In 2012, the junior hockey team players went on strike in August, just before the finals. Contracts expired in April, but they didn’t strike until August when they would lose only one-sixth of their salaries. If they were to strike in September instead, this would hurt the owners financially, because they earn a larger portion of their revenue during the finals. This was explained in way that if a strike was to take place next spring, hockey team owners don’t have much at stake so they would have the teams continue through to the next finals.
A) Using the sources and contingencies of power, please explain why the junior hockey team players had more power in negotiations by walking out in August rather than April?