Labor board: Northwestern University football players can unionize

[ChrisL]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

what is starkly obvious is that so many who profess to hold libertarian values suddenly no longer hold those same principles when libertarian beliefs are actually being exercised

Unionizing is a libertarian belief?

 

[Ockham]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

what is starkly obvious is that so many who profess to hold libertarian values suddenly no longer hold those same principles when libertarian beliefs are actually being exercised

What's starkly obvious is how hive minded liberals see the world.

 

[Erod]

Let the market decide. My guess is nope.

If that was the way it worked, Title IX would have never passed.

 

[j-mac]

the players as northwestern obviously do not share your opinion that what they receive as compensation for playing is presently adequate
which is why they have sought to be recognized as a bargaining unit, authorized to sit down with the employer to negotiate what they will receive as compensation for their hours of labor in the future
that's it. to be able to participate in the discussion about what they will receive for their efforts
can't understand what you and others find so objectionable about having such a voice as that

They don't have to play then.

 

[justabubba]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

For one thing, if this is not repealed, this will be the case for ALL colleges/universities, not just Northwestern.

it will be only if those other teams also do as the northwestern players did, and seek authority to be recognized as a legitimate bargaining unit

They are NOT employers.

the court has found otherwise. the court determined that the university failed to prove that it was NOT an employer

They are an institution for higher education.

just like institutions of lower learning, such as elementary schools in our neighborhoods, those institutions are also employers. being an institution of higher learning of itself does not preclude the university from also being an employer. and this was recently the determination of the court

The only employees are the people on the staff.

the court found that the employees are those who are required to perform services for consideration
in this instance, the court found that students were expending between 40-50 hours weekly in labor as athletes, meeting the test of an employee performing services for compensation

The coaches ARE employees.

yes. they are
and some of them are making millions of dollars coaching players who receive no monetary payment for their labor; the effort and talent of those players bring in revenues allowing the university to pay their coaches millions of dollars. the inequity of the situation is obvious. to the players, painfully obvious. which is one of the reasons that some players discontinue their efforts to achieve a higher education, leaving for the money available elsewhere, enabling them to then take care of their families in a way they cannot as unpaid student athletes

The students are not.

the court disagrees with you
in learning that students were compelled to spend the equivalent of a full time job to meet the requirements to remain a member of the university's team, the court determined that the players were being treated like employees. only uncompensated employees. what was also found, which i found disheartening, was the adverse impact of the playing requirements upon the student athletes. many were forced to change their majors, away from the focus they sought, to other majors having less stringent requirements, to be able to fulfill their expectations as athletes. to me, that indicated the employer was focused on the employee as an athlete rather than as a student

You still have not addressed the point that money that should go to educational materials, professors, etc., could now potentially be spent on acquiring athletes.

money is fungible. the millions spent on coaches could now be spent instead on educational materials. but the employers chose to allocate those millions to seek out the better coaches on the market, who are available, despite their accompanying high salaries. why is it so wrong to also pay highly desirable athletes in the same manner?

 

[justabubba]

They don't have to play then.

but what those savvy kids also knew was that they had an option other than playing or not playing, and that was playing as a union member. and that is the option they exercised, which brought us to this very thread

 

[justabubba]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

What's starkly obvious is how hive minded liberals see the world.

in this instance that collective bargaining, authorized under law, and right of assembly, as provided by the Constitution

you are welcome to argue against those choices. but you will continue to fail

 

[Hicup]

This is ridiculous on so many levels, and will be overturned. How in the world is a student an employee of anything at the school. The only transaction I see is a promise to give them an education in return for their participation in sports. What else is there to bargain for? THAT IS THE BARGAIN. You either decide well yes I would like to take that deal or no I will not.


Tim-

 

[Erod]

but what those savvy kids also knew was that they had an option other than playing or not playing, and that was playing as a union member. and that is the option they exercised, which brought us to this very thread

Unionized college athletes. Let that sink in for just a moment.

Better yet, how about unionized gay Dream Act college athletes who want to smoke weed and get married at halftime.

 

[Erod]

This is ridiculous on so many levels, and will be overturned. How in the world is a student an employee of anything at the school. The only transaction I see is a promise to give them an education in return for their participation in sports. What else is there to bargain for? THAT IS THE BARGAIN. You either decide well yes I would like to take that deal or no I will not.


Tim-

Unfortunately, Obama has placed three pro-union members on the Court of Appeals. It will be upheld.

 

[justabubba]

This is ridiculous on so many levels, and will be overturned. How in the world is a student an employee of anything at the school. The only transaction I see is a promise to give them an education in return for their participation in sports. What else is there to bargain for? THAT IS THE BARGAIN. You either decide well yes I would like to take that deal or no I will not.


Tim-

you have described 'at will' employment
which is the opposite of union represented employment

 

[justabubba]

Unionized college athletes. Let that sink in for just a moment.

good idea
you could share with us any reasons you find that it is not

Better yet, how about unionized gay Dream Act college athletes who want to smoke weed and get married at halftime.

if they can negotiate such terms with their university employer, what is your problem with it
just as if you could negotiate a similar agreement with your own employer. why would that be a bad thing if the parties agreed it was an acceptable practice?

 

[Erod]

you have described 'at will' employment
which is the opposite of union represented employment

Again, you're describing 18-year-old athletes, whom often have nowhere near the academic qualifications to attend these schools, unionizing in order to be compensated for playing an amateur sport.

You think Appalachian State can continue its athletics program in that setting?

 

[Erod]

good idea
you could share with us any reasons you find that it is not



if they can negotiate such terms with their university employer, what is your problem with it
just as if you could negotiate a similar agreement with your own employer. why would that be a bad thing if the parties agreed it was an acceptable practice?

So you believe the universities are their employer? That's a done deal with you?

No, the university is their charity provider, especially if we're talking about the rowing or soccer team.

 

[Hicup]

you have described 'at will' employment
which is the opposite of union represented employment

Please, are you insulting me? And in the case of a student recruited to play football or any sport in exchange for an education, and "at-will" agreement would mean that the school could effectively say no sorry you suck at football, and rescind their agreement to pay for their college education. Not even remotely true as a college needs a very damn good excuse to expel a student from the college or revoke their scholarship. If the student meets the guidelines of attendance and educational performance it matters little if the player sucks at football, the education will still be honored. If it were "at-will" as you claim, the school could opt out at any time without reason.


Tim-

 

[Erod]

Please, are you insulting me? And in the case of a student recruited to play football or any sport in exchange for an education, and "at-will" agreement would mean that the school could effectively say no sorry you suck at football, and rescind their agreement to pay for their college education. Not even remotely true as a college needs a very damn good excuse to expel a student from the college or revoke their scholarship. If the student meets the guidelines of attendance and educational performance it matters little if the player sucks at football, the education will still be honored. If it were "at-will" as you claim, the school could opt out at any time without reason.


Tim-

The unintended consequence for these athletes could be one-year reviewable scholarships across the board. This is already the case for many sports. Of course, that will mean lawsuits and "player strikes" to battle such decisions.

I can see it now, "The Ohio State-Michigan won't be shown today because of the current player strike at Michigan; therefore, we present to you "Back to the Future", starring Michael J. Fox."

 

[Hicup]

The unintended consequence for these athletes could be one-year reviewable scholarships across the board. This is already the case for many sports. Of course, that will mean lawsuits and "player strikes" to battle such decisions.

I can see it now, "The Ohio State-Michigan won't be shown today because of the current player strike at Michigan; therefore, we present to you "Back to the Future", starring Michael J. Fox."

Maybe, but like I said earlier, the agreement is already established at the time when a student decides to attend school under a scholarship. If they are offered one, the school should be made to honor it, and I agree with that, however if the student decides to skip school, or does something unbecoming, then they will be subject to disciplinary action and possible revocation of the scholarship. If they keep at it, they have the potential to become millionaires, and at the very least, they will come out of college with a really good education which in and of itself is pretty good.


Tim-

 

[CycloneWanderer]

NO. i'm saying that it wont necessarily be the case that they are true employees and not students.

Look at graduate students (why do I think this area may be foreign to you?). They get a stipend that is NON TAXABLE and they act essentially as employees - teaching in classrooms or doing research work. The scholarship is contingent on it being a part of their education, and I think you can make a case for many of these players that participation in their sport is part of their educational endeavor - especially when they are majoring in PE or kinesiology, or sports marketing, etc.

Its a simple hurdle that will be handled.

Stipends are taxable income. The first $5,250 or so of tuition waivers is non-taxable. Any amount of tuition waiver for graduate students above that 5k is all taxable income in the eyes of the IRS. (Graduated with a MS last year and had tuition waivers and stipends for a teaching assistantship; did my own taxes with the help of an accountant-friend)

Note: that 5k is per year. Good luck attending a good program with only 5k in tuition per year.

 

[haymarket]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

amazing, isn't it, that libertarians, who espouse rights of the individual are so opposed to the collective rights of those individuals

Its really in no way shape or form amazing. Libertarianism is - at its core - a right wing belief system and it follows that they would be against any actions of people which strengthen the hand of the people in any effort against corporations or monied interests. They want us to get fooled by the pronouncements about drugs and personal behaviors which they believe make them sound so tolerant and even liberal on those issues but its just meaningless lipstick on the pig. In the end they are a bunch of right wingers whose policies would turn this nation over to a fascist corporatism that runs the nation like a slave master on his plantation. Or course they will scream and yell along with the rest of us when taken to the camps that they never intended it to happen like that but a fat lot of good it will do them or anyone else. You weaken government to the point of impotence and all you have left is corporations to lord it over us. And that is what will happen if the libertarians get their way. But maybe a few of us will feel better because we can smoke a legal joint while waiting in the line to see if today its a shower or something worse.

 

[haymarket]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Unionizing is a libertarian belief?

actually its just the opposite.

 

[j-mac]

but what those savvy kids also knew was that they had an option other than playing or not playing, and that was playing as a union member. and that is the option they exercised, which brought us to this very thread

And they already are compensated. Education, housing, travel, facilities, meals, exposure, etc...This argument isn't about college athletes being paid really, it's about liberals hating that someone can make millions. It's an immature argument.

 

[j-mac]

Please, are you insulting me? And in the case of a student recruited to play football or any sport in exchange for an education, and "at-will" agreement would mean that the school could effectively say no sorry you suck at football, and rescind their agreement to pay for their college education. Not even remotely true as a college needs a very damn good excuse to expel a student from the college or revoke their scholarship. If the student meets the guidelines of attendance and educational performance it matters little if the player sucks at football, the education will still be honored. If it were "at-will" as you claim, the school could opt out at any time without reason.


Tim-

Absolutely. Just Google Golsen from Notre Dame.

 

[justabubba]

Again, you're describing 18-year-old athletes, whom often have nowhere near the academic qualifications to attend these schools, unionizing in order to be compensated for playing an amateur sport.

let's break this down into the two topics you have introduced:
1. academically unqualified students admitted to universities
that is a foolish practice. and an institutionally selfish one
institutions of higher learning should only be accepting students whose record reflects an ability to succeed at that college of higher learning. those without such qualifications are destined to fail - if the same academic standards are applied to them. UNC chapel hill's recent episode where it was found eliminating academic rigor to retain player eligibility puts this foolishness on public display
2. unionizing to receive compensation to play what has historically been an amateur sport
it's a good idea, whose time has come
i remember the hue and cry when the formerly amateur international olympics allowed professional players to participate. that's when our dream team regained gold, where previously, our amateur players could not, on the basketball court
and look, the olympics did not shut down ... those who insist that is what would happen today to university sports programs should look to the olympic experience to see their predictions are without merit

You think Appalachian State can continue its athletics program in that setting?

ASU only has one dominant sport: football ... unless huffing good weed is added to the list of activities in which the student body excels
now to your question, could App State continue to do well in its football program once unionization is pervasive on national campuses
i believe so. the recent App football success may have been an aberration. before it, ECU, another secondary state school, was the state's football powerhouse. App State's short-lived football success has fallen off (since my daughter graduated; but does correlation equal causation). NC really is not remarkable on the national scene for college football. we have an excellent high school program, but our top HS football players tend to be recruited by stronger programs out of state, which is why you do not see NC state, UNC, duke, wake, in major bowl football games, but you will see them during march madness, because our homegrown NC basketball players tend to stay and play in state
my speculation is well funded universities will have the means to recruit - and pay - for the elite players. but there is only so much money available in one school, which will cause some players to play elsewhere for the money, instead of the powerhouse. and as i noted App is not a true powerhouse program
in basketball i believe i will cause some of the talent that has historically remained in state schools to now follow the money to funded basketball programs elsewhere

what i expect after unionization of collegiate sports is similar to the experience in pro sports: the players will be better looked after, both financially and importantly, medically. especially the elite ones

 

[TurtleDude]

I suspect those who want students to be able to unionize mainly do so because they realize the union movement is (thankfully) dying and they need to prop it up for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the well being of the students.

 

[justabubba]

I suspect those who want students to be able to unionize mainly do so because they realize the union movement is (thankfully) dying and they need to prop it up for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the well being of the students.

it is the students who are doing this themselves


those expressing support are only viewing it from the sidelines

not saying union strength has not become severely eroded since the golden age of our economy in the 50's
just saying that student athletes seeking to use their right of assembly has little to do with preserving unionship and everything to do with enhancing their own conditions of employment thru legally sanctioned bargaining