October 28, 2004
The No-Fault Labor Impasse
So whose side are you on when it comes to the NHL lockout, the players or the owners? I only ask, because so many other hockey bloggers seem to be lining up on one side or another, casting aspersions and moral judgements willy-nilly on either side.
But as I've said before, that's all pretty silly stuff:
But what we need to understand, no matter what the sport may be, that labor disputes in this area are normally between the haves, and the have mores. Any resemblance to traditional labor negotiations are entirely coincidental.
That's why I have to second the feeling that Ben Wright first put into pixels last week when he read the following from ESPN's John Buccigross:
I've been in the same room as NHL players and NHL owners, and I can tell you I'd rather Steve McKenna have a few million dollars than Ed Snider. Nearly every NHL player grew up in similar economic and social circumstances as you did. Nearly every NHL owner did not. While Steve Yzerman grew up playing Battleship, Stratego and Strat-O-Matic baseball, most of the NHL owners were getting their chest hairs tinted at a Four Seasons spa.
And in a way, Buccigross has a point here. Let me explain. Just a few weeks ago, an old friend of mine from back on Long Island actually ran into Michael Peca at a local Toys 'R Us. There he was in a baseball cap, with a pair of jeans and sneakers with his family and looking to buy some toys. And Peca couldn't have been friendlier to my old buddy when he approached him, even when he decided to ask some questions about the labor impasse.
Michael Peca -- nice guy, suburban Dad, hockey player. Maybe I'll invite him over next weekend to play some Yahtzee.
But here's a question for you: How many of my readers know what it's like to voluntarily take a year off from work without getting a paycheck?
Still nobody? Is there anybody in that category at all?
Yes, indeed there is, and his name is Michael Peca.
Don't forget, that when Peca was with the Sabres, he sat out a whole season rather than sign with Buffalo because they wouldn't meet his asking price. Sure, it was his right, and I don't begrudge him one penny that he's earned -- Lord knows he's given the Islanders everything he had over his three seasons with the team, and I wouldn't want anybody else to be Islanders captain.
But to say he's just like you and me is a bit of a stretch, and suggesting that aren't part of the larger problem with what's wrong with the NHL is too.
After all, last time I looked, not one, but two franchises wound up in bankruptcy last year. It should be pretty clear something is seriously wrong with the system financially (something which Buccigross concedes), and the players are going to have to give something back in order to fix it.
Now, does that make them evil when they turn tough at the negotiating table? Not by a long shot.
But if there's anybody we ought to be sympathizing with, it's the hundreds of team employees, like the 25 that will be let go in Buffalo at the end of next month, that we ought to be feeling a little sympathy for.
And as this article about the impact of the lockout in Buffalo makes clear, there are plenty of other folks who are suffering, as the money they used to make in bars, restaurants and parking lots in and around NHL arenas just isn't there anymore.
What does that mean? Less money for the mortgage, the car payment and a kid's college tuition.
Oh, and beer too. Shouldn't forget that.
I know I don't hate the players, and I don't hate Ed Snider either -- who by the way built pro hockey in Philadelphia, and couldn't have done it without risking some of his considerable fortune in order to get it done.
But what do you say to the folks at the bottom of the ladder? Why no sympathy for the only innocents in the NHL labor war?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3854
My wife was telling me the other day about a restaurant that she and some colleagues were in, one of whom was friends with the cocktail waitress that was serving them. The waitress, in normal circumstances, is an NHL employee. Not this week, month, or probably year.
Not that I didn't have this in some perspective before, but that hammered it home pretty good.
Posted by:
at October 28, 2004 02:59 PM
I do not even think it is players vs owners. It is the elite players, the top 5% of the league, against the owners. How many players have you heard mention lopping off 4-8 teams? Tell me the borderline 40-50 AHL-NHL players support that position.
The Rangers need the other teams to do well in order to have a good product. If the NHL adopted a pure free market, then the Rangers would put the Sabres, Predators and Penguins out of business. Oh wait, maybe they do have a free market.
Right now it looks like the NHLPA is negotiating solely to protect the salaries of its star players. The fans and owners are already firmly behind the need for a cap. If it means 40-50 more NHL jobs, then many players might get behind it as well.
Too bad a cap will do nothing to lower ticket prices.
Posted by:
at October 28, 2004 10:01 PM
Watch it PJ, the Preds are doing better and would be fine if it wasn't for this damn lockout. When you ice a winner people come (except in New Jersey) the Preds became a winning team this past season and are well on their way to doing it every season. Also the Preds are not in danger of bankruptcy (Sabres) and don't need a new arena (Penguins). Our farm team came to town a few weeks ago and over 10,000 people came to watch, that tells me the times have changed in Music City. I for one am not a fan firmly behind the need for a cap I think the cap is crap. Look at the NFL...it sucks! No team can hold a group of players together longer than a few years at a time. I will agree with you though that its the haves on the players' side are the ones that don't mind waiting and/or contracting. In the end I like most others just want to go to a damn hockey game.
Posted by:
at October 29, 2004 02:55 AM
I think you put the whole mess into the right perspective. It's always the little guys who get hurt while the millionaires fight the billionaires. The NHL has been pretty clear that their battle isn't with the players: it's with a union that refuses to admit what it knows to be true. The NHL has never had better revenues, better global fan appeal or more upside. But no business can pay 75% of those revenues to the staff (not to denegrate the players' roles but they do live on the personnel line of the budget).
I believe that if the NHLPA voted anonymously today on taking the cap and getting back to work or holding out some more, the vote would be overwhelmingly to come back. But hockey players are tough guys and none of them want to show weakness or show up the team.
Posted by:
at October 29, 2004 09:31 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
.
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
12:58 PM