การพนัน คือ_sbobetฟรีเครดิต_คาสิโนออนไลน์ไม่ต้องโหลด

At this time of year, as the weather cools and we begin to hunker down for fall, my mind turns to the start of hockey season.  Unfortunately, this year is different.  Those that have been following the discussions between the National Hockey League (NHL) owners and the NHL Players' Association (NHLPA) over the negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) are aware that the parties have reached a stalemate, resulting in the NHL owners locking the players out when the current CBA expired at midnight on Saturday, Septmeber 15, 2012.

Now, if you're a die hard Leaf fan (as I am), this may be viewed as a positive development - at least the Leafs can't lose. However, for many the absence of hockey is a national disaster.

Many have waded in on the topic, including the Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation (PON).  Here is a  recent piece posted by the PON on the NHL work stoppage (Conflict Off the Rink: The NHL Negotiations).  The authors provide an interesting anlaysis of the negotiations with a clear tip of the hat to Donald Fehr, the NHLPA's representative, on his creative and collaborative approach to resolving the dispute. 

Unfortunately, I fear that this dispute might linger for quite some time, perhaps even threatening the season.  Why?  I see two key reasons. 

First, there are huge egos at stake at the leadership level for both the league and the NHLPA, each carrying the weight of enormous expectations.  Gary Bettman, the NHL President, represents the interests of the owners in these negotiations.  He is perceived as having won the last round of labour talks in 2004 and you can be sure he doesn't want to be viewed by his constituency (the owners) as having lost this round.  The players are represented by Mr. Fehr, who previously served as the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) from 1986-2009.  It was Mr. Fehr who led the MLBPA through the 1994–95 Major League Baseball strike and subsequent World Series cancellation. This man knows work stoppages.  As the perceived losers in the last round of NHL labour strife (one characterized by internal leadership dissention with the NHLPA), the players feel the need to win this one and Mr. Fehr carries the weight of players' expectations on his shoulders. 

Second, there is a lot of money at stake, and the two sides are a tidy half a billion dollars apart in their visions for the next CBA.  Complicating this picture is the realization - shared by the owners and the players - that the NHL has been a very successful league over the past five years, drawing revenues far in excess of what both owners and players predicated during the last CBA negotiations.  So, there are interesting questions to ponder: how far is the revenue ceiling, how should that money be shared, and how do you plan for the future financial success and growth of hockey in the new CBA?

Tough issues.  Let's hope they get down to business soon, put ego aside and build a fair collaborative vision for the future - for the good of the game.  Otherwise, the only hockey I'll be watching this season is my 11 year old son's  Select hockey team.

I was saddened to learn of the recent passing of Roger Fisher, a true pioneer in
the field of dispute resolution. Mr. Fisher died on August 25 at the age of
90.

For many, Mr. Fisher represented their
introduction to a fresh approach to negotiation, where the focus is on getting
parties to work collaboratively to achieve outcomes aimed at meeting the
underlying needs of all parties rather than the singular wants of one side at
the expense of the others. 

The foundation for his approach was laid out in the groundbreaking book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, which Mr. Fisher co-authored with William Ury and Bruce Patton in 1982.  Getting to Yes has since sold over eight million copies and has been translated into 36 languages.

The ideas in Getting to Yes were indeed revolutionary. Instead of coaching a party in a dispute to fight competitively, the authors demonstrated - using clear and simple language and real-life examples - that you could give the same advice to both sides of a conflict – follow a fair process, prepare well, inquire carefully and with curiousity, listen to learn, separate the people from the problem, and explore options to increase value – and both sides would likely fare better than they would have otherwise.

I remember reading Getting to Yes for the first time in the late 1980's and feeling refreshed, invigorated and hopeful of a new way of doing business across the negotiation table.  It became the basis for my approach to negotiation as a lawyer in my interactions with clients and opposing counsel and the foundation for my approach to mediation.  It  also became mandatory reading in any course I taught in the dispute resolution field.  

In 2007, I attended a special Roger Fisher Tribute in Toronto sponsored by 26 dispute resolution organizations from around the world. At that tribute I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Fisher for the first time as well as members of his family.  While his voice was now frail - not the strong and sure voice I recalled from watching him on video - I was struck by his smile, humility and down to earth charm.

Thank you, Mr. Fisher for all that you have contributed to the field of dispute resolution. You have made the world a better place.

For more on Mr. Fisher's passing and his work with the Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation, go to The Program on Negotiation Mourns the Loss of Co-Founder Roger Fisher.