The NHL is in the midst of a lockout, and (according to many in the sports media) will likely stay there for 12-16 months.
Without debating the rightness or wrongness of the various parties to the NHL labor crisis, can anyone please tell me the difference between a strike and a lockout?
Thank you.
Simplified version:
Strike = Employees who are unhappy say “We refuse to work until you (management) give us what we want.”
Lockout = Management is unhappy, and says “We’re closing down the business and won’t re-open until you (employees) give us what we want.”
A strike would be when the players refuse to show up for work.
A lockout would be when the owners prevent the players from showing up for work.
OK, so if the current NHL contract has expired, then why is it a “lockout”? The managers wouldn’t have to lock the players out unless they were willing to work without a contract, which I assume they are not.
I don’t understand this at all. 
To think of it as a contract is wrong. It is a collective bargining agreement. It regulates all manner of interaction between owners and players.
The players were happy with the last CBA, but the owners weren’t. The owners agreed to the last one to avert losing the whole season to a lockout. If the owners would agree to what was in the last CBA (they won’t) then the lockout would end in an instant.
The one thing that the owners want is a salary cap. The one thing that players say they won’t accept is a salary cap. There are lots of other things that are included in the CBA, like when a player can become a UFA, and rookie salary structure. Those things are minor and easily negotiable. The main, and really only negotiating point is the salary cap.
No, you have it reversed. The owners absolutely will NOT let them play again without a new contract. If they continued to play then the old agreement would effectively remain in force, which is what the owners want to change.