they can follow to ensure their voices are heard.
In the case of the Flint players, they saw the actions of the owner and the general manager as failing to meet the minimum standard the "best development league in the world" should maintain. Their futures as hockey players were put at risk by the actions of the business leadership of the company. Worse, by all accounts 23 of the 24 active players got the same message: We Don't Matter.
In a more perfect CHL world, players would have a formal mechanism whereby their displeasure could be voiced. But in the absence of this formal mechanism, all 24 saw but one viable option: show solidarity and essentially "strike" until their demands were met, demands that amounted to nothing more than the Flint Firebirds providing a minimum standard of professional player development.
In my own experience, groups of people who are under the control of others will resort to the oldest labour relations tactic in the book, strike action, when they have no other option. This is one of the reasons why I am personally strongly in favour of the CHL voluntarily recognizing the right of these players to have some say, some tangible input, into their junior hockey lives. Perhaps this is through a players' association, a union, or simply a players advisory group. But they need a way to have their say and to protect themselves from threats to their futures.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XX (WTF are we going to do this Off-Season edition) (37 Viewers)
- Latest: bernmeister
-
-
