NHL Lockout and the Ethics of Labour Disputes

When the rich and powerful butt heads, are they obligated to look out for the little guy?

The NHL lockout may be over, but its impact is far from forgotten. Or even clear. And the impact goes far beyond the loss of income to the NHL, its member teams and its players.

The end of the dispute may mean little to the economy as a whole, but to one portion of the economy — the portion that depends for its livelihood on the actual playing of hockey games — it means everything. The economic loss to Canada as a whole as a result of the loss of half a season of hockey may amount to less than 0.05 per cent of GDP, but the impact was felt disproportionately by the thousands of businesses and individuals that depend for their livelihood on the NHL and its players. For every Sidney Crosby or Daniel Alfredsson making millions on the ice, there is an entire ecosystem of managers, announcers, hotdog vendors, and Zamboni drivers who only have jobs because hockey is being played.

The lockout resulted, in other words, in a lot of so-called ‘collateral damage.’ Some teams had to lay off staff (in some cases, that meant hundreds of employees per team) and many businesses — from sports bars to the guy selling hotdogs outside the arena — saw business dip or even bottom out entirely.

Of course, this is true in almost any labour dispute. When auto assembly-line workers go on strike, workers at companies that manufacture parts for those assembly lines may see hard times as a result. But as many have pointed out, the dispute between the NHLPA and the NHL was a dispute between millionaires and billionaires, which gives the whole thing a distinctly different feel.

Whether the 113-day dispute was worthwhile to either the players or the league — whether either side gained more than it lost — is for them to decide. The relevant ethics question, here, is what part the financial fate of these innocent bystanders should have played in the decision making of the two parties to this dispute, namely the NHL and the National Hockey League Players’ Association (NHLPA). Should the league and players have felt any obligation to end the dispute early, in order to limit financial collateral damage?

It is tempting to cast this question as a matter of what economists call ‘externalities.’ Externalities are the effects that an economic transaction has on non-consenting bystanders. Pollution and noise are standard examples. And both economic theory and ethical theory agree that externalities are a bad thing. It is typically both inefficient and unfair if significant costs are foisted on innocent bystanders.

But economic theory, at least, doesn’t typically count the income effects of competitive behaviour as “real” externalities. If I outbid you in an auction, your interests have been harmed but not in a way that results in either economic inefficiency or real injustice. If I invent a better mousetrap and put makers of lesser products out of business, the result is ‘frictional’ unemployment but also long-term social gain. And during a labour dispute, money not being spent on hockey-arena hotdogs or Zamboni-driver wages are surely being spent on something else: one man’s loss is another’s gain.

But while not technically unfair, the outcome for bystanders is certainly unfortunate, a bad thing by almost any measure even if not the result of wrongful behaviour. And when the dispute at hand is between millionaires and billionaires, it’s worth asking at least whether the rich don’t have some duty, some social obligation, to take better care of those less fortunate.

Once upon a time, the rich and powerful cleaved to the notion of ‘noblesse oblige,’ the idea that with wealth and power come responsibility. Of course, even if the team owners and the players took such social obligations seriously, that doesn’t necessarily mean the dispute would have ended earlier. An obligation to look out for the little guy doesn’t mean an obligation to throw in the towel. But the notion of social responsibility, not to say humility, might well have done something to reduce the length, and impact, of what many regard to have been a pointless conflict in the first place.

4 comments so far

  1. Nick Adams on

    This article is very informative on how the NHL and it’s lockout. It’s saying that the lockout is over but still remembered becasue so many people loss their jobs. I think lockouts are stupid becasue many people loose their jobs just becasue NHL players want more money. They really don’t need more money. There getten millions and millions of dollars to skate on ice and hit a hockey puck with a stick. I wouldnt be arguing about being paid more and your job is is to just play hockey.

  2. Alexis Chestnutt on

    This article made me think. I agree. This conflict was whether pointless. What ever happened to the human nature of helping those who aren’t as fortunate as you? Some big shots tend to forget common ethics because they are so greedy. All they want is money and power. They don’t tend to think about how their actions may affect others and a lot tend to forget where they came from. When they were that less fortunate soul.

  3. Tiffany Lassiter on

    The words used in the beginning are not professional they are a little childish. However I do agree what is being said in this blog. I found it to be very intersting and educational to many people that need to be informed in Business Ethics. Economy is harsh this days, I wish it would become better everything is so high, exspecially gas.

  4. Robert Campbell on

    Another way to look at player salaries is not to look at them on a year by year basis but as earnings for a career in that area. An article on sportsnet notes “The average NHL salary is $2.4 million. The median salary however — the 50 per cent mark on the salary list — is about $1.4 million. It is those players, the bulk of whom make less than $1 million, who make up better than one-third of the union. They are also the ones whose careers are the shortest”(website below) As well it was interesting on the length of a hockey career “The average NHL career spans 238 games. However the median career lasts just 86 games. That’s barely more than one 82-game regular season for half of all NHL players” (website below)

    Interesting while people feel NHL salaries are extreme The Globe and Mail notes that “The Canadian junior hockey system could soon be put on trial for failing to pay its players.” The article notes “In a six-page letter sent to every club in the OHL, Canadian Hockey League president David Branch and Hockey Canada president Bob Nicholson on Thursday afternoon, a legal team representing a proposed union for players threatened to sue over the leagues’ “blatant disregard for the bare minimum working standards that have been set for employees.” Among the charges made in the letter is that players are not paid minimum wage or given overtime or vacation pay as part of a series of allegations that junior hockey breaches the Employment Standards Act in Ontario.” (globe and mail website below)

    With the sacrifices and poor pay that hockey players have until they make the NHL, would you feel those factors justify the salary they make once they crack the NHL? Would the pay then be considered ethical and recognition of the effort they put in?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: