Cooke back at it

[Top_Shelf]

I am honestly beginning to believe that the NHL and the NHLPA want to keep it this way and could care less about the players... As this brings drama and attention to them... Bad press is good press?

NHLPA is like any other union, their CBA goes to great lengths to protect members who shouldn't be protected, like Cooke.

[Evo_7ution]

7 games is a complete joke. Why even have a DPS committee? Just as well scrap it altogether and let the players police themselves. There is no accountability anyway.

[Bomm Bastic]

This will never happen but....

IF Bettman & Co. were serious about getting rid of this behavior, Bettman would levy a surcharge on the the team/owner of the player incurring any supplemental punishment, in addition to the penalty handed down to the player. $50-60k/per should do it.

[agentzero]

NHLPA is like any other union, their CBA goes to great lengths to protect members who shouldn't be protected, like Cooke.

Funny. Barrie is an NHLPA member too...... Whom do they prefer to protect here?..


Being a labour and employment counsel, I see many CBAs that in fact protect their members from the Employer considering previous disciplinary history after it has been some time since the last incident.. but the NHLPA has the unique circumstance where the members are pitted against each other in direct physical competition where disciplinary infractions often lead to serious injury and employment risk of other members. When that factor is considered, you would think that it would be in the members' favour to always consider previous disciplinary history and rarely expunge it, if only in the interest of protecting their members from reckless and senseless injury... yet, apparently not enough of them see it that way... And from the Employer's standpoint (the GMs or owners that exert under the table pressure on league disciplinarians to not go too heavy) they don't really care about their commodities (players) being injured.. sure they publicly cry bloody murder when one of their own players are hurt, but honestly, I don't believe they care all that much about their commodities that in the end, are rather easily replaceable.. (drafting 5-7 players every summer and having free agency opportunities to sign new players) Sure losing a player or two sucks, but it seems they prefer to lower the risk of their players getting suspended instead of their stars being hurt..

Sad really, but it seems (to me at least) that those who are in a position to change this stuff don't really want to, because they actually prefer this system..

As for Cooke's comments, don't get me started. "I'm a changed player, the stats prove I'm a changed player..." PLEASE!!!!! I know OJ got away with it Cooke, but I won't let you. I'll be glad when you're out of the league and I swear, mark my words, I will throw a party when you do and an even bigger one if you lose your ability to play/be employed due to injury before then. I don't use the word "hate" often, but I actually hate you and everything you stand for. I hate what you do and I hate what you say/do to hide it, deny it, not take responsibility for it etc. You suck. Get hurt or retire already. I've had it.

[Bomm Bastic]

Being a labour and employment counsel, I see many CBAs that in fact protect their members from the Employer considering previous disciplinary history after it has been some time since the last incident.. but the NHLPA has the unique circumstance where the members are pitted against each other in direct physical competition where disciplinary infractions often lead to serious injury and employment risk of other members. When that factor is considered, you would think that it would be in the members' favour to always consider previous disciplinary history and rarely expunge it, if only in the interest of protecting their members from reckless and senseless injury... yet, apparently not enough of them see it that way... And from the Employer's standpoint (the GMs or owners that exert under the table pressure on league disciplinarians to not go too heavy) they don't really care about their commodities (players) being injured.. sure they publicly cry bloody murder when one of their own players are hurt, but honestly, I don't believe they care all that much about their commodities that in the end, are rather easily replaceable.. (drafting 5-7 players every summer and having free agency opportunities to sign new players) Sure losing a player or two sucks, but it seems they prefer to lower the risk of their players getting suspended instead of their stars being hurt..

I think I know the answer to this but...is it your opinion the owners know full well the players predicament and use it against them?

[agentzero]

I think I know the answer to this but...is it your opinion the owners know full well the players predicament and use it against them?

In a sense...It happens pretty well in every labour context (including the one I work in.. and I negotiate collective agreements on behalf of the Employer.. so I know it is at least true of my Employer.. but my experience with other labour contexts and research shows pretty well the same thing).

In the end, it is the owners' league and the owners' assets are the players. Sure, the players are organized to protect many aspects of their employment relationship with the owners, including trying to correct the inherent imbalance of power they have as employees.. but what really surprises me is how little the players protect themselves from each other.. Not really sure what the answer to that is, but I hinted at the uniqueness of their labour context, I coupled this with the strength of the NHLPA as a union (say, versus the NFLPA, which was busted in the last strike)... and it seemed to point me to the odd paradox where the players have little interest in protecting their victims but great interest in protecting their offenders... Together with the owners' power and control of the league and the facts before us, I'm basically led to conclude (at least for tonight) that the players are seen as replaceable pawns much more than they are as valuable assets, otherwise they'd suspend that clown Cooke half a season... like they do the reckless crazies in the NFL when they get out of line...Because it's what those owners want. Doesn't seem like it here...

[Bomm Bastic]

In a sense...It happens pretty well in every labour context (including the one I work in.. and I negotiate collective agreements on behalf of the Employer.. so I know it is at least true of my Employer.. but my experience with other labour contexts and research shows pretty well the same thing).

In the end, it is the owners' league and the owners' assets are the players. Sure, the players are organized to protect many aspects of their employment relationship with the owners, including trying to correct the inherent imbalance of power they have as employees.. but what really surprises me is how little the players protect themselves from each other.. Not really sure what the answer to that is, but I hinted at the uniqueness of their labour context, I coupled this with the strength of the NHLPA as a union (say, versus the NFLPA, which was busted in the last strike)... and it seemed to point me to the odd paradox where the players have little interest in protecting their victims but great interest in protecting their offenders... Together with the owners' power and control of the league and the facts before us, I'm basically led to conclude (at least for tonight) that the players are seen as replaceable pawns much more than they are as valuable assets, otherwise they'd suspend that clown Cooke half a season... like they do the reckless crazies in the NFL when they get out of line...Because it's what those owners want. Doesn't seem like it here...

...and maybe the players vis-a-vis with the NHLPA don't acquiesce on more stringent penalties due to both the "brotherhood" or fraternity type environment. Knowing full well the owners perspective.

Interesting, AZ, thanks.

[agentzero]

...and maybe the players vis-a-vis with the NHLPA don't acquiesce on more stringent penalties due to both the "brotherhood" or fraternity type environment. Knowing full well the owners perspective.

Interesting, AZ, thanks.

Indeed perhaps... Brotherhood within the brotherhood as well, where maybe there is a split within the union between players who would hit with more sever penalties and those who would be more lenient... No different with employees of other organizations.. In fact, kinda funny how depending on whether a penalty is about to be imposed on either them or someone they like, employees all of a sudden feel very differently about the warranted severity of the discipline, than they do when it is to be imposed on a "brother" they care less for or don't like at all..

Anytime. Love the discussion.

Cooke sucks.

[plug]

Agentzero, loved those posts!