me2
Go ahead foot
CarlRacki said:And, perhaps, guaranteed contracts.
That's an interesting point. Most workers in the free market are on 4 weeks or 8 weeks notice to be sacked.
CarlRacki said:And, perhaps, guaranteed contracts.
me2 said:Ditch arbitration and let teams and players decide their market values. Let each team and each player compete in there own little free market. What NYR wants to pay shouldn't affect what Bill Wirtz wants to pay. If the players don't like the teams offer they can withdraw services.
BlackRedGold said:The PA does not use the term "free market". Instead they use the term marketplace. There is a difference. What the PA wants is for players, at some point in their career, to have their salary determined by the highest bidder.
The PA must know that it is more advantageous to have a CBA like the old one where any market can win. If a totally free market for player services were to occur it is very likely that small markets would be unable to exist in the NHL due to an inability to be anything more then a farm club to wealthy markets. That is not in the PA's best interests.
But if the owners continue with campaign to crush the PA then the PA might decide that losing some less viable markets is more attractive then fighting the owners for the next five years.
thinkwild said:What is the point of a contract if its not a guarantee. People say why should they have guaranteed contracts as if that is some special favour they are granted. Why even include the word guaranteed in front of the word contract. Isnt it redundant?
If there is a perfectly free market, and a team signs a player to a contract for 3 years, it is guaranteed for 3 years. Thats why they signed the contract. YOu dont need to mention the guaranteed part. Its implicit.
me2 said:Ditch arbitration and let teams and players decide their market values. Let each team and each player compete in there own little free market.
Epsilon said:Not only are you incorrect (Microsoft has been considered a monopoly for some time now, which in and of itself isn't illegal, but they engaged in antitrust violations which a monopoly cannot do), but the fact that the microsoft case has nothing to do with labour is immaterial. There are labour-related violations of the antitrust laws.
Again you miss the point completely. And European companies are not taken into account by US courts when determining violations of US antitrust law.
Buffaloed said:You brought up microsoft. If it's immaterial with respect to labor which is the issue in this thread, why bring it up?
European companies can be sued in US courts for antitrust just as US companies such as microsoft can be used in European courts. If the NHL is a monopoly it would be in court before the EU just like microsoft.
The underlying purpose of US antitrust law is to protect consumers and competitors. The burden of proof for the complainant is to show harm. Would a non-union NHL with a salary cap and presumably lower, more stable, ticket prices harm the consumers? Is it harmful to competitors if the NHL paid lower salaries? Lower NHL payrolls actually make other pro leagues more competitive and increase the potential for other leagues to arise. The NHL would have to have the power to fix prices or exclude competition throughout the industry to be considered a monopoly and then there would have to be proof of harm to make it actionable in court.
Antitrust with respect to restraint of trade can only be applied if it can be shown there are agreements between competitors to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices which includes the price of labor. If the NHL isn't making agreements with any competing leagues when it sets its salary structure, there's no case. One could make an argument that the individual NHL franchises are competitors depending on the language of their franchising agreement, but if there's a problem there, the NHL would anticipate it and reorganize to preclude any such challenges.
Buffaloed said:There's more bad than good in a free market for the vast majority of the NHLPA. In a true free market the NHL is competing with the SEL, RSL and other Euro leagues to sign players, rather than against itself.
Epsilon said:The NHL teams are competitors, and there's simply no way to get around that. I can't imagine any court ruling otherwise.
Buffaloed said:They're competitors in the same sense that McDonald's franchises compete with one another. They're owner-operated franchises governed by their franchise agreement. Independent competitors do not pay franchise fees, subject every contract for approval, make mandatory contributions to various funds, agree to submit to league bylaws, or even allow the league to negotiate a CBA. It isn't 30 teams negotiating 30 CBA's, it's one NHL. The NHL isn't a trade association where there's a great deal of independence. Teams can do nothing significant without league approval.
Look at it from another angle. There's never been any question from any legal expert that the NHL can impose its last offer (including a hard cap) under a legal impasse. The only issue there is whether the NHL can legally declare an impasse. Decertification by the NHLPA would grant the NHL the same right to an even greater extent as they would no longer be bound by the terms of that last offer due to the dissolution of the players' bargaining unit.
Epsilon said:When teams block franchise relocations or new expansions due to "territorial rights" you know that they are competing against each other. They compete for both business and for employees.
As for your second point, the NHL can implement a CBA under an unheld impasse becuase the union still exists, and then has the option of going on strike. If they decertify, no union exists, and so labour law no longer supercedes antitrust law.
Buffaloed said:Good point, I overlooked that. But I don't think the burden of proving the NHL is a monopoly or proving restraint of trade can be met in any event.