Normally at this time of year, I try to watch as many hockey games as I can, mainly because network television plays the same dozen Christmas movies over and over again. Hockey can offer up something less predictable than those movies can after watching them for the umpteenth time, but I find myself watching less hockey after hearing about the potential upcoming strike by ECHL players. If you haven't heard, the negotations between the ECHL and the Professional Hockey Players Association (PHPA) isn't going well, and the players have officially given their notice to the league that they're not playing as of Boxing Day aka December 26.
It's hard for me to take the side of management in any labour negotiation when it comes to collective bargaining because management isn't bargaining for everyone to be better off. Normally, if the employees gain anything, it comes at a cost to the business, so management is generally going to push back on giving anything up. With me being an employee, I want better for myself, so I'm apt to side with the players in their collective bargaining with the ECHL.
That being 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 late spring/early summer when the league made unilateral changes related to mandatory subjects of bargaining and began engaging in regressive bargaining. This prompted the PHPA to file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board with the hope of remedying this conduct and restoring lawful bargaining."
Clearly, that's not good. If the employees are basically reporting the employers to the National Labor Relations Board, any collective bargaining is already starting at a low point. And while the players never specifically mentioned what it was that the ECHL changed, the line of "the league made unilateral changes related to mandatory subjects of bargaining and began engaging in regressive bargaining" suggests that the ECHL was trying to remove or eliminate specific topics that pertained to collective bargaining without so much as engaging with the PHPA on those topics. That's a significant problem.
The PHPA continued with their statement, citing that the ECHL...
"... has resisted basic player safety and working condition issues. It has taken almost a year to persuade the league that we should be entitled to choose helmets that properly fit us. We still have clubs supplying members with used equipment. The league shows no concern or regard for players' travel schedule and has said that the nine-hour bus trip home should be considered our day off. Until a few days ago, the league was not prepared to give us a day off per week, and they refused to negotiate a meaningful holiday break that allows players to be home with our families, which would be consistent with professional hockey in North America."
Look, I'm not a manager, an owner, or even a waterboy, but who denies anyone more time with family during the holidays? What kind of heartless heathen tells someone they don't get a holiday break?
More to the heart of the matter is safety and the idea that teams are giving helmets and used equipment to players that don't fit properly is asking for all sorts of trouble. How does this not make them liable for injuries if players can't get equipment that fits properly? I know that ECHL players don't make a lot of money, but the litigious nature in the US suggests that this is something that will hit a courtroom eventually. 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 might be the most farcical thing I've ever heard. If anyone has rode a bus for more than a few hours, they'll tell you that it takes days off your life. While some buses can be confortable for longer travel, hockey players don't want to be stuffed into a cramped bus seat for hours on end. Calling a long bus ride "a day off" is total disrespect from the ECHL, and the players have a right to be angry.
Of course, in every contract negotiation, the subject of monetary increases always comes up, and this negotiation is no different as the players are seeking better compensation. The PHPA states,
"... the league's economic proposals to date put players below where inflation has taken us since the last collective agreement was signed prior to COVID. We also gave the league a two year, no cost extension, to assist them in recovery."
In short, the players made concessions to help the league and owners make it through the pandemic, and now they're looking to get back what they gave the league after not seeing pay increases since prior to the pandemic. That doesn't sound unreasonable, but it seems that the league is low-balling the players just as they do in every negotiation. In short, this one will likely take some discussion in a boardroom between the league and the union to sort out the money.
There was also an accusation made by the PHPA about the ECHL sending communications directly to the players rather than through the union which violates US labor law, but I'm not a lawyer so I can't really comment on whether that happened nor whether the ECHL broke the law. What I can say is that it seems like the ECHL only care about the bottom line without realizing that they have no bottom line without players. Keeping them on the ice should be a priority!
Some of you might be saying, "What is the league offering then?" which is a valid question. After all, every negotiaton has two sides, so it would be unfair just to post what the players' side is saying. Let's dig into the ECHL's stance and see what the league is offering. Before we jump into those details, though, we need to know a few things.
The ECHL salary cap is
posted on the ECHL site, and it states that "[t]he weekly salary cap for 2024-25 is $15,130 per week for the first 30 days of the season and $14,600 per week for the balance of the season. The weekly salary floor is $11,100". Knowing where the salary cap sits will help to see what monetary gains are being offered. When it comes to players' salaries, "[t]eams are required in 2024-25 to pay rookie players a minimum salary of $530 per week and returning players a minimum salary of $575 per week". That's not a lot.
Secondly, the ECHL already offers coverage of 100% of all costs when it comes to fully-furnished housing for players, utility and internet costs, and medical and dental benefits. There is an asterisk, though, as I should note that these are covered in-season only, so players still need to budget accordingly for the offseason if they intend to stay in their hockey communities. I'll admit this is better than nothing, but I'm also pretty sure that $575 per week isn't going to go far with rent, utilities, and food costs if these weren't covered by the league.
The ECHL maintains that it proposed "
an immediate 16.4% increase to the cap, with retroactive pay for this season, and a nearly 27% total increase in future years" to the above posted salaries. If you're doing the math, that means rookie weekly salaries go up to $617 per week while veteran salaries would be topped up to $670. An extra $100 per week sounds like the players are getting good value, but the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' data shows that inflation has increased by 27% since 2019. That 16.4% increase represents slightly more than half of the increased cost of goods in the US over that time.
If they are able to increase the rate to 27% in future years, why not start there and erase the inflation costs that players are paying altogether? The ECHL added on the note that they "offered annual increases to the per diem rate, raising it to $60 this year and 24.5% over the CBA term," but I don't think that increasing the pocket change that the players can use will make a significant difference in their lives. If they applied the 27% increase right off the bat, that would make a big difference to a pile of players immediately.
The ECHL has maintained that if the PHPA exhibits "a willingness to drop its most extreme offers, we are ready and willing to bargain" which is an absolutely insane demand from management considering that these are the demands of the players. If you want to negotiate for the moon, you have to ask for the sun. Starting in an "extreme position" allows the PHPA to alter its demands as they are addressed by management so that middle ground can be found. Asking the players just to abandon their demands is hilariously ludicrous.
As far as the player safety component, the ECHL maintains that is has made proposals for custom sticks and alternate helmet options for players that state that every team can provide custom sticks and any player can determine if an alternate five-star rated helmet is needed. It also maintains that it has proposed stricter requirements for mandated days off every week and extra non-physical activities days after three games in three days while reducing the mileage limits for travel between back-to-back games. I should note that no mention of holiday breaks nor clearly defined days off after three games in three nights were mentioned in the league's proposals.
Based on all of that evidence, I see no reason why the players shouldn't go on strike. From what it seems, the ECHL is offering very little in making the game better for players and the demand they made to have the players drop "extreme offers" is ridiculous. Both sides have identified what they want, and they now need to find common ground on which they forge an agreement. If one side is unwilling to come to the table, the other has every right to use all means they have at their disposal to force negotiations to resume.
According to all reports, it seems like the ECHL players will be going on strike on Boxing Day as the fight escalates between the ECHL and the PHPA. If the evidence above is true, I don't blame them.
Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!
Posts
