• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should college students be able to unionize?

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
81,351
Reaction score
19,620
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The National Labor Relations Board in Chicago has ruled that football players at Northwestern University are employees and can unionize.

Question is what do you think?
 
Why wouldn't they?
They aren't employees. And if they were they get education completely free. While others who contribute far more than playing games must pay ludacrisly high tuition. This is going to be an excuse to increase that burden.
 
I don't think the ruling was appropriate. College football players are not on the payroll and are not subject to employee regulations from what I understand.

If anything, college students and football players are more like "customers" in that they select the school, pay tuition and are receiving the service of education with hopes to earn a degree. College students still "pay" tuition, it's just offset by the athletic scholarship.

As a student for the past 6 years I don't think students should be able to unionize.
 
Last edited:
College tuition can't be used to buy a car, or food, etc. so, no, they aren't employees. More like trading partners.
 
Yes. They aren't asking for cash, they are asking for their medical bills to be covered and for their schoolwork to be respected. How are those bad things? These schools are earning millions of the backs of these kids who are putting their bodies on the line; the least these schools could do is pay for the medical bills and make sure they have adequate time to study.
 
The National Labor Relations Board in Chicago has ruled that football players at Northwestern University are employees and can unionize.

Question is what do you think?

Thread title is a little leading IMHO but I say yes. Student athletes bring in tens of millions to their colleges while they are forced to live in poverty. Some sports, particularly football is associated with a significant risk to both debilitating physical and neurological injuries. Under NCAA rules, they cannot even get a part-time job at McDonald's after classes, barring them from earning money outside of the school. Yes, they get a free education but its not the same as with other students. Because of travel and practice, they often cannot take advantage of the best educational opportunities available at the university. In fact, if I'm not mistaken they don't even have to pass their classes to graduation as a special student athlete curve is applied to their class requirements. To say they're getting a free education is simply not accurate. What they get is the right to SAY they're students, take classes they don't have to pass, work their butts off as athletes for free, risk debilitating injuries all for the chance at becoming pro someday, something only a minority of college athletes will accomplish.

I say pay them and stick the money in a high return investment account trust fund they can get at age 50.
 
They aren't employees. And if they were they get education completely free. While others who contribute far more than playing games must pay ludacrisly high tuition. This is going to be an excuse to increase that burden.

Why shouldn't just anyone be allowed to unionize. I don't mean employees, but just any group of people who are in a similar situation or have similar interests?

I think that suggesting that individuals should NOT be allowed to form associations, for the purpose of collective negotiating or any other purpose, is quite un-libertarian.

Large entities have a distinct negotiating advantage that individuals don't have. So lets say that Pharma A has sole rights to produce a certain drug, and because of that they are able to charge a rediculous price for that drug. No individual uses enough of that drug to have any negotiating power, so they are just stuck with whatever price that Pharma A charges. If individuals who needed that drug unionized, they could then boycott purchases from that company, or at least use the threat to do so to gain negotiating power which is more or less equal to Pharma A.

I suspect that those who don't agree, don't have a true libertarian bone in their bodies. They just want to be able to give large entities huge amounts of negotiating power, while keeping normal individuals virtually powerless.
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't just anyone be allowed to unionize. I don't mean employees, but just any group of people who are in a similar situation or have similar interests?

I think that suggesting that individuals should NOT be allowed to form associations, for the purpose of collective negotiating or any other purpose, is quite un-libertarian.

Large entities have a distinct negotiating advantage that individuals don't have. So lets say that Pharma A has sole rights to produce a certain drug, and because of that they are able to charge a rediculous price for that drug. No individual uses enough of that drug to have any negotiating power, so they are just stuck with whatever price that Pharma A charges. If individuals who needed that drug unionized, they could then boycott purchases from that company, or at least use the threat to do so to gain negotiating power which is more or less equal to Pharma A.

I suspect that those who don't agree, don't have a true libertarian bone in their bodies. They just want to be able to give large entities huge amounts of negotiating power, while keeping normal individuals virtually powerless.
everybody has the right to unionize, but I don't think an institution of higher learning should be occupied with children's games.
 
Yes. They aren't asking for cash, they are asking for their medical bills to be covered and for their schoolwork to be respected. How are those bad things? These schools are earning millions of the backs of these kids who are putting their bodies on the line; the least these schools could do is pay for the medical bills and make sure they have adequate time to study.
or just do away with them being students and they can just be pro ball players, that is all they really are
 
Thread title is a little leading IMHO but I say yes. Student athletes bring in tens of millions to their colleges while they are forced to live in poverty. Some sports, particularly football is associated with a significant risk to both debilitating physical and neurological injuries. Under NCAA rules, they cannot even get a part-time job at McDonald's after classes, barring them from earning money outside of the school. Yes, they get a free education but its not the same as with other students. Because of travel and practice, they often cannot take advantage of the best educational opportunities available at the university. In fact, if I'm not mistaken they don't even have to pass their classes to graduation as a special student athlete curve is applied to their class requirements. To say they're getting a free education is simply not accurate. What they get is the right to SAY they're students, take classes they don't have to pass, work their butts off as athletes for free, risk debilitating injuries all for the chance at becoming pro someday, something only a minority of college athletes will accomplish.

I say pay them and stick the money in a high return investment account trust fund they can get at age 50.
okay then they aren't students, they are pro ball players, if they don't have to study and pass then they aren't really students.
 
If they are employees then they should be taxed on their compensation just like everyone else.
 
I don't think the ruling was appropriate. College football players are not on the payroll and are not subject to employee regulations from what I understand.

If anything, college students and football players are more like "customers" in that they select the school, pay tuition and are receiving a the service of education with hopes to earn a degree. College students still "pay" tuition, it's just offset by the athletic scholarship.

As a student for the past 6 years I don't think students should be able to unionize.
I agree if we are going to call these people employees than why call them students?

A student studing to be a doctor doesn't get free school or payment. For studying. I think a doctor had more value to society than a person that plays games for amusement.
 
The National Labor Relations Board in Chicago has ruled that football players at Northwestern University are employees and can unionize.

Question is what do you think?

The real question should be: Can non-employees unionize?

Yes.

If they have to work in tandem with said organization or business in order to accomplish something then they do have rights and specific interests. Colleges pursue legislators and wage against the students by raising prices and all else - effectively barring the students from input even though it places the results of these decisions square on the student's shoulders.

Makes perfect sense to give them more representation and voice.

Universities look at students as little more than money makers which is abusive toward the whole concept. If colleges hadn't spun so out of control it would be a non-issue but it's clear they don't always hold the student's best interest.
 
These players are creating economic value. We all acknowledge that, don't we? The question here is how that economic value should be allocated. Right now it is the coaches and the University (the owner) who get it all. The players deserve to get some of that far more so that non-player students who get the benefit of lowered costs as the profits are plowed back into the university.

The alternative here is for universities to divest themselves of football teams, let some businessmen buy the stadiums and teams, license the use of the university name, transform college ball into a minor league for football, and then hire players directly from high schools and pay them whatever the market will bear.

I'm a capitalist, but I'm not in favor of exploitation of labor.
 
Scholarships can cover that. And real students have to pay those things and accrue massive debt

Cry me a river.

I can't put a scholarship in the bank, or invest it, etc.


If they are employees, it sets a scary precedent for the rest of us. It means employers can dictate to employees what they must spend their "earnings" on.



No thanks.
 
High school football creates a lot of revenue, too.






At what point did playing sports stop being a fun thing to do while going to school and start being a job?
 
The real question should be: Can non-employees unionize?

Yes.

If they have to work in tandem with said organization or business in order to accomplish something then they do have rights and specific interests. Colleges pursue legislators and wage against the students by raising prices and all else - effectively barring the students from input even though it places the results of these decisions square on the student's shoulders.

Makes perfect sense to give them more representation and voice.

Universities look at students as little more than money makers which is abusive toward the whole concept. If colleges hadn't spun so out of control it would be a non-issue but it's clear they don't always hold the student's best interest.
I agree non employees should be allowed to unionize. They are saying they are employees rather than customers.
 
I can't put a scholarship in the bank, or invest it, etc.
that isn't what a scholarship is for. If they want to make money right now, they can opt not to go to college and find work.

Other students have to pay their bills with no compensation. I can't put debt in the bank or invest it, ect.

If you are suggesting that students be payed for their studies than let's start with pmed students.


If they are employees, it sets a scary precedent for the rest of us. It means employers can dictate to employees what they must spend their "earnings" on.
They aren't employees, they are students. So it isn't scary. Colleges don't pay their students, their students, pay them.

They are customers. If customers can unionize and demand employment from the organization they patronize that is equally frightening.
 
High school football creates a lot of revenue, too.
it consumes far more than it creates.






At what point did playing sports stop being a fun thing to do while going to school and start being a job?
I think games should be just fun and recreation. But then again I am non interested spectating. They seem repetitive and boring. But I like different television shows.

It's the increasing amount of money that professional game players get. And how much it sticks in peoples' craw that they can't earn that much money. Such as advertisers and sponsors. Professional game players are never payed a dime more than what they are worth. It's not their fault that others aren't skilled at playing their games and thus aren't worth all that money.
 
The National Labor Relations Board in Chicago has ruled that football players at Northwestern University are employees and can unionize.

Question is what do you think?

No they shouldn't and if they are allowed to and strike then their scholarships should be revoked.
 
it consumes far more than it creates.






I think games should be just fun and recreation. But then again I am non interested spectating. They seem repetitive and boring. But I like different television shows.

It's the increasing amount of money that professional game players get. And how much it sticks in peoples' craw that they can't earn that much money. Such as advertisers and sponsors. Professional game players are never payed a dime more than what they are worth. It's not their fault that others aren't skilled at playing their games and thus aren't worth all that money.

Tell that to Texas High School football.
 
Yes. They aren't asking for cash, they are asking for their medical bills to be covered and for their schoolwork to be respected. How are those bad things? These schools are earning millions of the backs of these kids who are putting their bodies on the line; the least these schools could do is pay for the medical bills and make sure they have adequate time to study.

And as for the rest of us college students that have to pay for medical bills and may not have adequate time to study? Should we just put everybody in a foam room? They made a choice to attend COLLEGE and play a sport. The chance of injury is not created by the school but something they voluntarily signed up for
 
Back
Top Bottom