• 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?

Colleges have turned football into a cash-cow, and now the players want their cut? You miss my point. This is college. The point of college is not playing football. It's shoving enough knowledge into empty little brains so they can go out into the world with enough education to survive, and maybe even make the world a little better.

I'd be perfectly happy if all revenue-generating football was permanently banned from all college campuses, relegated to just another extra-curricular sport like tennis or rugby. College football is corrupt to the core, college football players go through four years of college and some come out functionally illiterate because nobody cares about the football player himself beyond what kind of money he can earn for the damned college. It should be illegal for colleges to pimp their football players for cash, and stealing from them the education that they will need when, you know, their knees blow out.

No college sports should make money for the college, period. Kids need to be educated, not prostituted out of sheer corruption and greed.
I agree, I personally think sports serve very little purpose outside of amusement. And I have no problem with colleges having football programs but it's only purpose is to generate money to better serve students pursuingreal jobs.
 
It should be illegal for colleges to pimp their football players for cash, and stealing from them the education that they will need when, you know, their knees blow out.

To be fair to the colleges, most of the kids on those football teams wouldn't be at their particular colleges if not for an athletic scholarship.
 
All these arguments of how much the school makes are immaterial to the case at hand. The question is a matter of association, and there is no reason to expect college kids lack the right to association. The problem with union laws are not in that people can unionize, but what assistance is offered to them by the state.
 
Have I made that argument, or even the argument you're thinking of?

That is where your argument leads. Intramural sports are facilitated by the university and pose a similar risk to the voluntary participants but they are paid nothing at all
 
No, the ACA is the government blowing the insurance companies. We need single payer, but that is a whole other topic.

Back to the point, however, the school should be responsible for the student-athletes injuries, period. It's just the fair thing to do, and I have no issue with the government making a law about it. Especially for publicly funded schools.

The school is not responsible. I'm not sure if college athletics is the same way, but I know at least in many high schools you must sign a waiver stating that the school is not liable for injury unless it is caused by an unsafe feature outside of the sport itself (like if a ceiling tile struck a player).
 
To directly talk on the OP, I see no real problem with unionized students although I do have a distrust for unions. I also don't see playing a sport that is not professional as labor
 
That is where your argument leads. Intramural sports are facilitated by the university and pose a similar risk to the voluntary participants but they are paid nothing at all

My main point was that his comparison struck as a false equivalency, not whether or not insurance policies should increase coverage. Remember, I am unsure as to what universities should be doing in these regards.
 
All these arguments of how much the school makes are immaterial to the case at hand. The question is a matter of association, and there is no reason to expect college kids lack the right to association. The problem with union laws are not in that people can unionize, but what assistance is offered to them by the state.
I agree. It's one thing to associate and even bargain collectively. It's another for the state to step in and take sides. One is a constitutional right the other is a step toward tyranny.
 
I am not sure what match madness is.

Paying students so that students can have the best opportunities, is madness in all twelve months.

You'd be paying them for services rendered is what you'd be doing. The coach is making cash, people are paying cash to sit in those seats, colleges are selling television rights, those dollars are flowing into the coffers of the school.....Now if the students get together and say, "You know what, that scholarship you gave us worth $X, that's not going to cut it, WE WANT MORE."

Yes, that's legal in AMERICA.
 
I think I've established my bona fides as a cold-hearted capitalist bastard, but I can't go along with that. Capital has an inherent advantage over labor, especially when we're talking about individuals instead of groups and so this type of arrangement where replacement labor is used to boot out the union labor is just wrong. When you're screwing with people's livelihoods then you get murders of replacement laborers and of management.

If unions are being totally unreasonable and threatening to bankrupt a corporation then management can relocate, but when it comes to negotiating how to split the wealth created, labor needs to have some leverage to use against capital and unions are, in theory, the best way to do that.

Wow! We agree on something!
 
You'd be paying them for services rendered is what you'd be doing.
No you would be paying them for being students, they are already paid
[
The coach is making cash,
The coachis an employee all the professors make money, they don't pay their students.
people are paying cash to sit in those seats, colleges are selling television rights, those dollars are flowing into the coffers of the school..
You said all of this before. Why do you think repeating it makes it different. The students get free education. And the money made isn't theirs.
Now if the students get together and say, "You know what, that scholarship you gave us worth $X, that's not going to cut it, WE WANT MORE."
So they are ungrateful greedy little bastards that think they deserve toget paid to attend college.

Yes, that's legal in AMERICA.
It's legal for people to sit on their ass and do nothing and get money from the government/us. It's legal for a mother to be to have her fetus terminated in the womb.

Just cuz it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
 
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?

I think anyone outside extremely sensitive and critical service should be allowed to unionize. You are a human with agency you should be allowed to engage in collective and collaborative activity with anyone you wish. The real question is whether or not the extensive protections that the law grants to recognized unions should be applicable to everyone. I don't know enough about college sports to know if they should qualify under the NLRB. But unofficially? Heck yeah.
 
No you would be paying them for being students, they are already paid
[The coachis an employee all the professors make money, they don't pay their students.
You said all of this before. Why do you think repeating it makes it different. The students get free education. And the money made isn't theirs.
So they are ungrateful greedy little bastards that think they deserve toget paid to attend college.

It's legal for people to sit on their ass and do nothing and get money from the government/us. It's legal for a mother to be to have her fetus terminated in the womb.

Just cuz it's legal doesn't mean it's right.


This ruling makes me wonder. Since it appears one of the factors the NLRB considered was the scholarship provided in return for attendance, etc., wouldn't it also follow that every student receiving a scholarship would be viewed in the same light?

Obviously at student receiving a scholarship is expected to do something positive for the school. A football player is expected to play football, etc., a physics student is expected to study physics.

Shouldn't English Majors receiving scholarships be allowed to unionize? How about Gender Studies majors?
 
No you would be paying them for being students, they are already paid
[The coachis an employee all the professors make money, they don't pay their students.
You said all of this before. Why do you think repeating it makes it different. The students get free education. And the money made isn't theirs.
So they are ungrateful greedy little bastards that think they deserve toget paid to attend college.

It's legal for people to sit on their ass and do nothing and get money from the government/us. It's legal for a mother to be to have her fetus terminated in the womb.

Just cuz it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

Why wouldn't it be legal or right? They have a highly sought after talent that the University desires and they want to maximize the reward they get for exercising that skill or talent. At the moment it seems to me like its a mutually beneficial relationship but one side benefits quite a bit more.*

*Disclaimer: I know very little about sports. This is based on a cursory review of a few articles on the matter.
 
This ruling makes me wonder. Since it appears one of the factors the NLRB considered was the scholarship provided in return for attendance, etc., wouldn't it also follow that every student receiving a scholarship would be viewed in the same light?

Obviously at student receiving a scholarship is expected to do something positive for the school. A football player is expected to play football, etc., a physics student is expected to study physics.

Shouldn't English Majors receiving scholarships be allowed to unionize? How about Gender Studies majors?

I mean... that isn't without precedent. Student unions get their name from the actual student unions/guilds of the early colleges and universities of the late medieval ages and lasted quite a long while. They exerted great power over professors and school administration, this was of course when a professor was usually on contract directly to his class not employed by a board of trustees (the University). I imagine the greatest impediment to English major scholarship students unionizing is the much lower value they have for the school when compared to athletes.
 
I mean... that isn't without precedent. Student unions get their name from the actual student unions/guilds of the early colleges and universities of the late medieval ages and lasted quite a long while. They exerted great power over professors and school administration, this was of course when a professor was usually on contract directly to his class not employed by a board of trustees (the University). I imagine the greatest impediment to English major scholarship students unionizing is the much lower value they have for the school when compared to athletes.

Good point about the student union.

As to English majors unionizing, if it's about value, where is the cut off? Doesn't the school view the English major receiving a scholarship as providing a value? Isn't that why the scholarship was provided?

Frankly, I see an issue with scholarships to any student becoming an issue, based on what I understand the NLRB has determined.
 
Good point about the student union.

As to English majors unionizing, if it's about value, where is the cut off? Doesn't the school view the English major receiving a scholarship as providing a value? Isn't that why the scholarship was provided?

Frankly, I see an issue with scholarships to any student becoming an issue, based on what I understand the NLRB has determined.

This is why I think the NLRB/special legal protections for unions complicates things so much. In a more perfect market environment it wouldn't matter because the students would organize and the University would either be willing to negotiate or able to ignore them, or their collective value would be enough to bring them to the table to bargain. People could push as hard as they wanted to get what they wanted, it would just be contingent on how valuable they are to the people they are negotiating with.

That being said I understand why you probably need something like an NLRB but it makes organic tests of these sorts of things impossible.
 
This ruling makes me wonder. Since it appears one of the factors the NLRB considered was the scholarship provided in return for attendance, etc., wouldn't it also follow that every student receiving a scholarship would be viewed in the same light?

Obviously at student receiving a scholarship is expected to do something positive for the school. A football player is expected to play football, etc., a physics student is expected to study physics.

Shouldn't English Majors receiving scholarships be allowed to unionize? How about Gender Studies majors?

everybody is allowed to unionize. But going Crum consumer to employee I think is not appropriate.

Students are consumers of college services.
 
everybody is allowed to unionize. But going Crum consumer to employee I think is not appropriate.

Students are consumers of college services.

I agree. I fail to see where the NLRB is going with their ruling. Let me rephrase that, very little the NLRB does surprises me, but this does.
 
Why wouldn't it be legal or right?
They are students, thus they are consumers. Let's say a couple of consumers of the service of a mechanic shop demanded that they get payment for the shop being graced with their magnificent presence? The shop would tell them to take a hike. Especially if they received parts and service for free. College ids just another business.



They have a highly sought after talent that the University desires and they want to maximize the reward they get for exercising that skill or talent.
So they should be employees of the college and not students? That's fine, what ever their tuition costs, give them that. And if they want to attend college they can pay for it.

At the moment it seems to me like its a mutually beneficial relationship but one side benefits quite a bit more.*
Yeah it benefits the students a lot more, they have the opportunity to become pro game players and make millions. Wait, no it doesn't benefit one side over the other.
These guys are shooting themselves in the foot. Someone is only worth what they are worth. And the world is flooded with people that would rather play games than have a real job. Where greedy John wants money for being given this opportunity, Paul over here will take the opportunity for free. And there are way more Pauls than there are Johns.


*Disclaimer: I know very little about sports. This is based on a cursory review of a few articles on the matter.
I know less. I am not the least bit interested in watching grown men/junkies play children's games.
 
College football is a billion dollar business that does everything it can to pretend it is anything other than that.

Men's College Basketball and Football makes millions of dollars in revenue for the big schools and, in many areas, are regional icons (anyone who has been to the southeastern US in the fall/winter can attest to this). These Northwestern athletes have, at the very least, taken a step to say that with all this money flying around, the athletes sacrificing their bodies aren't even given a voice when making determinations in the billion dollar industry. The phrase "Student Athlete" was invented to create a class of workers which has no rights and is essentially held captive by the employer. Specifically, the euphemism was created to get rid of the need for workers compensation after injury.

What other for-profit institution could break an employees leg, then claim that the employee should just be happy with his "opportunity"? Said employee is then laid off with no medical expenses covered for his injuries sustained while working, no severance pay after years of loyalty, and no (legal) pay. Often, the athlete is not even allowed to finish getting his degree after injury as he no longer has value on the plantation. The fact that his injuries may make his life harder for the rest of his days, and that the school benefited from his sacrifice, matters not.

On top of this is the de facto reality of payouts from boosters, Universities sacrificing their integrity for athletes (if you have a degree from, say, Miami or Auburn, don't be surprised if I chuckle when you bring up the academic challenges you faced), and an organization running the whole show that is so sleazy it makes the IOC look like angels.

If universities can't run Minor League Football in a way that protects their workers like other for-profit businesses do and still turn a profit themselves, then universities need to get out of the business of Minor League Football. With all the money flying around, I can only bear the excuses for so long before tuning out altogether.

One idea is that instead of pretending members of the University of Alabama football team, for example, belong anywhere on a campus of higher learning, instead create a University of Alabama Football Association which provides revenue to the school and legal economic rights for the players who either want to develop into a professional or are, as is the case with most 18-24 year old athletes, wanting to play the game but don't have a future professionally. The money could give them a stipend but mostly go into retirement funds they can choose to access when their 4 years of eligibility are up. Also, the revenues could create a Trust for the teams themselves, separating any burden from the University itself (in theory) and helping to fund athletic activities that aren't done as for-profit enterprises.

At least then we could watch NCAA Football and Basketball without the hypocrisy that is currently served alongside.
 
They are students, thus they are consumers. Let's say a couple of consumers of the service of a mechanic shop demanded that they get payment for the shop being graced with their magnificent presence? The shop would tell them to take a hike. Especially if they received parts and service for free. College ids just another business.

Um...yeah.

What happens when you walk into a shop and you tear your ACL doing what they asked you to?

You're going to get paid, and it's not going to matter how much store credit they gave you.
 
Shouldn't English Majors receiving scholarships be allowed to unionize? How about Gender Studies majors?

If you believe that English majors bring loads of money into the school by writing beatnik poetry and having coffeehouse readings which are televised to the nation, then sure, their intellect, labor and dramatic talent is being used to enrich the school and they're not getting an equitable cut from their work. Same with wymym's studies majors - I know that many a bored Saturday afternoon I'm in the mood to watch a bunch of feminist harridans lecture a tv audience with feminist theory and recite a bunch of mindless boilerplate. Hoo-boy that's good entertainment and if these harridans are enriching their school with TV contracts and revenues from concerts and speaking tours, then they're entitled to get a cut of all those millions that they're bringing into the school.
 
I don't think they should be able to unionize as they shouldn't be treated as employees. However, I do think they should be given medical coverage for injuries incurred while playing their designated sport (similar to the VA model), the license to market their likeness as they see fit, and stricter rules placed upon how many practices they can participate in while wearing pads (football specific). NFL players, once the season starts, do not practice with pads on at all. This is to minimize injury. According to the SEC Network's Greg McElroy Colin Cowherd Audio - ESPN, he practiced almost every practice with pads on no matter the time of season.

All that being said, college athletes should not be compensated monetarily for playing. They receive a scholarship which, as many of you know that have attended college, is hugely expensive. If a player does not receive a scholarship, then that athlete is participating in that sport of his/her own free will and therefore doesn't deserve a salary of any sort IMO. What these kids at NW don't understand is that they may have ruined college sports for a lot of people. Football and men's basketball are the only solvent sports in college athletics. Very rarely is the program that has something besides one or both of those sports earning money for the college or even earning enough to support itself. All women's sports, olympic sports, etc are supported by these two sports. That's the model that has been presented and it has worked for a long time.

So what if universities make a lot of money? Guess what, a lot of that money goes back into the college and builds new buildings, gets better educational tools, better dorms, provides scholarships for sports that don't turn a profit, etc, etc. Yeah, you've got the occasional egregious example like the Ohio State AD receiving a $18k bonus for a 140lb wrestler winning the NCAA's Ohio State athletic director gets $18,000 bonus for wrestler’s national title | For The Win However, for the most part, that money goes towards the school.
 
Back
Top Bottom