first, there is nothing which requires the employer, in this instance, northwestern, to do anything other than negotiate with the new bargaining unit in good faith
if the employer's position is it is without the funds to pay anything more then it would be foolish to agree to pay that which it does not have
however, if it makes such an allegation and the parties are at impasse, it will then be a matter elevated to a court or more likely, arbitrator, for a final resolution. that objective third party will review all of the facts. and if the arbitrator found that the employer was less than truthful about its financial ability to pay then it will make a award in the union's favor. if it finds that the employer does not have the money to offer additional compensation, that objective third party will make a decision in the employer's favor
but now i ask you, if the university is found to be paying its coaches annual salaries in the millions of dollars, how legitimate is the employer's argument that it cannot afford to pay the players
They are NOT employers. They are an institution for higher education. The only employees are the people on the staff.
The coaches ARE employees. The students are not.
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.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
the court has found otherwise. the court determined that the university failed to prove that it was NOT an employerThey are NOT employers.
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 courtThey are an institution for higher education.
the court found that the employees are those who are required to perform services for considerationThe only employees are the people on the staff.
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
yes. they areThe coaches ARE employees.
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 court disagrees with youThe students are not.
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
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?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.