HNL gives up on season.

I know before everyone says who cares?

Could this be the start of something? The downfall of the whole sport or a new trend in sports in general; someday.

Or will this at least give it an opportunity for reform? Of hockey and or the high price of sports.

Remember, if I heard this right. That this is the first time in North America that a major professional sport has lost an entire season to a labor dispute.

FS - I care.

I think this might be a good thing for the league in the long run, although it's a hell of a shame this year. Maybe they'll get rid of a few of those stupid-ass expansion teams and distribute their talent elsewhere.

I think the players are going to be the big losers here. Next season comes along, if the players don't cave the owners are just going to go get a bunch of scabs like they did in the NFL years back.

If the players do cave and accept the salary caps that are inevitable anyway, maybe that will help slow town skyrocketing ticket prices... but probably not. I've never gotten to go to an NHL game, seats are just too much, especially here in Hockeytown.

It took baseball nearly 10 years to resurrect itself after holding out for half of one season. The NHL is missing a whole season and I think it's safe to say is the least watched sport of the major 4 (NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL). It doesn't effect me. NBA could hold out next year, but they're expected to reach an agreement in June. -Pat

All Europe cares - there's such a brilliant hockey season here because all NHL players returned to play for European teams!

Sure, but what about the people "around" the game.
The ushers, arena workers who sell things, officials that work the games and the businesses near the arenas that will be effected.
The old trickle down effect. It hurts the small people who really need the money.

I'm a hockey fan, and I'm fascinated by labor disputes in professional sports. In the States, they're governed by the same laws the cover the traditional trade and industrial unions.

In the U.S., the National Labor Relations Board makes a distinction between offensive and defensive lockouts. This is an important distinction because it determines whether or not the owners are allowed to use substitute players. The NHL owners are using the lockout to pressure the players to accept their (the owners') bargaining position, particularly the right to a salary cap (and at what level to set the cap). That's considered an offensive lockout, and the owners may bring in substitute players as long as there is no evidence of an anti-union motive in their use of the substitute players. There doesn't appear to be an effort by the owners to break the union, only to get them to capitulate to the demand of a salary cap. Both sides have now agreed to a cap, they just haven't agreed on a number.

Will the owners start next season with substitute players if an agreement isn't reached? Hard to say. Now that the season is cancelled, there is no self-imposed deadline to get things done. However, now that the players have actually set a number for a cap, it will be hard to retreat from that position.

I can say with some certainty that the Chicago Blackhawk ownership could probably withstand an indefinite work stoppage in the NHL. The Wirtz family has a number of other business interests that make the hockey team something less than the majority of their holdings.

That may not be true for other franshises and the lockout may eventually take its toll on some franchises. If just one team folds, that's 30 or 35 guys (plus a minor league system!) all competing for jobs with the remaining teams.

Not sure if this is true in Canada, but under U.S. labor law, I believe the NHL players are eligible for unemployment compensation in a "lockout" (but not in a strike).

tony b.

This is a sad time for the NHL and the game of hockey. However, I believe that the owners and the players will be able to work something out before the start of next season. The lockout has done a lot of damage to the game but hockey is a great sport with a rich history and I think it will be able to come back from this.

It's really a damn shame! All I can say here is that BOTH sides have been greedy not only throughout these negotiations, but throughout the years! And as said above, who really gets hurt are the people that have the jobs in the arenas throughout the season. A damn shame!


Don Cardi

Hi, YTB....

I have quite a bit of experience in management-labor relations in my own particular business, but I've never seen a distinction made between the two types of lockouts you mention.

I always thought that a lockout was the opposite of a strike. What are the differences between an offensive and defensive lockout?

(Bill James doesn't cover this anywhere )

Hey, Plaw!

I was in grad school (Labor and Industrial Relations!) in the mid-'80's shortly after one of the cases on lockouts and temporary replacements was being decided. There was an emphasis in the Labor Law and Dispute Resolution classes to include this material on strikes and lockouts, and that's why I remember it...but only in broad strokes!

The broad strokes that I remember for a defensive lockout relate to a multi-employer bargaining unit in which some employers are struck and the remaining employees are subsequently locked-out. I don't believe that fits the NHL shutdown. The offensive lockout was management's economic tactic similar to a strike. Where the union could strike to apply economic pressure on the owner to settle, the owner could lockout the worker to apply the same economic pressure. That seems to fit the NHL owners' reason for the lockout.

There were specific parameters that had to be met in order for management to have the legal right to hire temporary replacements. I recall the standard for offensive lockouts being the anti-union motive. Since the NHL owners and the Players Association have continued to bargain; have gotten close on a key bargaining point; and appear to be bargaining in good faith, I'd be convinced that the owners don't have an anti-union motive so they are entitled to employ temporary replacements to run their business.

In any event, the distinction between a defensive and offensive lockout was made to determine whether or not the lockout was legal and whether or not the use of replacement workers was legal.

Now I'm gonna have to google for more details and case law...which I should have done before posting!

I greatly admire the work of Marvin Miller in organizing the MLBPA, specifically because of the steps he took to achieve what they achieved. I can talk for a long time on the relationships between Marvin Miller, the Steelworkers Trilogy, the reserve clause, and the arbitrator's decisions that gave Catfish Hunter, Dave McNally, and Andy Messersmith the first shot at baseball's free agent market!

Bill James actually did a nice essay on the viability of replacement players in Major League Baseball. I wish I could remember where I saw it. It had to have been the 1994 baseball strike since he compared the quality of the replacement level baseball player with the quality of the replacement level football player.

tony b.

This sucks I'll tell ya that much. Hockey is my favorite sport. I've been playing it since I was about ten.

Since Im from Michigan were hockey is very popular, its aweful.

But theres always the Pistons, Tigers(Yes, The Tigers they will be a good team ) and the Lions, if healthy the Lions could do some things to. They have some very good young talent.

I don't take any interest in NHL,but i feel for the people who do follow the sport.

My fav is Football (soccer that is) and i would be gutted if they cancelled a whole season on my sport.

Keep your heads up and look forward to the next season,or try another sport

i'll say this much, i've had two heartbreaks this week, my ex leaving me and hockey being canceled. i don't know which hurts the most. lol