| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/09/14 9:47 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| I think this is a bit oversimplified. On a certain level, the amount of gross revenue generated is irrelevant. (I remember from Microeconomics 101 the point that you should stop being in business if revenues don't cover fixed costs, for instance.) Net revenue tells you if you're paying too much to people in the aggregate. Neither, however, tells you what you should pay individual workers. |
This is what I mean about a red herring. The argument is whether or not players are employees, not how much they should or should not get paid. Amounts and benefits and all of that can be worked out at the negotiating table. The argument from me and others is that students should have a right to sit at that table instead of having to simply accept whatever it is the NCAA decides. And the shear amount of revenue created by their work product makes it clear they are employees of the school.
Perhaps compensation comes from 5 year guaranteed scholarships which are not dependent upon continued participation in the sport (ie: I don't lose my scholarship if I get injured). Or perhaps it is a stipend of some amount since their time commitments preclude other jobs, or perhaps it's allowing the students to profit from their own name. Or maybe lifetime medical coverage for any sport related issue. Whatever it is, because they are de facto employees not just some people participating in an extra-curricular activity, they should have the right to have some say in the matter. |
I haven't figured out exactly how I feel about these issues, other than to be very concerned about the impact on sports other than football and men's basketball, but when you said that net profits were a red herring and that gross profits were more important, that was simply wrong. Net profits obviously are relevant to compensation. If I take in a billion dollars and spend two billion, I'm not going to be inclined to give my employees more compensation. I'm more likely to try to lay people off or cut their compensation. |
I agree that net profits are going to figure into the discussion once the players are sitting at the table. It will impact what sort of agreement can be reached.
But the reason I called it a red herring, is that the net profits have no impact whatsoever on the employer/employee relationship. Or in other words, the rights of the players to get to that bargaining table in the first place. The fact that these players generate as much revenue as they do (no matter how that revenue is then spent) makes them labor in a multi-billion dollar industry.
I do agree this could have a devastating impact upon other sports...but it's really not about that. No matter how much I might want to protect them, it doesn't change the nature of what actually exists. And if these athlete-students meet the definition of employees then I believe they need to be allowed certain rights...like that of unionization.
So net profits matter quite a bit when it comes to the eventual deal reached, but gross is what matters when discussing whether they have the right to collectively bargain at all.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 9:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
I don't see how allowing college athletes to form a union will destroy the NCAA. It would just be a mechanism to balance the power structure a little bit ... |
How is that supposed to work? No unions at state schools (the NLRA doesn't apply), different unions at different private schools negotiating different "compensation", different practice hours, travel schedules, maybe days that games can be played. So every school playing by different rules. The regional director who ruled for the NW players acknowledged that the NLRB only has jurisdiction over 16 of the 120 FBS football schools. And "we negotiated that with our player union" would be no defense to an NCAA rules violation and sanctions.
Is who starts or how decisions are made concerning playing time subject to negotiation? Under Board rulings, bid rights, promotion, etc are. Can you file a grievance if you're suspended for cutting class or getting arrested or being late to practice?
This isn't a matter of simply "we want to talk". There's a lot of established baggage that comes along with being employees and certifying a union. There's no special "limited" unions for college athletes.
Has anyone beating this drum actually thought about how it's supposed to work? I'd certainly like to hear it.
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 04/09/14 10:39 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 10:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
.
So net profits matter quite a bit when it comes to the eventual deal reached, but gross is what matters when discussing whether they have the right to collectively bargain at all. |
What do profits of any sort have to do with the definition of "employee" under the NLRA?
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 10:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| I haven't figured out exactly how I feel about these issues, other than to be very concerned about the impact on sports other than football and men's basketball, but when you said that net profits were a red herring and that gross profits were more important, that was simply wrong. Net profits obviously are relevant to compensation. If I take in a billion dollars and spend two billion, I'm not going to be inclined to give my employees more compensation. I'm more likely to try to lay people off or cut their compensation. |
I agree that net profits are going to figure into the discussion once the players are sitting at the table. It will impact what sort of agreement can be reached.
But the reason I called it a red herring, is that the net profits have no impact whatsoever on the employer/employee relationship. Or in other words, the rights of the players to get to that bargaining table in the first place. The fact that these players generate as much revenue as they do (no matter how that revenue is then spent) makes them labor in a multi-billion dollar industry. |
This is not what you said in your original post. You said that gross revenue is what mattered, not net revenue. In fact, neither is relevant to the question of whether they're employees - the Red Cross takes in a lot of money, too, but that doesn't make the people who volunteer their time employees (and, contrariwise, when a company loses money, that doesn't make people not employees). The standard for whether someone is an employee is entirely independent of revenues or profits.
That said, I don't know enough about labor law to know whether the arrangements involved in scholarships make student athletes employees for the purposes of unionizing, but that's about the combination of expectations and compensation, not about revenue at all.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66921
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 10:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I don't see how allowing college athletes to form a union will destroy the NCAA. It would just be a mechanism to balance the power structure a little bit ... |
How is that supposed to work? No unions at state schools (the NLRA doesn't apply), different unions at different private schools negotiating different "compensation", different practice hours, travel schedules, maybe days that games can be played. So every school playing by different rules. The regional director who ruled for the NW players acknowledged that the NLRB only has jurisdiction over 16 of the 120 FBS football schools. And "we negotiated that with our player union" would be no defense to an NCAA rules violation and sanctions.
Has anyone beating this drum actually thought about how it's supposed to work? I'd certainly like to hear it. |
I imagine it would work like all those other leagues you were talking about that have salary caps and such. The players and the NCAA would negotiate and work out something they can both live with.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 10:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I don't see how allowing college athletes to form a union will destroy the NCAA. It would just be a mechanism to balance the power structure a little bit ... |
How is that supposed to work? No unions at state schools (the NLRA doesn't apply), different unions at different private schools negotiating different "compensation", different practice hours, travel schedules, maybe days that games can be played. So every school playing by different rules. The regional director who ruled for the NW players acknowledged that the NLRB only has jurisdiction over 16 of the 120 FBS football schools. And "we negotiated that with our player union" would be no defense to an NCAA rules violation and sanctions.
Has anyone beating this drum actually thought about how it's supposed to work? I'd certainly like to hear it. |
I imagine it would work like all those other leagues you were talking about that have salary caps and such. The players and the NCAA would negotiate and work out something they can both live with. |
The NCAA has nothing to do with it. These are individual unions with individual private universities.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 10:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I don't see how allowing college athletes to form a union will destroy the NCAA. It would just be a mechanism to balance the power structure a little bit ... |
How is that supposed to work? No unions at state schools (the NLRA doesn't apply), different unions at different private schools negotiating different "compensation", different practice hours, travel schedules, maybe days that games can be played. So every school playing by different rules. The regional director who ruled for the NW players acknowledged that the NLRB only has jurisdiction over 16 of the 120 FBS football schools. And "we negotiated that with our player union" would be no defense to an NCAA rules violation and sanctions.
Has anyone beating this drum actually thought about how it's supposed to work? I'd certainly like to hear it. |
I imagine it would work like all those other leagues you were talking about that have salary caps and such. The players and the NCAA would negotiate and work out something they can both live with. |
The NCAA has nothing to do with it. These are individual unions with individual private universities. |
The Northwestern union is just that, and would not involve the NCAA (although I think the very first response to any list of demands would be to say that NCAA rules forbid granting any of them). A more logical structure (and one that potentially would deal with the disparate institutions problem and that certainly would deal with the NCAA rules problem) would be to have a national union (or one per sport where scholarships are awarded) that would negotiate with the NCAA, like what we have for pro sports. Someone, I seem to remember, wrote something about that recently: News from New York
As an aside, remember that not everybody gives athletic scholarships. Besides D-III schools, you have the Ivies and the military academies. The "employee" argument is much harder to make in those cases.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 11:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I don't see how allowing college athletes to form a union will destroy the NCAA. It would just be a mechanism to balance the power structure a little bit ... |
How is that supposed to work? No unions at state schools (the NLRA doesn't apply), different unions at different private schools negotiating different "compensation", different practice hours, travel schedules, maybe days that games can be played. So every school playing by different rules. The regional director who ruled for the NW players acknowledged that the NLRB only has jurisdiction over 16 of the 120 FBS football schools. And "we negotiated that with our player union" would be no defense to an NCAA rules violation and sanctions.
Has anyone beating this drum actually thought about how it's supposed to work? I'd certainly like to hear it. |
I imagine it would work like all those other leagues you were talking about that have salary caps and such. The players and the NCAA would negotiate and work out something they can both live with. |
The NCAA has nothing to do with it. These are individual unions with individual private universities. |
The Northwestern union is just that, and would not involve the NCAA (although I think the very first response to any list of demands would be to say that NCAA rules forbid granting any of them). A more logical structure (and one that potentially would deal with the disparate institutions problem and that certainly would deal with the NCAA rules problem) would be to have a national union (or one per sport where scholarships are awarded) that would negotiate with the NCAA, like what we have for pro sports. Someone, I seem to remember, wrote something about that recently: News from New York
As an aside, remember that not everybody gives athletic scholarships. Besides D-III schools, you have the Ivies and the military academies. The "employee" argument is much harder to make in those cases. |
Why would the NCAA ever agree to such a multi-employer union when an overwhelming majority of member institutions aren't even subject to the NLRA? This isn't anything like the NFL.
You think SEC schools in the anti-union South are going to go along with a players union when by law they don't have to?
BTW, it's my understanding that the regional director in the NW case said non-scholarship athletes aren't employees even when they are practicing and playing right next to "employees".
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 04/09/14 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 11:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| I haven't figured out exactly how I feel about these issues, other than to be very concerned about the impact on sports other than football and men's basketball, but when you said that net profits were a red herring and that gross profits were more important, that was simply wrong. Net profits obviously are relevant to compensation. If I take in a billion dollars and spend two billion, I'm not going to be inclined to give my employees more compensation. I'm more likely to try to lay people off or cut their compensation. |
I agree that net profits are going to figure into the discussion once the players are sitting at the table. It will impact what sort of agreement can be reached.
But the reason I called it a red herring, is that the net profits have no impact whatsoever on the employer/employee relationship. Or in other words, the rights of the players to get to that bargaining table in the first place. The fact that these players generate as much revenue as they do (no matter how that revenue is then spent) makes them labor in a multi-billion dollar industry. |
This is not what you said in your original post. You said that gross revenue is what mattered, not net revenue. In fact, neither is relevant to the question of whether they're employees - the Red Cross takes in a lot of money, too, but that doesn't make the people who volunteer their time employees (and, contrariwise, when a company loses money, that doesn't make people not employees). The standard for whether someone is an employee is entirely independent of revenues or profits.
That said, I don't know enough about labor law to know whether the arrangements involved in scholarships make student athletes employees for the purposes of unionizing, but that's about the combination of expectations and compensation, not about revenue at all. |
In my original post I was making the point that the schools use labor provided by the athletes to produce revenue. That is a hallmark of one half of the employer/employee relationship. The other half is that these athletes are compensated (through scholarships) for that labor provided.
I was calling the issue of net profits a red herring because it is not fair to point to 0 net profit or even a loss as saying that the players aren't being used to provide revenue. The amount of gross profits is incidental, though the greater the revenue earned by the labor the harder it is to deny the relationship. But the discussion seemed to be getting bogged down in exactly how much profit these athletic departments actually make. I was trying to point out that they could make a billion or they could lose a billion, but as long as the athlete's labor was being used to generate (gross) revenue then they were consistant with the function of an employee.
In your red cross example, if the volunteers were paid or compensated with a monetary equivalent, they would in fact by employees.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 11:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Do you have some citations to the statute, regulations, or NLRB or court decisions on which you're basing these interpretations and definitions? Can you please provide citations to those sources? Or are you just making up your own law?
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 11:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| I haven't figured out exactly how I feel about these issues, other than to be very concerned about the impact on sports other than football and men's basketball, but when you said that net profits were a red herring and that gross profits were more important, that was simply wrong. Net profits obviously are relevant to compensation. If I take in a billion dollars and spend two billion, I'm not going to be inclined to give my employees more compensation. I'm more likely to try to lay people off or cut their compensation. |
I agree that net profits are going to figure into the discussion once the players are sitting at the table. It will impact what sort of agreement can be reached.
But the reason I called it a red herring, is that the net profits have no impact whatsoever on the employer/employee relationship. Or in other words, the rights of the players to get to that bargaining table in the first place. The fact that these players generate as much revenue as they do (no matter how that revenue is then spent) makes them labor in a multi-billion dollar industry. |
This is not what you said in your original post. You said that gross revenue is what mattered, not net revenue. In fact, neither is relevant to the question of whether they're employees - the Red Cross takes in a lot of money, too, but that doesn't make the people who volunteer their time employees (and, contrariwise, when a company loses money, that doesn't make people not employees). The standard for whether someone is an employee is entirely independent of revenues or profits.
That said, I don't know enough about labor law to know whether the arrangements involved in scholarships make student athletes employees for the purposes of unionizing, but that's about the combination of expectations and compensation, not about revenue at all. |
In my original post I was making the point that the schools use labor provided by the athletes to produce revenue. That is a hallmark of one half of the employer/employee relationship. The other half is that these athletes are compensated (through scholarships) for that labor provided.
I was calling the issue of net profits a red herring because it is not fair to point to 0 net profit or even a loss as saying that the players aren't being used to provide revenue. The amount of gross profits is incidental, though the greater the revenue earned by the labor the harder it is to deny the relationship.
In your red cross example, if the volunteers were paid or compensated with a monetary equivalent, they would in fact by employees. |
I get what you're saying. I just think you have some idea that the amount of gross revenue is somehow indicative of something, when it's not. To take a completely different example, there are plenty of start-ups that have zero revenue for a long time (sometimes their entire lifespans), but nobody thinks that the people who work for them aren't employees. For that matter, if you are a really rich person and have a household staff of 20, they're employees, even though you have no expectation that they'll generate a dime of revenue ever. Gross revenues simply aren't relevant at all to the question.
Now, what I think you really mean is that one part of the test is whether there is an intent to generate revenues. But even then, that's not particularly dispositive. There are plenty of examples of entities that use non-employees to generate revenue, including the Red Cross and your local public TV station.
Again, I'm not saying that they're not employees (or that they are), because I don't know. I'm saying that the dollars that come into the college or university don't really help answer that question.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 11:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
The Northwestern union is just that, and would not involve the NCAA (although I think the very first response to any list of demands would be to say that NCAA rules forbid granting any of them). A more logical structure (and one that potentially would deal with the disparate institutions problem and that certainly would deal with the NCAA rules problem) would be to have a national union (or one per sport where scholarships are awarded) that would negotiate with the NCAA, like what we have for pro sports. Someone, I seem to remember, wrote something about that recently: News from New York
As an aside, remember that not everybody gives athletic scholarships. Besides D-III schools, you have the Ivies and the military academies. The "employee" argument is much harder to make in those cases. |
Why would the NCAA ever agree to such a multi-employer union when an overwhelming majority of member institutions aren't even subject to the NLRA? This isn't anything like the NFL.
You think SEC schools in the anti-union South are going to go along with a players union when by law they don't have to?
BTW, it's my understanding that the regional director in the NW case said non-scholarship athletes aren't employees even when they are practicing and playing right next to "employees". |
Not a lot of employers "go along" with unions - they generally fight them tooth and nail. I don't imagine the NCAA would be any different, and I'm confident that a vote of the member schools would be at least 95% against accepting a union, and maybe unanimous. In fact, I would expect the NCAA to engage in legal trench warfare to the maximum extent it could, including making arguments about how it's not the employer and how it can't bind its member institutions (not to mention trying to get Congress to pass a law to solve the problem, which I kind of suspect is happening quietly already).
It just seems to me that the right bargaining unit is the NCAA, not the individual college or university, and if I were trying to organize a union, that's where I would go. There are too many complications in trying to create individual unions at individual institutions, starting with the limitations you mention on unions at state institutions, but also including significant externalities associated with trying to negotiate so many individual contracts. And, conveniently for people who would organize a union, the NCAA is a private institution, not a public entity.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 11:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
The Northwestern union is just that, and would not involve the NCAA (although I think the very first response to any list of demands would be to say that NCAA rules forbid granting any of them). A more logical structure (and one that potentially would deal with the disparate institutions problem and that certainly would deal with the NCAA rules problem) would be to have a national union (or one per sport where scholarships are awarded) that would negotiate with the NCAA, like what we have for pro sports. Someone, I seem to remember, wrote something about that recently: News from New York
As an aside, remember that not everybody gives athletic scholarships. Besides D-III schools, you have the Ivies and the military academies. The "employee" argument is much harder to make in those cases. |
Why would the NCAA ever agree to such a multi-employer union when an overwhelming majority of member institutions aren't even subject to the NLRA? This isn't anything like the NFL.
You think SEC schools in the anti-union South are going to go along with a players union when by law they don't have to?
BTW, it's my understanding that the regional director in the NW case said non-scholarship athletes aren't employees even when they are practicing and playing right next to "employees". |
Not a lot of employers "go along" with unions - they generally fight them tooth and nail. I don't imagine the NCAA would be any different, and I'm confident that a vote of the member schools would be at least 95% against accepting a union, and maybe unanimous. In fact, I would expect the NCAA to engage in legal trench warfare to the maximum extent it could, including making arguments about how it's not the employer and how it can't bind its member institutions (not to mention trying to get Congress to pass a law to solve the problem, which I kind of suspect is happening quietly already).
It just seems to me that the right bargaining unit is the NCAA, not the individual college or university, and if I were trying to organize a union, that's where I would go. There are too many complications in trying to create individual unions at individual institutions, starting with the limitations you mention on unions at state institutions, but also including significant externalities associated with trying to negotiate so many individual contracts. And, conveniently for people who would organize a union, the NCAA is a private institution, not a public entity. |
Problem is, there is no arguable employer-employee relationship with the NCAA. You could theoretically have multi employer bargaining with the NCAA as a whole but that is voluntary and why would the vast majority of state schools who are exempt agree to participate?
This is all a pipe dream.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 11:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
I get what you're saying. I just think you have some idea that the amount of gross revenue is somehow indicative of something, when it's not. To take a completely different example, there are plenty of start-ups that have zero revenue for a long time (sometimes their entire lifespans), but nobody thinks that the people who work for them aren't employees. For that matter, if you are a really rich person and have a household staff of 20, they're employees, even though you have no expectation that they'll generate a dime of revenue ever. Gross revenues simply aren't relevant at all to the question.
Now, what I think you really mean is that one part of the test is whether there is an intent to generate revenues. But even then, that's not particularly dispositive. There are plenty of examples of entities that use non-employees to generate revenue, including the Red Cross and your local public TV station.
Again, I'm not saying that they're not employees (or that they are), because I don't know. I'm saying that the dollars that come into the college or university don't really help answer that question. |
Ahh, I get what you are saying. Yes, you are correct that the ability to generate revenue is not in and of itself a requirement for employment. The reason I was bringing it up is because it's one of the things that can be looked at to understand the relationship between two parties.
And it was made note of in the NLRB's ruling:
| Quote: |
Using the common law definition used in Brown University, the NLRB in Northwestern defined an employee as "a person who performs services for another under a contract of hire, subject to the other's control or right of control, and in return for payment." The NLRB found that the student athletes were employees under the common law definition of employees based on two premises: the student athletes perform services for the benefit of Northwestern University in exchange for compensation; and the student athletes are subject to Northwestern University's control in the performance of their duties as football players.
The NLRB found that the student athletes contracted to perform services for Northwestern in exchange for compensation for the following reasons: a contract, referred to by the Board as an employee contract, was signed explaining the duration and conditions of receiving monies; in consideration for the student athletes' services Northwestern generated approximately $235 million during a nine year period, received various economic benefits including a positive reputation that led to an increase in alumni contributions and increased student applicants; student athletes were initially sought after and given compensation for their athletic services and received an economic benefit for playing football; the economic benefit received from playing football included tuition, books, food, and shelter; the fact that the income was in the form of scholarships or stipends rather than a taxable paycheck was not dispositive of whether or not it was payment; and the student athletes' scholarships could be revoked or reduced by withdrawing from the team or abusing team rules, which give students an incentive to continue to perform their athletic services. |
http://jurist.org/dateline/2014/04/aubry-dicks-revenue-sharing.php#.U0YfzlcUhv8
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 11:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
The Northwestern union is just that, and would not involve the NCAA (although I think the very first response to any list of demands would be to say that NCAA rules forbid granting any of them). A more logical structure (and one that potentially would deal with the disparate institutions problem and that certainly would deal with the NCAA rules problem) would be to have a national union (or one per sport where scholarships are awarded) that would negotiate with the NCAA, like what we have for pro sports. Someone, I seem to remember, wrote something about that recently: News from New York
As an aside, remember that not everybody gives athletic scholarships. Besides D-III schools, you have the Ivies and the military academies. The "employee" argument is much harder to make in those cases. |
Why would the NCAA ever agree to such a multi-employer union when an overwhelming majority of member institutions aren't even subject to the NLRA? This isn't anything like the NFL.
You think SEC schools in the anti-union South are going to go along with a players union when by law they don't have to?
BTW, it's my understanding that the regional director in the NW case said non-scholarship athletes aren't employees even when they are practicing and playing right next to "employees". |
Not a lot of employers "go along" with unions - they generally fight them tooth and nail. I don't imagine the NCAA would be any different, and I'm confident that a vote of the member schools would be at least 95% against accepting a union, and maybe unanimous. In fact, I would expect the NCAA to engage in legal trench warfare to the maximum extent it could, including making arguments about how it's not the employer and how it can't bind its member institutions (not to mention trying to get Congress to pass a law to solve the problem, which I kind of suspect is happening quietly already).
It just seems to me that the right bargaining unit is the NCAA, not the individual college or university, and if I were trying to organize a union, that's where I would go. There are too many complications in trying to create individual unions at individual institutions, starting with the limitations you mention on unions at state institutions, but also including significant externalities associated with trying to negotiate so many individual contracts. And, conveniently for people who would organize a union, the NCAA is a private institution, not a public entity. |
Problem is, there is no arguable employer-employee relationship with the NCAA. You could theoretically have multi employer bargaining with the NCAA as a whole but that is voluntary and why would the vast majority of state schools who are exempt agree to participate?
This is all a pipe dream. |
I don't really want anyone to think I believe this is workable no matter how you do it - I can't think of something that covers all of the bases (which may be a result of limited knowledge). It is worth noting that there is no employer-employee relationship between Major League Baseball and the players - they sign with individual teams, but of course there could be specific reasons that the teams have decided to let MLB do their bargaining. Also, collective bargaining does create some antitrust protection, if I remember correctly, although it's not clear to me that the NCAA and its member schools are worried about that.
By the way, I wonder if someone creative could argue that the National Letter of Intent is a contract with the NCAA, not just the individual school. Probably not, but still an interesting thought.
FWIW, if the Northwestern bargaining unit gets to have a vote and wins, I expect it to be a complete mess for a while. That's actually one reason that I'd put the odds of winning a vote at less than 50% - too many players would be unwilling to risk their scholarships.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/14 12:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
The Northwestern union is just that, and would not involve the NCAA (although I think the very first response to any list of demands would be to say that NCAA rules forbid granting any of them). A more logical structure (and one that potentially would deal with the disparate institutions problem and that certainly would deal with the NCAA rules problem) would be to have a national union (or one per sport where scholarships are awarded) that would negotiate with the NCAA, like what we have for pro sports. Someone, I seem to remember, wrote something about that recently: News from New York
As an aside, remember that not everybody gives athletic scholarships. Besides D-III schools, you have the Ivies and the military academies. The "employee" argument is much harder to make in those cases. |
Why would the NCAA ever agree to such a multi-employer union when an overwhelming majority of member institutions aren't even subject to the NLRA? This isn't anything like the NFL.
You think SEC schools in the anti-union South are going to go along with a players union when by law they don't have to?
BTW, it's my understanding that the regional director in the NW case said non-scholarship athletes aren't employees even when they are practicing and playing right next to "employees". |
Not a lot of employers "go along" with unions - they generally fight them tooth and nail. I don't imagine the NCAA would be any different, and I'm confident that a vote of the member schools would be at least 95% against accepting a union, and maybe unanimous. In fact, I would expect the NCAA to engage in legal trench warfare to the maximum extent it could, including making arguments about how it's not the employer and how it can't bind its member institutions (not to mention trying to get Congress to pass a law to solve the problem, which I kind of suspect is happening quietly already).
It just seems to me that the right bargaining unit is the NCAA, not the individual college or university, and if I were trying to organize a union, that's where I would go. There are too many complications in trying to create individual unions at individual institutions, starting with the limitations you mention on unions at state institutions, but also including significant externalities associated with trying to negotiate so many individual contracts. And, conveniently for people who would organize a union, the NCAA is a private institution, not a public entity. |
Problem is, there is no arguable employer-employee relationship with the NCAA. You could theoretically have multi employer bargaining with the NCAA as a whole but that is voluntary and why would the vast majority of state schools who are exempt agree to participate?
This is all a pipe dream. |
I don't really want anyone to think I believe this is workable no matter how you do it - I can't think of something that covers all of the bases (which may be a result of limited knowledge). It is worth noting that there is no employer-employee relationship between Major League Baseball and the players - they sign with individual teams, but of course there could be specific reasons that the teams have decided to let MLB do their bargaining. Also, collective bargaining does create some antitrust protection, if I remember correctly, although it's not clear to me that the NCAA and its member schools are worried about that.
By the way, I wonder if someone creative could argue that the National Letter of Intent is a contract with the NCAA, not just the individual school. Probably not, but still an interesting thought.
FWIW, if the Northwestern bargaining unit gets to have a vote and wins, I expect it to be a complete mess for a while. That's actually one reason that I'd put the odds of winning a vote at less than 50% - too many players would be unwilling to risk their scholarships. |
Yes, the pro leagues bargain on behalf of the various teams by the voluntary agreement of each of the teams in what is called multi employer bargaining. The league is not the employer.
If anyone is actually interested in this overall issue, you might want to read Northwestern's appeal.
www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/217297230?width=600#fullscreen
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11150
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/14 11:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
This is one of the better discussions we've had, I think ...
I used to blindly think players should be compensated, but I think that's too difficult to do and really doesn't make sense.
I do think, though, that universities that generate income from sports (not profits) have treated the athletes that generate that income unfairly -- and when that happens, the athletes have no recourse.
The steps to players' unions in professional sports took a long time to complete, and the system is much more just right now.Is it perfect? No, but the imbalance of power between owners and players has been somewhat rectified.
I don't think the concept of having a players' union could be argued against as intrinsically wrong, unless you just hated all unions, but if you accept that unions are an important tool in balancing employee-employer relations, then having one for college athletes doesn't seem out of line.
Exactly how it would be set up, and the process to make it happen, is obviously a much more difficult question.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/14 12:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| I do think, though, that universities that generate income from sports (not profits) have treated the athletes that generate that income unfairly |
In what way?
I have worked/coached at a few different levels of schools, including BCS programs. The athletes at those schools had the best of everything:
- Tons of gear (shoes, clothes, etc)
- Ability to register for classes prior to the rest of the student body
- Access to computer labs, study rooms, mentors, tutors only available to student-athletes
- Chartered travel, both air and bus (and people that have chartered know how amazing that is)
- Games played in many places that people just don't get to go to very often (Hawai'i, St. Thomas, Puerto Rico, foreign tour, etc)
- Dorms that were either the newest and/or closest to the facilities
- Training table meals that were better than anything else offered on campus to students
- Personalized and individual training on the court, in the weight room
- Use of all facilities at no charge whatsoever
- Rock star status on campus
And none of that cost them a penny...
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/14 12:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I do find it interesting that no one has wanted to address the hockey player question I posed above.
The same question could be posed in terms of basketball if the NBA simply got rid of the one-year-from-graduation requirement added to the CBA in 2005 so that players were once again free to go directly to the NBA from HS (and if the WNBA did the same).
The question posed goes right to the heart of the entire question of the supposed "duty" of schools to compensate players.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8228
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/14 1:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The Northwestern decision was rendered by an NLRB regional director. His decision can be, and has already been, appealed to the full NLRB in Washington. The decision of the NLRB can be appealed to the federal court system.
There are all sorts of ancillary mischiefs that could attend a final determination that football scholarship athletes are employees. (The regional director's decision held that the walk-on players are not employees.). I'll mention two possibilities.
First, if the players are employees, then their actual financial aid and imputed compensation via special accommodations for athletes are likely to be deemed taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code and under relevant state income tax laws. Thus, the students will owe taxes on the income. That income, in turn, may be sufficient to disqualify the athletes for subsidies under Obamacare.
Second, if the players are employes and the financial aid is payment for services rendered, then those student-athletes would be considered professionals under the NCAA bylaws, rendering them ineligible to participate in college sports. And if athletes are ineligible under the NCAA bylaws, the schools would have no incentive to continue their athletic scholarships.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11150
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/14 1:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Are all college scholarships considered taxable income? If not, then calling them income for athletes might be an issue ...
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/14 1:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Second, if the players are employes and the financial aid is payment for services rendered, then those student-athletes would be considered professionals under the NCAA bylaws, rendering them ineligible to participate in college sports. And if athletes are ineligible under the NCAA bylaws, the schools would have no incentive to continue their athletic scholarships. |
I'm certainly not going to disagree that the situation would complicated if athletes were ruled to be employees, but the NCAA rules specifically permit schools to offer scholarships and associated benefits (with great specificity - there are limits on, for instance, the value of trophies or rings awarded to players for championships). I doubt that the NCAA would suddenly decide that athletes playing for a school that followed those rules would be disqualified because of a decision by the federal government on how athletes are classified for labor law purposes.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/14 2:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| Are all college scholarships considered taxable income? If not, then calling them income for athletes might be an issue ... |
IRS Publication 970 "Tax Benefits for Education" addresses the conditions of when scholarships and fellowships are not taxable.
The potential problem, I believe, is that the NLRB regional office decision is largely based on divorcing the financial aid for football players from their education. He basically said they are getting paid to play football and that it has nothing to do with their education.
If that's true, then I have a hard time seeing how that compensation would not be taxable income.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/14 3:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| Are all college scholarships considered taxable income? If not, then calling them income for athletes might be an issue ... |
IRS Publication 970 "Tax Benefits for Education" addresses the conditions of when scholarships and fellowships are not taxable.
The potential problem, I believe, is that the NLRB regional office decision is largely based on divorcing the financial aid for football players from their education. He basically said they are getting paid to play football and that it has nothing to do with their education.
If that's true, then I have a hard time seeing how that compensation would not be taxable income. |
The IRS doesn't have to pay attention to the NLRB (and vice versa). That's not to say that the IRS wouldn't look at the issue again in the context of an NLRB decision, but it's not mandatory.
|
|
|
|
