College Football Players---Students or Employees?

[bigmrg74]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

At UConn an upperclassman does not have to live off campus (unless something's changed in the last few years).

And frankly I would think that most universities would want their athletes on campus, to hopefully keep them from doing something really stupid, or keep it semi-quiet if they do screw up with something mild, you know, like peeing in an elevator.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Lots of good posts since I last checked in. A couple of silly ones that were fairly well answered.

I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportions by the media and my opinion of athletes has been completely misconstrued by FS23. I don't have standing animosity towards athletes or even towards athletes looking for something more. I completely disagree with the premise that these players should get anything more than what they currently get. It was this particular athlete's deciding to play the false martyr where I have a major problem.

Personally, while I disagree with Lynah on his position of the athletes getting paid, I think he's got the right idea on this particular athlete. CLS also did a better job than I could at putting my opinion into words. Napier made the claim and I believe he made it knowing full well how it would be construed by the media, that they go to bed hungry with a relatively high frequency. Everyone goes to bed hungry every so often. Who hasn't? Sometimes work just gets in the way.

I worked three jobs and was studying for two majors at Minnesota during my sophomore year. Each of the jobs was about 10-20 hours a week and the majors took up another 60-70 hours. At least. This idea that they are being worked to the bone and they're getting a raw deal is silly. I was worked to the bone for four years and still had to pay (well, technically my parents paid, but that's beside the point. Or maybe it isn't. It's like I was getting a full scholarship as long as I kept my grades up and was working. So really it's a similar deal the athletes are getting). I got out with two degrees with no debt. This has afforded me more than many of my peers who had to take out loans. It's almost a multiplier. I was able to afford a house at 25, I had my car paid off the year after college, and I'm able to save more for retirement. These kids are getting an amazing deal with a free education. An AMAZING deal.

I work for a Dow 30 company that's making over 60 times what the NCAA is making. Like I said on GPL, would I love a cut of that? Sure. But that's not part of the deal. The deal is: "Here's what we're going to pay you to perform activities as directed. You don't get a cut of anything unless you qualify for certain programs we run (patent awards, grants for new ideas, etc.) You're salaried so you may be required to put in well in excess of 40 hours some weeks and others you may have less work but you'll still get the agreed upon compensation."

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

I worked three jobs and was studying for two majors at Minnesota during my sophomore year. Each of the jobs was about 10-20 hours a week and the majors took up another 60-70 hours. At least. This idea that they are being worked to the bone and they're getting a raw deal is silly. I was worked to the bone for four years and still had to pay (well, technically my parents paid, but that's beside the point. Or maybe it isn't. It's like I was getting a full scholarship as long as I kept my grades up and was working. So really it's a similar deal the athletes are getting). I got out with two degrees with no debt. This has afforded me more than many of my peers who had to take out loans. It's almost a multiplier. I was able to afford a house at 25, I had my car paid off the year after college, and I'm able to save more for retirement. These kids are getting an amazing deal with a free education. An AMAZING deal.

I work for a Dow 30 company that's making over 60 times what the NCAA is making. Like I said on GPL, would I love a cut of that? Sure. But that's not part of the deal. The deal is: "Here's what we're going to pay you to perform activities as directed. You don't get a cut of anything unless you qualify for certain programs we run (patent awards, grants for new ideas, etc.) You're salaried so you may be required to put in well in excess of 40 hours some weeks and others you may have less work but you'll still get the agreed upon compensation."

I think you're confusing the adequacy of the deal with the legal question of whether or not they are employees and can unionize. At your job, you could band together with fellow employees and unionize to collectively bargain for a bigger share of that pie (amongst other things). You might not get it, but you would at least be legally permitted to try. These players are just looking for that same opportunity.

[CLS]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

I think you're confusing the adequacy of the deal with the legal question of whether or not they are employees and can unionize. ...

But both are issues, are they not?

Regarding the adequacy of compensation, I’m not sure where I stand. I think on principle the players in the revenue should get a bigger share of the pie, but I fear that the practical effect will be that the money that would go to football and basketball players is money that now goes to the men’s wrestling program and the women’s field hockey team, etc. and the emotional side of me thinks that would be unfortunate. On the other hand, the purely rational side of me thinks that maybe non-revenue sports should be club or D3-type teams.

Now if one accepts that athletes in revenue producing sports should get a bigger share of the pie and have more say in their working conditions, the Northwestern approach seems to me like a really poor way of accomplishing that. A system that is available to Northwestern, but not the University of Illinois, to Duke but not to UNC, to USC but not UCLA makes no sense to me.

Amidst all the serious discussion, though, I had an amusing thought. Could you imagine a state legislator in Ala-*****n’-bama introducing legislation permitting the football team to unionize? In the next election, s/he’d lose to William Tecumseh Sherman.

[LynahFan]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

These kids are getting an amazing deal with a free education. An AMAZING deal.

Yes, it is an amazing deal. But you know who has an amazing-er deal? ADs, coaches, etc. who make millions and never have to step on the field to risk injury, can make money on the side on endorsement deals, and can switch employers whenever they want. Give me that choice and I take the coach's deal every day and twice on Autumn Saturdays.

I work for a Dow 30 company that's making over 60 times what the NCAA is making. Like I said on GPL, would I love a cut of that? Sure. But that's not part of the deal. The deal is: "Here's what we're going to pay you to perform activities as directed. You don't get a cut of anything unless you qualify for certain programs we run (patent awards, grants for new ideas, etc.) You're salaried so you may be required to put in well in excess of 40 hours some weeks and others you may have less work but you'll still get the agreed upon compensation."

Yes, but the terms of your "deal" are largely determined by market forces - supply and demand of/for your particular type of talent. The terms of the deal that athletes can get are set by a monopolistic organization which gets away with skirting employment and trade laws by claiming that they are not employers. As an employee, you are entitled to all sorts of protections not afforded to college athletes, AND you're entitled to seek employment at another company in your field if you become dissatisfied with your "deal," thereby exerting pressure on your employer to make sure that your deal is fair. College athletes do not have this leverage, because it has been by-lawed away from them by the NCAA, and the individual employers (schools) exploit that fact on a daily basis.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

But both are issues, are they not?

Not when determining whether someone is an employee or not. For example, an employer couldn't give her employee a raise to prevent the employee from being an employee or unionizing. Of course, the employee, if given everything that she wants, may decide to forego the union route. That's one of the main points of having unions in the first place...attempting to equalize bargaining power.

Regarding the adequacy of compensation, I’m not sure where I stand. I think on principle the players in the revenue should get a bigger share of the pie, but I fear that the practical effect will be that the money that would go to football and basketball players is money that now goes to the men’s wrestling program and the women’s field hockey team, etc. and the emotional side of me thinks that would be unfortunate. On the other hand, the purely rational side of me thinks that maybe non-revenue sports should be club or D3-type teams.

Now if one accepts that athletes in revenue producing sports should get a bigger share of the pie and have more say in their working conditions, the Northwestern approach seems to me like a really poor way of accomplishing that. A system that is available to Northwestern, but not the University of Illinois, to Duke but not to UNC, to USC but not UCLA makes no sense to me.

My guess is that by the time the Northwestern case is resolved, the NCAA will have changed significantly making unionization irrelevant.

As for the adequacy of compensation, I personally have no problem with how it currently is handled (i.e. I think $60,000 worth of scholarship is a pretty good trade off for the work they are doing...although I do agree with their position on needing improvements in how health care is provided, but I think that's just a matter of time before that gets taken care of). However, I believe that the players are employees as defined by the NLRA. Consequently, I have no problem with them trying to better themselves through collective bargaining. It's their legal right.

Amidst all the serious discussion, though, I had an amusing thought. Could you imagine a state legislator in Ala-*****n’-bama introducing legislation permitting the football team to unionize? In the next election, s/he’d lose to William Tecumseh Sherman.

Come on now...if the South is known for one thing, it's their openness and tolerance to outside viewpoints.

[LynahFan]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Amidst all the serious discussion, though, I had an amusing thought. Could you imagine a state legislator in Ala-*****n’-bama introducing legislation permitting the football team to unionize? In the next election, s/he’d lose to William Tecumseh Sherman.

That is funny - but only the pro-union part. If private schools were suddenly able to start paying their players, you can bet that the Alabama legislature would legalize doing the same in Tuscaloosa so quickly it would make your head spin.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

That is funny - but only the pro-union part. If private schools were suddenly able to start paying their players, you can bet that the Alabama legislature would legalize doing the same in Tuscaloosa so quickly it would make your head spin.

Disagree. THe first thing he'd do is call his Senators and Congressmen and make sure they know **** well what's on the line. Like I said before, you can be **** sure the first time this thing gets any sort of teeth, it won't be another month or two before Congress passes a law exempting the NCAA from any such rules.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

As was already discussed on GPL, I think the following applies to players and their "right" to unionize:

No you can't always collectively bargain. Only if you have established a bargaining unit [union] via registered and recognized vote. Only then does 'the employee' get a voice and that would be through representation [negotiating committee] - not direct. And if the company doesn't like the terms offered in negotiation they can refuse to sign the contract and 'lock out' the bargaining unit while running with a 'replacement staff'. At that point the 'student athletes' can pay their own tuition or go somewhere else.

Plus we haven't even begun to consider 'right to work' states - where workers can't be forced to join the bargaining unit as a condition of employment. In short schools in those states could pretty much ignore the unions. Refuse to sign a contract but 'pay their workers' anyway based on right to work. While that doesn't include Illinois it does include a number of states with prominent helmet schools including Michigan.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

That is funny - but only the pro-union part. If private schools were suddenly able to start paying their players, you can bet that the Alabama legislature would legalize doing the same in Tuscaloosa so quickly it would make your head spin.

They'd call a special midnight session for it....

[Jimjamesak]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

They'd call a special midnight session for it....

Faster than you can say "Roll Tide"...

[joecct]

That is funny - but only the pro-union part. If private schools were suddenly able to start paying their players, you can bet that the Alabama legislature would legalize doing the same in Tuscaloosa so quickly it would make your head spin.

And all those bag men would have their contributions become tax deductible.

Some would say allowing payments to players would merely legalize what is already happening. Though I doubt the female SEC athletes are currently sharing in the largesse.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

As was already discussed on GPL, I think the following applies to players and their "right" to unionize:

A few things...

First, players don't need a union to collectively bargain. Section 7 of the NLRA makes that pretty clear.

Second, it's not quite as simple as that if the university doesn't like the terms that they just lock out the players. There is a whole process required to get to that point, and it usually takes a significant period of time.

Finally, right to work simply means that employees are not forced to be members of the union or pay union dues, yet get to benefit from collective bargaining (in other words, if you're anti-freeloader, you should be anti-right to work statutes). It depends on the state's statute, but it doesn't mean that the employer can just ignore the unions.

Unfortunately, your friend on GPL doesn't really understand labor law or at best gave an awful simplification of it. Pretty much all of what your friend has described would be considered unfair labor practices under the NLRA.

[CLS]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

That is funny - but only the pro-union part. If private schools were suddenly able to start paying their players, you can bet that the Alabama legislature would legalize doing the same in Tuscaloosa so quickly it would make your head spin.

You mean it wouldn't take a thrashing by the mercenaries from Vanderbilt?

Not when determining whether someone is an employee or not. For example, an employer couldn't give her employee a raise to prevent the employee from being an employee or unionizing. Of course, the employee, if given everything that she wants, may decide to forego the union route. That's one of the main points of having unions in the first place...attempting to equalize bargaining power.

Not exactly sure what you’re saying, but we seem to be approaching this from different directions. To me, if the current compensation provided to scholarship athletes in revenue producing sports is adequate, then the method for determining the appropriate compensations is moot. If the current compensation is inadequate, then the appropriate method becomes an issue. It seemed to me, for the purposes of this discussion, we’re assuming it’s inadequate. You seem to be saying that whether or not the athletes are employees is an issue that’s worth deciding on its own. If so, then we disagree.

And as I said before, if the compensation provided to scholarship athletes in revenue producing sports is inadequate, then the unionization model is a poor method for assuring adequate compensations. What you’d have would be like baseball, with some schools having New York Yankees payrolls, and some having rookie league payrolls. It seems to me that negotiations over the O’Bannon lawsuit provides a better framework. You’re not forcing the end result into a labor relations model that IMO, is not suited to this unique situation.

Your statement

My guess is that by the time the Northwestern case is resolved, the NCAA will have changed significantly making unionization irrelevant.

is consistent with what I’m saying. If appropriate compensation is assured by some other means, then the unionization model is irrelevant.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

You seem to be saying that whether or not the athletes are employees is an issue that’s worth deciding on its own. If so, then we disagree.

Whether or not the athletes are employees is essentially the only issue at this point in time. If they are employees, then they can unionize. If they are not, they can't.