Rick Westhead, "Brothers shut out by union: NHLPA said no thanks to Teamsters support," Toronto Star 09/27/05

quote:

---

Eight days after the NHL announced last fall that it was locking out its 700-plus players, the head of one of the world's largest unions quietly contacted NHL players association boss Bob Goodenow with an intriguing offer.

In a two-page letter sent to the union on Sept. 24, 2004, Teamsters president James P. Hoffa wrote that his powerful union was willing to help the players put more pressure on NHL team owners such as Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, which owns the Maple Leafs and basketball's Raptors.

"The BT (Brotherhood of Teamsters) stands willing to support the NHLPA's fight for fairness," Hoffa wrote in his letter to Goodenow, which was obtained by the Star.

Two months passed before Goodenow responded to Hoffa's letter and when he did phone one of the union's top Canadian officials, Goodenow's reply was terse, a Teamsters official said.

"He just said `thanks but we're ok with where we're going,'" said Larry MacDonald, president of Teamsters Local 938 in Toronto.

"I've been around 25 years and I've never seen such a lackadaisical approach to collective bargaining," MacDonald said. "We had members who would have been ready to picket Raptors games in Toronto and we have members in the U.S. who would have come up with a strategy to pressure companies like Disney (which until this year owned the Anaheim Mighty Ducks). This is our business."

It's been two months since the NHLPA surrendered to the league in their labour battle and it's worth asking whether the union could have garnered a better deal. Would the help of the Teamsters or other unions have helped the players gain some momentum? Would waiting to agree on a deal closer to October, when the season starts, have helped to coax owners into agreeing to a deal that wasn't so one-sided?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
That said, Gary Bettman is still the worst thing that ever happened to the NHL.

---

Its quite true that the NHLPA never reached out to the broader labour movement...and if they in fact turned down an offer of assistance from the Teamsters...that's just plain stupid.

quote:

---

Garvey brought the association into the AFL-CIO--the only professional sports union to do so--to give the players a sense that they were part of the broader labor movement. In the early 1970s several NFL players walked the picket lines with striking Farah clothing workers, joined bank employees in Seattle to boost their organizing drive and took other public stands. But "now they're making enough money, so they want to keep their heads down," he says. When Marvin Miller, a former Steelworkers Union staffer, became the first executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) in 1966, he sought to raise players' political awareness. "We didn't just explain the labor laws," he recalls. "We had to get players to understand that they were a union. We did a lot of internal education to talk to players about broader issues."

---

The rest of the article from "The Nation" is linked below:

Where are the Jocks for Justice?

[ 27 September 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yukoner:
The owners are loving him right now.

---

quote:

---

That said, Gary Bettman is still the worst thing that ever happened to the NHL.

---

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: Cartman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:

If Bettman ever morphed into the Devil himself, would anyone really be surprised?

---

quote:

---

I recall reading a piece awhile back about how most professional athletes tended to be right-of-centre politically

---

Well, most are rich pampered guys in their 20's or 30's, and despite the fact some of them went to college, I don't think they've ever, as a group, been considered well-rounded.

Of these, it seems pro golfers are the worst when it comes to playing from the right.

quote:

---

does anyone know what Bettman's job was *before* he became head weasel for the owners' association?

---

IIRC, the player's union donated the proceeds of the game to charity or something like that. Anyway, the game was widely publicized within the local labour movement.

There could have been lots of "fun events" organized by the NHLPA...particularly say in a "hockey town" like Toronto.

Maybe a charity "shootout" at a local arena. Donate say $50 to the local foodbank and you could get a chance to take a shot at Ed Balfour.

Or maybe...for the truly "brave" get in goal and see if you can stop a play by Matts Sundin.

Maybe a charity "road hockey" game between a couple of teams.

The possibilities are truly endless.

Why couldn't the NHLPA say rented a bit of TV or radio time in major hockey cities to put out their point of view. Other unions do it...despite strapped budgets.

The NHLPA had no P.R. strategy...simply relying on staged press conferences and the (rare) sympathetic sports writer.

The NHLPA has a "feedback form" on their website...perhaps a few comments could be posted there. Link below:

NHLPA feedback form

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

As far as union brotherhood goes, there's so much in common between a union plumber and a millionaire superstar (union member) NHL hockey player.

Name one professional athlete who's marched against Bill Bennett, Mike Harris, Glen Campbell, Jean Charest, Ralph Klein, Grant Devine, or any of the other labour-hating, knuckle-dragging right-wing crooks that the bastards traditionally vote for?

Are Canada's organised labour leaders too foolish and too naive to realise that rich professional athletes don't want their help because they don't want to be obligated to reciprocate for people who do not represent their class and political interests?

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: America is Behind ]

And it would be suicide for a real, working man's union to support the players because the public and the fans have absolutely no sympathy for millionaire players fighting with billionaire owners. You'd be ridiculed to tears. Even the most diehard union supporter can see that the exploitation of a coal miner and a millionaire player is not the same thing. And as a union, the players displayed little solidarity-didn't alot of them play in Europe?

The players were poorly advised by Goodenow. They should have faced the fact that their salary structures were way out of line compared to revenues and other pro sports. As such, they should have cut a deal because you cannot win. Instead they initially said they wouldn't take a cap and then reversed themselves. The players could have received the same or slightly better deal than they have now without losing a year. The league suffers, young players suffer. So the players fought for an unwinnable and unworthy cause and Goodenow misled them. Their egos wrote checks their ability couldn't cash.

Bettman doesn't get off the hook either. A strike of this magnitude means both sides failed to communicate and work together. Bettman used to work for the NBA, but he doesn't know or love hockey. To him it's a business before a sport. The Southwest franchise expansion was a huge mistake. Furthermore, Bettman is way too slow in making rule changes to hockey. Took too long on things like the red line, increasing net size, shrinking goalie pads. Other sports like NFL seem to act alot faster in order to keep their fans.

Hockey generates a whole lot of money and its a question of what share the team owners get and what share the players get. And the teams are now mostly owned by huge corporate conglomerates.

Didn't members of the CAW just have a big battle with another group of corporate conglomerates over how wealth is shared in the automotive industry?

Sure, I'm not going to have as much sympathy for a high-salaried hockey player as I am for an $8 an hour cashier in a big box store. I don't have as much sympathy for an autoworker as I do for the minimum wage cashier either.

But, when I go to a game, or watch the game on the boob tube, I'm there to watch the players. I'm not there to watch the owners. The owners aren't very exciting.

So in this clash, I'm going to support the players.

It may very well be that the current NHL business model is unsustainable. But for the most part, that business model was developed by the team owners.

And, the strategy of the team owners in this round of negotiations was to simply "impose their will" on the players and bust their union rather than to come to a negotiated settlement. That's not a particularly new employer strategy.

I don't support that approach whether it's Walmart Workers in Quebec, auto workers in Ontario, CBC employees (some of whom also make good money) or professional athletes.

When we look at pro athletes, we often look at the huge salaries drawn by the stars. For every star, there are a whole lot of "no name" players who don't make quite so much money, only play for a few seasons and then leave with battered and broken bodies.

And don't forget that to become good enough to get into pro hockey these folks have pretty much given up their lives from a very young age. Also these folks families end up giving up their lives to support a family member who has a shot at "making it".

I have a distant relative who plays in the NHL and I know its not the kind of life I could handle.

quote:

---

The players'union is not a union in the conventional sense. Really, what does a millionaire player have in common with a unionized construction worker? Absolutely nothing. Rather, the players'union is more like a specialized artists'guild, a private club

---

How the hell do you think the early construction unions started out? I suggest you become familiar with labour history.

quote:

---

And it would be suicide for a real, working man's union

---

Working "man's" union? Get with the programme

quote:

---

Other sports like NFL seem to act alot faster in order to keep their fans.

---

Interesting that the sports league who's players are represented by a union that's most plugged-in to the mainstream labour movement i.e. affiliated to the AFL-CIO acts alot faster to keep their fans.

That's exactly how this discussion began...how the NHLPA rejected overtures of support from the Teamsters Union...and how by isolating themselves from the labour movement, the NHLPA was crushed by the owners.

quote:

---

Why does it surprise anyone the moment someone makes real money and takes on real responsibilities, obligations they shift to the political right of centre?

---

It doesn't surprise me at all that folks with higher incomes shift to the right politically.

However I think its a slur on low-income folks that they don't have "real responsibilities and obligations". Feeding your family and putting a roof over their heads is a pretty "real" responsibility.

quote:

---

The "workers of the world unite against evil multinationals"

---

Last time I checked this wasn't part of the NDP platform. Perhaps you could show me the link to this policy.

quote:

---

Now if you are a millionaire, pro athlete, I'd expect you to be further right of centre as you have alot more to protect

---

Its exactly this kind of right-wing business unionism that folks on this thread are criticizing.

If you promote solidarity with other working people's issues you're likely to get solidarity in return. The NHLPA thought they could go it alone in the old business union style fashion and they were crushed by the owners.

That IMHO was Goodenow's major error.

quote:

---

Name one professional athlete who's marched against Bill Bennett, Mike Harris, Glen Campbell, Jean Charest, Ralph Klein, Grant Devine, or any of the other labour-hating, knuckle-dragging right-wing crooks that the bastards traditionally vote for?

---

I agree. It would be nice to see some Canadian pro sports figures speaking out against these neanderthals. The article I linked to from "The Nation" gives some albeit limited examples of American sports figures speaking out on issues.

But, if we all make solidarity with someone else conditional on their solidarity with us, we'll get nowhere fast.

In 1981, U.S. president Ronald Reagan fired the entire U.S. civilian air traffic control staff after an illegal strike. And, the controllers union PATCO had actually endorsed Ronald Reagan for president in the 1980 election campaign.

But PATCO's previous support of Reagan didn't stop the labour movement around the world from expressing solidarity with PATCO members. What happened to the U.S. air traffic controllers was an injustice...period.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by letitbleed:

Bettman doesn't get off the hook either. A strike of this magnitude means both sides failed to communicate and work together. Bettman used to work for the NBA, but he doesn't know or love hockey. To him it's a business before a sport. The Southwest franchise expansion was a huge mistake. Furthermore, Bettman is way too slow in making rule changes to hockey. Took too long on things like the red line, increasing net size, shrinking goalie pads. Other sports like NFL seem to act alot faster in order to keep their fans.

---

There are some huge positives coming out of this too. The talent is already being spread across the league, which is great. Even if there is contraction in the US southeast, small markets in Canada would be chomping at the bit to pick up a franchise.

Alot of the little stuff people have been bitching about for years has been addressed as far as the rules and attempt to increase scoring. This is all good, except for the fact I am a Leafs fan.

That's right, the teams are owned by conglomerates which is why the players got crushed. The same guys that pay your huge salaries can crush you. They should have realized this plus the fact that these conglomerates could afford to sit out a strike. These conglomerates own other businesses so a locked out hockey team won't hurt them. Knowing your strengths and weakness is the key to any successful negotiation. The injustice part doesn't matter. Better to win something and come back and fight another day than to get extinguished like the US air traffic controllers under Reagan. The players were poorly advised.

Sure, the CAW had a battle with the automakers. Different than hockey. The auto giants have to settle with the unions and can't afford a prolonged stoppage of their plants which are their core business. Hockey, the Mighty Ducks aren't a core business of let's say the Disney Corporation. That simple. So that's why Disney tells its players to call back when they can't make their Ferrari payments.

Yeh, but an auto worker is alot more close to a minimum wage cashier than a Ferrari driving hockey player. Well, at least right up to the point he drives it into a concrete wall and kills his teammate.

Yes, Radiorahim I, too, watch the game for the players and not the owners. But, the owners sign the checks and that's all that counts in a salary negotiation and lockout. Blindly supporting the players without sober examination of their negotiating position leads to what the players are stuck with now. It's like poker, sometimes you should fold even on decent hands so you can make better gains down the road. A smart union leader protects his membership from the downside, curbs their emotions and tells them the truth.

Sure, the owners rolled out the wrong NHL business plan and expansion failed. They took the fat expansion fees and bid up players'salaries so the players enjoyed some fat years. Now it's over. What's with the bloated sense of entitlement? Money is a finite commodity. Lots of people lose their jobs, fail in business and have to scale back. It's the real world. The owners control the capital they risk so who else could keep up the players' salaries?

Players and owners were so far apart there was no choice but to stage a battle of wills. Of course the owners did not want to lock out for a year. It destroys franchise value and TV deals. In fact, NHL is now the only major sports league that doesn't receive up front money for its broadcasting rights; it's just pure revenue sharing. It generated bad PR; more money must be spent on marketing to tell everyone the NHL is back. So both sides were diminished.

No sympathy for pro athletes. They chose this profession and took the risks of making sacrifices. No one forced them. No different than entertainers. Save your sympathy for drug addicts and victims of poverty. Don't we all have to live with some of our life choices, especially if it's as risky and ambitious as aspiring to play pro hockey?

No, the NFL's association with the AFL-CIO isn't responsible for its success with fans. It's the NFL's marketing and management teams. They also operate in a very competitive sports environment where consumers have lots of choices and with salary caps. So does the NHL, but it has struggled on both fronts resulting in this death match, lock out.

Even if the NHL sought union support I wonder if the rank and file would come out? I just couldn't imagine that happening. And neither could the players or the players union. Can you imagine the Teamsters asking Disneyland workers to stage a one day walkout in support of the Mighty Ducks' millionaire players? That'd be the perverse joke on every late night talk show. And if the Teamsters did help out I'm sure the players would be worried of what would be the payback.

Sure would be nice if some Canadian sports figures would speak out against the establishment. And flush away those fat Nike and Toyota and McD ad deals. Like I said, money changes everything.

PATCO- we're straying here, but again, PATCO members were poorly advised and they paid the ultimate price- decertification of the union. Was it an injustice? No more than the NDP giving fat pay increases to govt unions before they split. Isn't that an injustice to taxpayers? You negotiate union contracts to win tangible and sustainable rewards not rectify injustice.

And which cities are traditional NHL strongholds?Cities in Canada, Califronia, and the U.S. North-East and Upper Mid West, which generally have pro-labour policies. Obviously, pro-labour policies means more unionised arena workers, which in turn means that the non-elites working in arenas will have higher paying jobs with better benefits.

Now I realise that the owners don't give a rat's ass about these people and that it's simply a coincidence that what's good for the owners is good for working and middle-class area workers, but what it comes down to is that results matter more than adherence to Marxist theory.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: America is Behind ]

quote:

---

an owner victory in this dispute is actually extremely good news, for it will no longer be the cities that offer the biggest tax cuts that have profitable teams, but rather the cities with the biggest hockey market and therefore the most ability to put butts into seats (and with salaries going out of control, getting butts into seats was not enough to build a profitable team).

---

Non-sequitur. The fact that owners may now have lower labor costs will in no way affect their efforts to maximize profit by continuing to seek tax concessions, etc. as the basis for locating or keeping their team in city. That sort of behavior will continue as long as the league functions as a monopoly.

quote:

---

And which cities are traditional NHL strongholds?Cities in Canada, Califronia, and the U.S. North-East and Upper Mid West, which generally have pro-labour policies. Obviously, pro-labour policies means more unionised arena workers, which in turn means that the non-elites working in arenas will have higher paying jobs with better benefits.

---

Since the owners have successfully adopted a "my way or the highway" approach to negotiating with their players' union, what makes you think they are going to be any more conciliatory towards any other "non-elite" workers they employ?

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

From a working class standpoint, an owner victory in this dispute is actually extremely good news, for it will no longer be the cities that offer the biggest tax cuts that have profitable teams, but rather the cities with the biggest hockey market and therefore the most ability to put butts into seats (and with salaries going out of control, getting butts into seats was not enough to build a profitable team).

---

It sounds alot like Walmart's arguments for their policies. Keep wages low, source most of your manufactured products from China etc. and working class folks will "benefit" from lower prices.

quote:

---

but what it comes down to is that results matter more than adherence to Marxist theory.

---

Union, NFL gearing up for possible labor strife

quote:

---

Gene Upshaw began his annual fall tour of NFL teams this week, and the players' union chief is under no illusions as to what the No. 1 topic on the minds of his constituents is: extending the collective bargaining agreement.
The CBA between the league and players doesn't expire until after the 2007 season, but sluggish talks have Upshaw pondering worst-case scenarios.

---