• 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!

Labor board: Northwestern University football players can unionize

And they already are compensated.
problem is, you do not get to decide what is acceptable compensation. the employees and the employer do
obviously, the employees feel under-compensated, which has caused them to seek negotiation of the matter

Education, housing, travel, facilities, meals, exposure, etc...
the employees know what they are receiving, and they are asserting that what they are receiving is inadequate
and they now seek to be declared authorized to negotiate a different compensation package

This argument isn't about college athletes being paid really, it's about liberals hating that someone can make millions.
no, it's really about their conditions of employment. the things unions bargain about
the employees are concerned about health hazards, such as concussions, and their subsequent compensation if they are hurt on the job
that would seem to be a legitimate - and wise - concern to have, if it is not already being adequately addressed by their employer

It's an immature argument.
the immature argument is one which advocates denying these employees their legitimate rights as bargaining unit members
 
problem is, you do not get to decide what is acceptable compensation. the employees and the employer do
obviously, the employees feel under-compensated, which has caused them to seek negotiation of the matter


the employees know what they are receiving, and they are asserting that what they are receiving is inadequate
and they now seek to be declared authorized to negotiate a different compensation package


no, it's really about their conditions of employment. the things unions bargain about
the employees are concerned about health hazards, such as concussions, and their subsequent compensation if they are hurt on the job
that would seem to be a legitimate - and wise - concern to have, if it is not already being adequately addressed by their employer


the immature argument is one which advocates denying these employees their legitimate rights as bargaining unit members

Students are not employees, period.
 
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 are not employed. that is the start. they only way they can play football is if they maintain grades and pass classes. not only in college but before college.
they have to meet NCAA requirements to get a scholarship.

otherwise their offer is worthless and colleges have pulled scholarship offers from students that can't make the grades.

because we don't feel you can't bargain with someone you don't work for.

As employee's they have to live up to contractual agreements. IE if they do not perform on the football field they can be fired.
They will be taxed on all income. so how do you expect them to pay taxes?

Athletic departments will be on the hook for taxes on revenue's generated as well.

I don't think you should bargain against someone you don't work for.
football is voluntary as well. nothing is forcing them to play football. another reason they are not employee's.

they could easily stop playing football and they would still be students.
 
problem is, you do not get to decide what is acceptable compensation. the employees and the employer do
obviously, the employees feel under-compensated, which has caused them to seek negotiation of the matter


the employees know what they are receiving, and they are asserting that what they are receiving is inadequate
and they now seek to be declared authorized to negotiate a different compensation package


no, it's really about their conditions of employment. the things unions bargain about
the employees are concerned about health hazards, such as concussions, and their subsequent compensation if they are hurt on the job
that would seem to be a legitimate - and wise - concern to have, if it is not already being adequately addressed by their employer


the immature argument is one which advocates denying these employees their legitimate rights as bargaining unit members

they are students not employee's. that is your mistake. they do not work for the college. they attend college.
that is the only way for them to play football. they cannot play football unless they are students at the college.
 
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

and the university should have the right to say Nah bubba nah!
 
and the university should have the right to say Nah bubba nah!

as a professed member of the bar, that is all you can produce?
when the court has already expressed to the employee/athletes that they are authorized to establish a bargaining unit and can now engage in negotiation of the conditions of employment
so, given your supposed education and experience, please offer us a reason based in law why the student/employee/athletes should be found ineligible to bargain in good faith with their university employer
 
as a professed member of the bar, that is all you can produce?
when the court has already expressed to the employee/athletes that they are authorized to establish a bargaining unit and can now engage in negotiation of the conditions of employment
so, given your supposed education and experience, please offer us a reason based in law why the student/employee/athletes should be found ineligible to bargain in good faith with their university employer

Asking your opponent to prove a negative is a fallacy.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Aren't you concerned about the effect this will have on spending for education as opposed to sports teams?

So the exploited should continue to submit to being exploited so that those who benefit from this exploitation can continue to receive benefits from the continued exploitation. That makes sense to you?
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Unionizing is a libertarian belief?

It's an exercise of free association.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

So the exploited should continue to submit to being exploited so that those who benefit from this exploitation can continue to receive benefits from the continued exploitation. That makes sense to you?

The athletes volunteer to play.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

So the exploited should continue to submit to being exploited so that those who benefit from this exploitation can continue to receive benefits from the continued exploitation. That makes sense to you?

exploited? LOL

you ever play Division One College Sports

I did and I coached D I as well

admittedly Ivy league where there was no scholarships but the sports I was in-Ivy was the top in the country
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

The athletes volunteer to play.

exactly and their scholarship is dependent on school not playing football.

i have a feeling that the liberal board in washington will uphold the ruling since it is backed by big union thugs as well. the court system when it goes to court will strike it down as it always has.
 
Asking your opponent to prove a negative is a fallacy.

allow me to demonstrate why your assertion is wrong:

in asking turtledude to show us what legal basis would bar the employees from forming a valid bargaining unit, he could have pointed us to the IRS list differentiating an employee from a non-employee to illustrate what the IRS deems to be characteristic of an employee. since it is a federal document and not subject to copyright infringement, it will be shown here with the cite for the balance that i did not post:
For federal employment tax purposes, the usual common law rules are applicable to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. Under the common law, you must examine the relationship between the worker and the business. All evidence of the degree of control and independence in this relationship should be considered. The facts that provide this evidence fall into three categories – Behavioral Control, Financial Control, and the Relationship of the Parties.

Behavioral Control covers facts that show whether the business has a right to direct and control what work is accomplished and how the work is done, through instructions, training, or other means.

Financial Control covers facts that show whether the business has a right to direct or control the financial and business aspects of the worker's job. This includes:

The extent to which the worker has unreimbursed business expenses
The extent of the worker's investment in the facilities or tools used in performing services
The extent to which the worker makes his or her services available to the relevant market
How the business pays the worker, and
The extent to which the worker can realize a profit or incur a loss
Relationship of the Parties covers facts that show the type of relationship the parties had. This includes:

Written contracts describing the relationship the parties intended to create
Whether the business provides the worker with employee-type benefits, such as insurance, a pension plan, vacation pay, or sick pay
The permanency of the relationship, and
The extent to which services performed by the worker are a key aspect of the regular business of the company
[emphasis added by bubba]
Tax Topics - Topic 762 Independent Contractor vs. Employee

thus, someone with a background in law may have sought such a resource to document what is normally used to benchmark an employee determination. notice that there was no 'proving a negative' aspect to my approach; and nothing prevented turtledude or someone who someone who actually possessed legal expertise from doing the same
 
allow me to demonstrate why your assertion is wrong:

in asking turtledude to show us what legal basis would bar the employees from forming a valid bargaining unit, he could have pointed us to the IRS list differentiating an employee from a non-employee to illustrate what the IRS deems to be characteristic of an employee. since it is a federal document and not subject to copyright infringement, it will be shown here with the cite for the balance that i did not post:
[emphasis added by bubba]
Tax Topics - Topic 762 Independent Contractor vs. Employee

thus, someone with a background in law may have sought such a resource to document what is normally used to benchmark an employee determination. notice that there was no 'proving a negative' aspect to my approach; and nothing prevented turtledude or someone who someone who actually possessed legal expertise from doing the same

And why should he do the work to answer a question you already know the answer to? You just prove how dishonest you're being in here.
 
And why should he do the work to answer a question you already know the answer to? You just prove how dishonest you're being in here.

nope. turtle dude offered the following posted opinion:
and the university should have the right to say Nah bubba nah!

and i asked him to share the legal basis for that opinion

then you chimed in with your nonsense about me asking him to prove a negative


now, go divide by zero while the rest of us with something to contribute continue this discussion
 
nope. turtle dude offered the following posted opinion:


and i asked him to share the legal basis for that opinion

then you chimed in with your nonsense about me asking him to prove a negative


now, go divide by zero while the rest of us with something to contribute continue this discussion

Careful mr. Civil. You're flirting with the line.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

exploited? LOL

you ever play Division One College Sports

I did and I coached D I as well

admittedly Ivy league where there was no scholarships but the sports I was in-Ivy was the top in the country

Varies widely. Why you think the video game is no more? By 'exploited' i also am thinking of for example Chris Webber walking down main street with a famous reporter and catching a glimpse of his jersey for sale at a storefront for $130, while he cannot afford a movie ticket. I think of Denard Robinson's 'free education' (that he could never put to use if he was so desperate), while some coaches make millions and $20 million is plunked down on some facility to impress next year's recruits.

There isn't huge spending like that in Ivy sports, so you kinda speaking outta experience too.
 
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

Indeed, i have seen first hand cases where mostly grade student TAs give out Bs to truly garbage papers handed in by athletes and that's an 'elite' school. The only thing i can say in defense of this is that drawing in those numbskull yet first-rate athletes also attracts some decent "regular" students who want to be entertained too during their time there. Having a decent football team has been proven to increase applications. Sad as that may be, some in the admin would argue this is why the policy isn't "foolish."
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

this is simple business. if the cost > value then you don't do it. this is where having business classes helps. there are things call ROI's.
yes they will as athletic departments will come under major costs and liabilities.

the cost to operate will simply not be worth whatever money they can possibly make.
This will be overturned as it has for the past 30 years.

they are students not employee's. nothing will change that fact. if they don't like the free education etc... they can pay for it like everyone else. no one says they have to play football it is completely voluntary on their part.

It's real hard to imagine it ever reaching that point. First thing the ADs will have to do is take a much-deserved paycut themselves, then world-class exploiters like nick saban will have to hand in some of that $8 mil/year or whatever craziness he's given. They'll have to stop throwing $70 mil at damn practice facilities when a backyard will suffice instead.

Here is why i cannot imagine any major D1 football college dropping its sport. It's too damn popular. Even if they *lost money* after all that overdue cost cutting i mentioned, cutting a football team will mean substantial loss in regular student applications and alumni donations and the end of every other sport that was held afloat by football. Likewise, to just shrug and say "it's voluntary, pay yourself," well a team of walk ons will suck terribly and you end up with the same result: huge loss in apps and donations - not to mention tv contracts - and you may as well cut the team entirely.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

It's real hard to imagine it ever reaching that point. First thing the ADs will have to do is take a much-deserved paycut themselves, then world-class exploiters like nick saban will have to hand in some of that $8 mil/year or whatever craziness he's given. They'll have to stop throwing $70 mil at damn practice facilities when a backyard will suffice instead.

Not really. The AD's aren't going to take a pay cut and neither will saban. so you can forget that.
Really a backyard? you obviously have no clue about sports, training or practice.

Here is why i cannot imagine any major D1 football college dropping its sport. It's too damn popular. Even if they *lost money* after all that overdue cost cutting i mentioned, cutting a football team will mean substantial loss in regular student applications and alumni donations and the end of every other sport that was held afloat by football. Likewise, to just shrug and say "it's voluntary, pay yourself," well a team of walk ons will suck terribly and you end up with the same result: huge loss in apps and donations - not to mention tv contracts - and you may as well cut the team entirely.

they don't have to drop the sport just the scholarships. then players are no longer employee's. if they want to play football it will be like high school. they play because they want to play. they will have to pay full tuition books and everything else out of their own pocket like normal students and football is an extra circular activity.

ol well then all the other sports suffer. they will suffer anyway since the school if it decides to keep those programs open will get rid of non-revenue generating sports.

Ivy league schools do not issue scholarships and haven't for a while.

Will Northwestern University football unionize? - CNN.com

the northwestern president already said if they unionize the school will drop Div I football.
 
nope. turtle dude offered the following posted opinion:


and i asked him to share the legal basis for that opinion

then you chimed in with your nonsense about me asking him to prove a negative


now, go divide by zero while the rest of us with something to contribute continue this discussion

Ok, so I am home now on the comp, and not on my phone, so first let me start by apologizing, I went back and read through everything, and I was wrong to accuse you of asking him to prove a negative...You didn't do that.

With that said though, I don't think that the combative, accusatory tone is going to get the answers you want...heh, maybe I should take my own advice....
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

No evidently you don't understand what pay and compensation is. they are one in the same and can be anything in exchange for service.
the students already get a payment for playing football.

if they are employee's then that would be considered income as well. so not only will they pay taxes on what money they can try and squeeze out of the college, but they will have to pay taxes on the scholarships they receive also.

so again your ranting is just that ranting. you don't know what you are talking about. compensation is pay period as defined by the IRS code itself.

Call it whatever you want, I couldn't care less. There are undeniable differences between a scholarship and a paycheck. The whole debate over pay-for-play is predicated on this. Deny it all you want - You. Are. Wrong.

college's aren't going to pay high school student money to play football beyond what they do now. if that happens many school will just shut down their athletic departments as they can't afford the additional costs.

Whether they do or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that the prohibition needs to be lifted. I've explained this many times already.

of course you don't because it proves that you are wrong. that is why you don't.

*yawn*

this is simple business. if the cost > value then you don't do it. this is where having business classes helps. there are things call ROI's.
yes they will as athletic departments will come under major costs and liabilities.

No ****, einstein. How many times do I have to explain this to you? No one is arguing that a school should pay any athlete more than his or her expected return. The argument is that NCAA ban should be lifted so that schools have the ability to choose whether or not to offer an athlete a paycheck. If the school determines that an athlete isn't going to generate much return, then OF COURSE they should choose to not offer him/her a paycheck. In fact, the vast majority of college athletes would never (and should never) get offered a paycheck for this very reason.

they are students not employee's. nothing will change that fact. if they don't like the free education etc... they can pay for it like everyone else. no one says they have to play football it is completely voluntary on their part.

More babble irrelevant to the fact that there is no reason for the NCAA to prohibit pay-for-play.
 
I see this as a REALLY bad idea. Colleges are going to be spending money to pay athletes. What's going to become of education in our universities?

Colleges already spend a lot of money on athletes - scholarships, equipment, facilities, coaches and staff, personal trainers, the list goes on and on. Colleges are free to choose to spend however much or however little on athletics as they want. Lifting the ban wouldn't change this fact at all. If a college doesn't want to spend more money on athletics then they already do, fine, no one's going to force them, no one's even suggesting that they should.
 
If that was the way it worked, Title IX would have never passed.

Huh? Title IX doesn't have anything to do with the way in which free markets establish prices.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Not really. The AD's aren't going to take a pay cut and neither will saban. so you can forget that.
Really a backyard? you obviously have no clue about sports, training or practice.



they don't have to drop the sport just the scholarships. then players are no longer employee's. if they want to play football it will be like high school. they play because they want to play. they will have to pay full tuition books and everything else out of their own pocket like normal students and football is an extra circular activity.

ol well then all the other sports suffer. they will suffer anyway since the school if it decides to keep those programs open will get rid of non-revenue generating sports.

Ivy league schools do not issue scholarships and haven't for a while.

Will Northwestern University football unionize? - CNN.com

the northwestern president already said if they unionize the school will drop Div I football.

Pray tell me how the teams will be full of gimp volunteers yet saban and the AD don't take a pay cut? I mean who is gonna pay their salary? Who the hell is gonna keep paying $500 to see a bunch of walk ons? What TV network will dole out the big bucks for that? Your 'simple solution' really just sounds like high school v2

Ivys don't give scholarships and 2 things come to mind right away: they don't have loans either (other kinds of finaid that amounts to the same thing) and they have an inherent recruiting tool - an elite education

edit: NW prez is bluffing or could be serious - NW has always been terrible at football so few would care.
 
Back
Top Bottom