Normally this time of year I try to watch as many hockey games as possible, especially since network television plays the same dozen or so Christmas movies over and over again. Hockey may offer something less predictable than those movies after watching them for the umpteenth time, but I find myself watching less hockey after hearing about the possible upcoming strike by ECHL players. If you haven’t heard yet, negotiations between the ECHL and the Professional Hockey Players Association (PHPA) are not going well and the players have officially informed the league that they will not be playing starting Boxing Day, or December 26th.It’s hard for me to side with management in labor negotiations when it comes to collective bargaining because management doesn’t negotiate so that everyone is better off. Normally, if the employees gain anything, it will be at the expense of the company, so management will generally push back against giving something up. Being an employee, I want better for myself, so I tend to side with the players in their collective bargaining with the ECHL.
That said, it’s helpful to understand what the players are fighting for with their strike threat. According to the PHPA,
“The league’s unlawful conduct dates back to the late spring/early summer, when the league made unilateral changes regarding mandatory bargaining items and began engaging in regressive bargaining. This prompted the PHPA to file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board in hopes of remediating this conduct and restoring lawful negotiations.”
That’s clearly not good. If workers actually report employers to the National Labor Relations Board, all collective bargaining is already starting at a low point. And while the players never specifically mentioned what it was that changed the ECHL, the phrase of “the league made unilateral changes regarding mandatory bargaining topics and began to engage in regressive bargaining” suggests that the ECHL attempted to remove or eliminate specific topics related to collective bargaining without even engaging with the PHPA on those topics. That is a significant problem.The PHPA continued with their statement, citing the fact that the ECHL…
“… has taken a stand against fundamental issues of player safety and working conditions. It has taken almost a year to convince the league that we should have the right to choose helmets that fit us properly. We still have clubs supplying members with used equipment. The league shows no concern or consideration for players’ travel schedules and has said that the nine-hour bus ride home should be considered our day off. Until a few days ago, the league was unwilling to give us one day off a week and they refused to negotiate a meaningful holiday break that would allow players to be home with our families, which would be consistent with professional hockey in North America.”
Look, I’m not a manager, owner, or even a water boy, but who denies anyone more time with family during the holidays? What kind of heartless pagan tells someone he can’t get a vacation?
Safety is more important and the idea of teams giving helmets and used equipment to players who don’t fit properly is asking for all kinds of trouble. How does this ensure that they are not liable for injuries if players cannot get properly fitted equipment? I know ECHL players don’t make a lot of money, but the litigious nature in the US suggests this is something that will eventually end up in court. Why would the ECHL be against making the game safer?
Third, the issue of a nine-hour bus ride constituting a day off for players is perhaps the most farcical thing I’ve ever heard. If anyone has ridden the bus for more than a few hours, they will tell you it takes days of your life. While some buses can be comfortable for longer trips, hockey players don’t want to sit in a cramped bus seat for hours. Calling a long bus ride “a day off” shows total disrespect from the ECHL, and the players have a right to be angry.
Of course, in any contract negotiation the topic of monetary increases always comes up, and this one is no different as the players are looking for better compensation. The PHPA states:
“…the league’s economic proposals so far put players below where inflation has taken us since the last pre-COVID collective agreement was signed. We have also given the league a two-year no-cost extension to help them recover.”
In short, the players made concessions to help the league and its owners get through the pandemic, and now they want to get back what they gave the league after not seeing any raises since before the pandemic. That doesn’t sound unreasonable, but it seems like the league is undervaluing the players, just like they do in every negotiation. In short, this will likely take some boardroom discussion between the league and the union to sort out the money.
There was also an accusation by the PHPA that the ECHL would send communications directly to the players instead of through the union, which is against US labor law, but I’m not a lawyer so I can’t really say if that happened, nor if the ECHL broke the law. What I can say is that it seems like the ECHL only cares about profits, without realizing that they have no profits without players. Keeping them on the ice should be a priority!
Some of you may be saying, “So what’s in the league?” that’s a fair question. After all, there are two sides to every negotiation, so it would be unfair to just post what the player side says. Let’s take a look at the ECHL’s stance and see what the league has to offer. However, before we get into these details, we need to know a few things.
The ECHL salary cap is posted on the ECHL siteand it says that “[t]The weekly salary cap for 2024-2025 is $15,130 per week for the first 30 days of the season and $14,600 per week for the remainder of the season. The weekly salary floor is $11,100. Knowing where the salary cap is can help you see what monetary winnings are on offer. When it comes to player salaries,”[t]Teams are required in 2024-2025 to pay starting players a minimum salary of $530 per week and returning players a minimum salary of $575 per week.” That’s not much.
Second, the ECHL already provides coverage for 100% of all costs when it comes to fully furnished player housing, utility and internet costs, and medical and dental benefits. However, there is an asterisk because I should note that these are only covered in-season, so players should still set aside a corresponding budget for the off-season if they plan to stay in their hockey community. I admit this is better than nothing, but I’m also pretty sure $575 a week wouldn’t go far with rent, utilities, and food costs if they weren’t covered by the league.
The ECHL claims that it has proposed “an immediate increase in the limit by 16.4%retroactively for this season, and a total increase of nearly 27% over the next several years” over the salaries listed above. If you do the math, that means weekly salaries for rookies would increase to $617 per week, while veterans’ salaries would top up to $670. An extra $100 per week sounds like the players are getting a good deal, but U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that inflation has risen 27% since 2019. That increase 16.4% represents just over half of the increased cost of goods in the US over that period.
If they can raise the rate to 27% in the next few years, why not start there and eliminate the inflation costs players pay altogether? The ECHL added that they offered “annual increases to the daily rate, increased this year to $60 and 24.5% over the term of the CBA,” but I don’t think increasing the change players can use will make a significant difference in their lives. If they applied the 27% increase right away, it would immediately make a big difference for a stack of players.
The ECHL has maintained that if the PHPA shows a “willingness to drop its most extreme offers, we are willing to negotiate,” which is an absolutely insane demand from management considering these are the demands of the players. If you want to bargain for the moon, you have to ask for the sun. By starting from an ‘extreme position’, the PHPA can adjust its demands as they are addressed by management, so that a middle ground can be found. It’s hilariously ridiculous to ask the players to withdraw their demands.
On the player safety component, the ECHL claims it has made proposals for custom sticks and alternative helmet options for players, stating that each team can provide custom sticks and each player can determine if an alternative five-star helmet is needed. The company also claims it has proposed stricter requirements for mandatory days off per week and additional non-physical activity days after three matches in three days, while lowering mileage limits for travel between consecutive matches. I should note that the league’s proposals make no mention of holiday breaks, nor of clearly defined days off after three games in three nights.
Based on all that evidence, I see no reason why the players shouldn’t strike. It seems like the ECHL is offering very little to make the game better for players, and the demand they’ve made to get the players to stop making “extreme offers” is ridiculous. Both sides have identified what they want, and they now need to find common ground on which to reach an agreement. If one side is unwilling to come to the table, the other side has every right to use whatever resources they have at their disposal to resume negotiations.
By all reports, it appears the ECHL players will strike on Boxing Day as the battle between the ECHL and PHPA escalates. If the above evidence is true, I don’t blame them.
Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!
#extended #ECHL #break