NHL Labour Pains

There's no deal yet, but it's pretty clear that the NHL and the NHLPA will soon reach a new collective bargaining agreement, and that the owners will be getting by far the better of the deal.

While the owners in the NHL dispute have the usual advantage of being wealthier than their employees, a second advantage has also contributed to the owners' win: namely, a public-relations win that resulted in a large number of fans blaming the players for the lockout.

It's always struck me as odd that athletes are seen as the villains when bargaining with their owners. In most labour negotiations, I can better appreciate some public tension, as unions typically argue for across-the-board wage standards and workers' rights while management argues for a freer market in which individuals are able (in theory) to negotiate better deals for themselves.

Naturally, I generally side with the unions based on their vital role as workers' counterbalance against corporate organizations designed to hold down wages and safety standards. That said, I can see the appeal of parts of the free-market side, especially to the extent that it's difficult to reward particularly good workers in a unionized environment.

In sports bargaining, it's usually a different story. Not only is the union the side arguing for a safer workplace and more of an industry's profits going to its workers, but it's also the side trying to pursue an individual's ability to negotiate contracts based on that individual's contribution to the industry. Meanwhile, management's sole goal is to hold salaries down through artificial means such as salary caps, luxury taxes and the like, with no pretense of rewarding merit.

Yet somehow, to the extent that there is any public sympathy for one side in labour disputes (and I can understand the "pox on both their houses" position) it's the owners who seem to have won it.

Part of the reason appears to be union negotiating styles which focus more on pressuring the owners directly rather than winning public approval. I suspect this one will change quickly, and certainly a good number of players went out of their way to set up charity games while the lockout was going on in order to maintain some positive public perception.

Part of it seems to be explained by fan jealousy of the players, particularly when the salaries paid to the players are far higher than those paid to most people. Of course, this argument usually includes language such as "for playing a game!", while ignoring the insane amount of work that goes into maintaining oneself as a professional athlete.

Finally, part of it seems to come from the owners' arguments that salaries must be suppressed through the CBA to help competitive balance, or or to make the league profitable. I'm not sure how anybody buys these claims, but apparently it happens.

Obviously, I consider the PR battle to be a huge issue in current negotiations. In that regard, with their salaries set to take a huge drop now, I'd love to see the NHLPA and other sports unions try to establish links to the wider union movement. The sports unions can provide vital funding, while the other unions can provide manpower as well as a more public view of the costs of lockouts. I'm far from sure that it'll happen, but suspect it would benefit both groups in the long run.

In any event, it looks like the NHL will soon be back with a cowed players' union, reduced salaries all around and effectively guaranteed profitability for most teams. A lot of people, myself included, will be glad to see hockey back; much less people, but again myself included, will be hoping for a more fair CBA next time out.