CFL/CFLPA Labour Negotiations -- Deal reached

[B.C.FAN]

Of those who have voted, over 95% are in favour of a strike.

I hadn't seen this little nugget and don't know if it's true. There's a lot of misinformation and spin going around. It looks like status quo for the next 10 days. Once the players are in a legal position to strike across the league, the pressure on both sides will mount as the clock ticks down to the start of the regular season.

[DanoT]

Esks and Stamps will have to wait to strike
Edmonton, AB, Canada / 630 CHED
Reid Wilkins
May 30, 2014 04:07 pm

If there’s going to be a league-wide players strike in the CFL, it will be the province of Alberta that holds up the work stoppage.

Because of Alberta labour laws, the Eskimos and Stampeders are at least 11 days away from being able to walk off the job.

The Alberta Labour Relations Board couldn’t deal with the CFLPA’s request for a strike vote until today, since the collective bargaining agreement just expired last night. The request is to hold the vote on Saturday, June 7. In the meantime, the ALRB would have to do some procedural work, like approving the voters’ list.

If the Esks and Stamps vote to strike, they would then have to give their employers 72-hours notice. So at the absolute earliest, Alberta’s CFLers could strike on Tuesday, June 10. That’s just three days before the Eskimos first pre-season game.

The CFL’s other seven teams are in a position to strike. It is hypothetically possible for those clubs to strike while the Esks and Stamps continue working at camp.

Players on other teams have already had the chance to take part in a strike vote. Of those who have voted, over 95% are in favour of a strike. For now, training camps will start this weekend. (jrw)

Other than this Edmonton radio station has anyone else reported these strike vote numbers?
Aren't the Stamps and Esks players eligible to hold a strike vote on Monday June 2 ?
Does this Edmonton reporter have any sort of cred?

[WestCoastJoe]

The CFLPA must have known that Alberta labour law is different. One would think so.

It certainly affects the strike vote and possible action.

Some teams strike, and some not? That is a no go.

Strike near the end of TC? Possible. But no pay for games missed. Billeting near end of TC.

A player griping that the coaches are getting paid? Hmmm ... Those guys have few rights, low pay, high stress, and ridiculous hours.

[DanoT]

I agree about having a neurologist present but one in attendance per game not one on each sideline should suffice.

[Shi Zi Mi]

CFL MEDIA BACKGROUNDER PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jamie Dykstra
Friday, 30 May 2014 20:22

CFL MEDIA BACKGROUNDER

We want CFL players and fans to have the facts.

FICTION: The CFL offer would set the salary cap at $5 million and the players want it set at $5.8 million, so they could just saw off the difference a little and get a deal.

FACT: The players’ union’s ask is actually much, much bigger. You see, a lot of player compensation does not fall under the cap. Things like benefits, pensions, pre-season and post-season pay, plus any bonus to be paid for ratifying a new agreement. If you look at everything in our offer and everything in their offer, you find that the CFL is offering to increase player compensation by $850,000 per team in the first year of a deal, and the union is asking us to increase player compensation by $2.4 million per team in the first year of a deal. Their ask is not realistic. Under their proposal, six of nine teams would lose money.

FICTION: The CFL could just add a little something to its offer and get this done.

FACT: This is the CFL’s best offer. It’s the most we can pay. It was put forward knowing that under the CFL’s best offer, three of nine teams would still lose money this year, even with the new TV deal in place.

FICTION: The players gave up revenue sharing last time because the CFL promised back then to put it back in this round of bargaining.

FACT: That’s not true. That was never agreed to.

Thank you for your interest in our attempts to reach a new collective bargaining agreement with our players. We want a full CFL season that starts on time. We need a new CBA that pays players fairly and still gives a majority of our teams a chance to break even or make a profit. We will keep you posted.

CFL Communications.

[WestCoastJoe]

Thanks for info, SZM.

One tends to forget about benefits and bonuses in negotiations.

Interesting re the stance on revenue sharing. If it was not in writing somewhere under agreement, it was just talk, and maybe wishful thinking.

Hearing rumours of 95% players supporting strike? If true, that tilts the field towards strike. And that spells damage to the league IMO, and no gains for the players through the process either. I do not see the CFL budging much, if at all.

Just IMO ...

[Toppy Vann]

Of those who have voted, over 95% are in favour of a strike. For now, training camps will start this weekend. (jrw)

I wonder where jrw (is that Reid Wilkins?) got the 95% figure. If it's accurate, this really surprises me.

One point of disagreement on which I think the players are right is that of having a neurologist on (I assume both) sidelines of all games. Closed-head injuries are very serious, and I don't think it's unreasonable for the players to want a specialist in such injuries available as soon as they occur. Mark Cohon has said that the CFL believes that having team doctors (which I assume are usually general practitioners) on hand is sufficient, but why not go the extra mile and have a specialist in closed-head injuries there too? Sure it will cost some money, but if it saves even one player from a later lifetime of dementia, I think it's worth it.

If this story is correct here is the NFL version of this:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1510 ... -sidelines

Apparently this were doing this:

The NFL instituted a "concussion observer" program, where an ex-official was tasked with monitoring plays from the booth, calling down to the sidelines when he observed a possible head injury. The ex-official was quickly changed to an athletic trainer. The NFL did not identify this year's observers, but it is thought that they stayed with athletic trainers.

Unfortunately, the results are mixed at best.

While the NFL said that the observer requested hundreds of concussion evaluations, the overall concussions stayed at a similar level to previous seasons. An analysis of the data shows that there was no significant change in the number or severity of concussions after the new protocol and observer was put in place.*

But despite that this happened:

The NFL has made several changes over the past few years regarding concussion management. The most recent came after an incident where Cleveland QB Colt McCoy clearly had a head injury, but was not checked before coming back into the game.

McCoy came to the sidelines and said he had hand pain. The medical staff checked that (it had been hit on the play) but did not know to check McCoy for concussion. Later, McCoy said he did not remember the rest of the game.

The post that stated the best time for player action is just as the regular season starts is bang on accurate. Loss of TC is what IIRC happened in 1974 and the first games of the year were error filled on both sides of the ball as the it was disruptive (or I'm dreaming this).

But if the players were to threaten strike before the CFL kicks off the regular season games - that would be a major and signficant event and they know this as the stadium staff and fans would all be affected but so would the TSN TV revenue and sponsorships.

I still think the CFL are using last years numbers and while no one will know the go forward numbers for a fact it is not hard to make a reasonable projection. I think if they want to crush the union - this will be a rallying cry.

The language of "FINAL" offer versus the language of - 'this is simply the best we feel that it is prudent' as well as the new word "FICTION" now being used by the CFL are words that will help unify the players IF that is even possible.

These guys have wives and kids back home waiting for their cheques and income for some has likely not pretty thin off season for most. The CFL will play that one.

CFL should tone done their rhetoric despite it working with the fans. Just change the tone of their words as they need these players to come back and play committed and enthused versus angry and demoralized.

[KnowItAll]

I am beginning to think, thank God for fifa.

[South Pender]

That's useful information, Toppy. Judging from the date on the report, this policy of having an "independent" neurologist at every game went into effect last season. This makes sense to me now that I think about it a little more. Instead of having a team-paid neurologist making the final decision about the playing status of an injured player (and hence being subject to pressure from the team), the league should supply an independent neurologist with specialized expertise in closed-head injuries at each game. They could have one selected from each of the CFL cities so that travel expenses could be avoided, and that doctor could be seen as part of the officiating crew. With 81 regular season games, the cost shouldn't exceed $100K or so for the season (although the playoffs would add a little to that), and each team could kick in, say, half or $5500 per team for the season, with the league matching this. Really a pretty trivial cost for a higher level of player safety, along with the good PR arising from the league's awareness of the seriousness of the problem.

[Hambone]

One tends to forget about benefits and bonuses in negotiations.

Interesting re the stance on revenue sharing. If it was not in writing somewhere under agreement, it was just talk, and maybe wishful thinking.

Hearing rumours of 95% players supporting strike? If true, that tilts the field towards strike. And that spells damage to the league IMO, and no gains for the players through the process either. I do not see the CFL budging much, if at all.

Just IMO ...

In the logging operation I worked at on the north island we used to calculate something called "oncharge". It was those additional benefit costs the company had to pay as the employer above and beyond the actual wage. They would include things like the employer's share of CPP and EI contributions, medical, dental, extended health benefits, WCB contributions etc. There may have been other factors. I can't remember but payment of stat holidays and bereavement leave may also have been included. Obviously in coastal logging WCB costs are high given the dangerous nature of the work. Back then (early 90s) our oncharge rate was around 40%. For every $1000 in wages it was costing the operation another $400 for their obligations.

For a CFL team I highly doubt the percentage would be that high but nonetheless such costs are still significant. For instance when it comes to CPP contributions the employer must match employee contributions which max out at $2425 for 2014. Employer's EI contribution is 1.4 X employee's contribution which maxes out at $914. In 2013 the obligation for CFL clubs to contribute to the pension fund was $3600 for every player who was on the roster, injured list or disabled list for 9 or more games. Clubs are also obligated to pay medical plans, life insurance plans and accidental death and dismemberment plans for all players. While not comparable to industry those basic factors could still amount to $6000-$8000 per player in employment costs above and beyond salary. Part of the union's wishlist in current negotations will undoubtedly include improved benefits which of course would increase team labour costs outside of the cap.

A 95% vote seems normal to me for any union strike vote. Even members who don't want to strike will vote in favour of strike. A strike vote is as much a vote of confidence in the union executive as anything else. Any vote under 75% is starting to signal lack of confidence or support for the executive. As a union you never want to show signs of that this early in the game.

[Hambone]

The CFLPA must have known that Alberta labour law is different. One would think so.

It certainly affects the strike vote and possible action.

Some teams strike, and some not? That is a no go.

Strike near the end of TC? Possible. But no pay for games missed. Billeting near end of TC.

A player griping that the coaches are getting paid? Hmmm ... Those guys have few rights, low pay, high stress, and ridiculous hours.

Looks like Alberta law may not be that much different that BC's but more pragmatic in the process that is to be followed. In Alberta it's not as simple as the union going out and autonomously holding a vote then acting on the results. Seems they require more involvement on behalf of the Alberta Labour Board in every step of the process which drags it out.

[Toppy Vann]

http://scratchingpost.thespec.com/2014/ ... ng+Post%29

A good overview by the Ticats football reporter - Drew Edwards which reduces this dispute to a large nut shell described as follows:

But this dispute isn't just about the salary cap. It's about CFLPA’s fear that the CFL will, at some point during the life of a new agreement, somehow come into a big pot of money. Should that happen, the league wants to keep as much of it as possible and the players want a share. Simple concept with no simple solution.

The CFLPA initially looked to protect its members with revenue sharing, something they had in a previous incarnation of the collective bargaining agreement but gave away in 2010. The CFL vehemently rejected the re-introduction of the idea of tying compensation directly to the amount of money the league generates. Instead, they proposed the idea of “revenue protection clause” which would enable the players to reap additional gains if the league suddenly began earning unexpected bucketfuls of money.

It’s a solid concept and by accepting it in principle, the players’ association made a significant concession from their previous position. But here’s the problem now: the CFL and the CFLPA have very different ideas as to when that clause should be triggered.

[Shi Zi Mi]

News1130 Sports ‏@News1130Sports 6h

#BCLions gm Wally Buono on a conference call with other CFL gm's getting update on CBA talks this morning.

[Shi Zi Mi]

Matthew Scianitti ‏@TSNScianitti 52m

According to a doc submitted to #TSN by players who prefer to remain anynomous, #CFLPA has prepared a new 4-yr offer to restart talks #CFL

#CFLPA new cap numbers 2014 $5.2 million (4.8mil min); 2015 $5.6; 2016 $5.8; 2017 $6m Rev. Protection clause now triggers at $18mil #cfl

Doc says #CFL has rejected it.League not prepared to move.From doc: "no point in meeting unless(players)are prepared to accept (league)offer

#CFLPA doc says "only possible way" of convincing #CFL to reconsider is a work stoppage. Union will advise after strike votes in EDM & CGY

[notahomer]

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/dave_naylor/?id=453761

Great blog post by Dave Naylor of TSN, IMO. He makes what is a sad, IMO, point in regards to pro football. Basically, IMO, Naylors point is that if there are going to be large increases in salaries, then the majority of those monies will go to the 'stars'. Football is a team game but bottom line is that there are always going to be players making a lot more than most of their teammates.

I'm not questioning the 'strength' of the CFLPA. I hope this labour negotiation starts up again and I'll be able to watch CFL football soon.