NLRB Rules on NU

[go hogues]

I will grant that Unies make BILLIONS off these kids.

A lot of research universities make BILLIONS off science discoveries made by students as well.

This could spill over into many different areas.

[pfrg999]

Stud Football players will only be paid the same amount as the pine rider on the women's lacrosse team, if they are paid more then it is discrimination... If they are employees of the University then they should have to abide by the same rules as every employee. There are NO "Academic Classes".. You want an education, pay for it like the rest of us..They are no Longer "Student", They are required to work, period. If they are hurt they can file workman's comp... There will be no limits on the time a player can play..As an employee you can just fire them after 4 years.. This is the NFL lite...
  There should be NO scholarships, and if the players receive them, they should be taxed on it along the value of room and board, books, tuition, shoes, uniforms along with the value of trips and "Bonuses" (say hello to 1099 forms) along with any monies they receive.  Then next to sue will be the Chess team, The Band, the Choir, every student on academic scholarship or any scholarship that requires a quid pro quo in exchange for the money.. 
   

[sportster365]

Look its a two-way street here. Those scholarships are mere investments. If you just want student-athletes then hold school tryouts for any random Jimmy, Joe or Jane who's currently enrolled in the school and want to give it a go. Just as it's done in High School.

Schools, the NCAA they're all marketing and getting paid off the skill set and ability of these young men and women. If an undergrad on a full paid academic scholarship some how discovers a cure for cancer during research per say... does he or she not deserve to get paid just because they were on scholarship and were using the schools resources?

I'm not an advocate of this rule either, but its hard to justify against it when so much revenue is being accumulated based on the ability of these athletes. If they don't want to pay the athletes stop marketing their sports. Let fans attend games for free, cut the pay-per-viewing nonsense out as well.  The new SEC network, give us a break. I just want to see Razorback games, the other stuff is extra... charge for that.

[007 License To Squeal]

So, do these "employees" fall under the same policies as other employees of those affected schools such as hiring, suspensions, sick days, vacation time, etc.?  I can not begin to imagine the can of worms this ruling creates.

and another question- Should ALL scholarship students have the same bargaining rights as players?

[pfrg999]

Look its a two-way street here. Those scholarships are mere investments. If you just want student-athletes then hold school tryouts for any random Jimmy, Joe or Jane who's currently enrolled in the school and want to give it a go. Just as it's done in High School.
If an undergrad on a full paid academic scholarship some how discovers a cure for cancer during research per say... does he or she not deserve to get paid just because they were on scholarship and were using the schools resources?

The University  usually owns ALL research and patents that an undergrad "discovers"... The same as most corporations...

[razorbrass]

Do any of you know current players at UA or other institutions?
I know a few at another smaller division 1 school and their entire lives are controlled.
Don't get on social media
Be at this event
mandatory study halls
volunteer work (mandatory)
every aspect of their lives controlled by the athletic department to further the image of the athletic department and make the university money.  You can't tell me they are not employees.  Now just require them to come to practice and play games and I think the argument to unionize becomes much weaker.  Colter says 50 hours a week - from what I've seen and know about I don't doubt the amount of time required of student athletes.  How can you enjoy being a college student under those conditions? I love college sports as much as the rest of you but if you don't recognize that their are serious issues with the current system then you are just plain ignorant.  This has been coming for a long time and I bet there are many a college president crapping their drawers tonight.   

[007 License To Squeal]

Look its a two-way street here. Those scholarships are mere investments. If you just want student-athletes then hold school tryouts for any random Jimmy, Joe or Jane who's currently enrolled in the school and want to give it a go. Just as it's done in High School.

Schools, the NCAA they're all marketing and getting paid off the skill set and ability of these young men and women. If an undergrad on a full paid academic scholarship some how discovers a cure for cancer during research per say... does he or she not deserve to get paid just because they were on scholarship and were using the schools resources?

I'm not an advocate of this rule either, but its hard to justify against it when so much revenue is being accumulated based on the ability of these athletes. If they don't want to pay the athletes stop marketing their sports. Let fans attend games for free, cut the pay-per-viewing nonsense out as well.  The new SEC network, give us a break. I just want to see Razorback games, the other stuff is extra... charge for that.

So who are the REAL employers? The schools or the fans?  Without fans, there is no revenue.

[pfrg999]

Do any of you know current players at UA or other institutions?
I know a few at another smaller division 1 school and their entire lives are controlled.
Don't get on social media
Be at this event
mandatory study halls
volunteer work (mandatory)
every aspect of their lives controlled by the athletic department to further the image of the athletic department and make the university money.  You can't tell me they are not employees.  Now just require them to come to practice and play games and I think the argument to unionize becomes much weaker.  Colter says 50 hours a week - from what I've seen and know about I don't doubt the amount of time required of student athletes.  How can you enjoy being a college student under those conditions? I love college sports as much as the rest of you but if you don't recognize that their are serious issues with the current system then you are just plain ignorant.  This has been coming for a long time and I bet there are many a college president crapping their drawers tonight.   

Cool, let them pay for it like every one else.. Let them pay taxes on it.. Wonder how long it will be before an "employee" lands in jail for not pays his College Taxes....BTW you do realize that.. Football players will make the same as Golf players, lacrosse, band, chess team... etc...
  Honestly this will thin out most of the smaller schools...

[Pigsknuckles]

The term "Pandora's Box" comes to mind.

I'm thinking more of Daffy Duck trying to cram that genie back into the lamp.

[HawgJD]

Still expect this to get shot down by the 7th Circuit.

Edit: or the D.C. Circuit if they go there instead.

[LZH]

If the NCAA had been more willing to share more of the billions of dollars it gets from the efforts of college student-athletes, then maybe this issue would not have arisen.

Share?  Where do you think that money goes?

[redneckfriend]

I notice the usual drivel about 'unions' and how evil they are. The truth is the only relevant 'unions' in this case are those 'unions' representing professional athletes. In other words the ruling opens the door to the claim that, because they are in a compensated 'job', college football players (and basketball players) are employees and are free to bargain for their services. Because of the immense popularity of sports, and the concomitant revenue, and the fact that these people aren't fungible like an auto worker, each will be able to demand a substantial compensation commensurate with their entertainment value.

A college or a conference might say "we will offer a set stipend of x dollars" but another college or conference might up the ante and offer x+ 100 dollars and another college or conference might say we will establish a sliding scale- if we recruit you and judge you a 'class C" player you will be offered x dollars/for y period, if we recruit you and you are judged to be a class B player the going price is x+100 dollars/for y period, if we judge you to be a class A player the going rate is x+500 dollars/ for y period. Finally some school might say to a five star quarterback: "tell us how much you want to play here". Then, as in professional sports, the going rate will keep rising until the employees are taking a substantial cut of the revenue and then there will be a collective bargaining agreement to try and save the solvency of the colleges and conferences still in the 'game' and there will be new 'labor' agreements every few years to cut up the pie. Colleges will no long be the only hand at the table when the issue is athlete compensation.

In other words, while this is a union in the traditional sense of protecting the economic rights of the employees it is certainly not a traditional union in the sense that the bargaining position of the employees is entirely different- truthfully they have been exploited but now the game changes 180 degrees and they can become exploiters because they possess a unique talent that is in high demand and has a high dollar value. The end result of declaring college athletes 'professionals' is the professionalization of the games for which colleges are willing to pay for play. Presumably many will not wish to or be able to and those who do might rather that the very best players go directly to professional sports.  And in the end the 'national championship' in college football may be Alabama playing Texas every year. And don't think state 'right to work laws' will help- if one school is willing to pay then all schools will have to match or better the price if they want the goods.

[bphi11ips]

So, do these "employees" fall under the same policies as other employees of those affected schools such as hiring, suspensions, sick days, vacation time, etc.?  I can not begin to imagine the can of worms this ruling creates.

and another question- Should ALL scholarship students have the same bargaining rights as players?

Can of worms, indeed.  For example, if scholarship recipients are employees, are scholarships taxable?  Are universities subject to wage and hour laws for scholarship recipients?  When is a recipient "on the clock"?

In terms of the traditional "agency test" applied by the U.S. Supreme Court when determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists, I can't imagine this decision holding up on an appeal that will take years even on a fast track.  That test is set forth in a number of Supreme Court opinions, including Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid.  Google "CCNV vs. Reid" if you want to read it.

The O'Bannon case will have far reaching effects on compensating players for the use of their name and likeness, and the anti-trust case against the NCAA is likely to have legs.  All those cases mean is that players will be paid under certain circumstances in the future and that the NCAA may not have a monopoly on collegiate athletics.  Whether that matters in the real world remains to be seen.  But without reading the NLRB opinion, I'll predict it won't hold up on appeal. 

[Hogwild]

Still expect this to get shot down by the 7th Circuit.

Edit: or the D.C. Circuit if they go there instead.

The DC Circuit is about to be shut down by SCOTUS

[PorkerOinker]

NLRB has no jurisdiction on public/state universities. 

^^^THIS^^^

http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/jurisdictional-standards

This could lead to some private universities getting rid of athletics, but your bigger private schools will not, what is could lead to is schools like Notre Dame reaching a CBA to pay their student athletes while rival public universities like Michigan or USC do not pay theirs.

Also, where will this all fall in the scope of the NCAA, say NorthWestern reaches a CBA with their student athletes that includes monetary compensation. Can the NCAA turn around and rule these players ineligible, for receiving benefits that do not fall within their rules?

[PorkerOinker]

The DC Circuit is about to be shut down by SCOTUS

Where are you getting this???

[Hogwild]

^^^THIS^^^

http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/jurisdictional-standards

This could lead to some private universities getting rid of athletics, but your bigger private schools will not, what is could lead to is schools like Notre Dame reaching a CBA to pay their student athletes while rival public universities like Michigan or USC do not pay theirs.

Also, where will this all fall in the scope of the NCAA, say NorthWestern reaches a CBA with their student athletes that includes monetary compensation. Can the NCAA turn around and rule these players ineligible, for receiving benefits that do not fall within their rules?

Yes, the NCAA was not party to the ruling.

What if the Alabama or Louisiana state legislature passes a bill saying each member of a football team from a BCS conference receives a $500 monthly stipend from the state? You don't think the NCAA rules those players  ineligible?  They made a few OU players pay money because they ate to much pasta.

That would be going against state laws, vs one guy in Chicago. Even when it is appealed, and goes to the DC board, 3 of the 5 members were likely appointed unconstitutionally. The Supreme Court heard the case a few months back.

[sickboy]

I notice the usual drivel about 'unions' and how evil they are. The truth is the only relevant 'unions' in this case are those 'unions' representing professional athletes. In other words the ruling opens the door to the claim that, because they are in a compensated 'job', college football players (and basketball players) are employees and are free to bargain for their services. Because of the immense popularity of sports, and the concomitant revenue, and the fact that these people aren't fungible like an auto worker, each will be able to demand a substantial compensation commensurate with their entertainment value.

A college or a conference might say "we will offer a set stipend of x dollars" but another college or conference might up the ante and offer x+ 100 dollars and another college or conference might say we will establish a sliding scale- if we recruit you and judge you a 'class C" player you will be offered x dollars/for y period, if we recruit you and you are judged to be a class B player the going price is x+100 dollars/for y period, if we judge you to be a class A player the going rate is x+500 dollars/ for y period. Finally some school might say to a five star quarterback: "tell us how much you want to play here". Then, as in professional sports, the going rate will keep rising until the employees are taking a substantial cut of the revenue and then there will be a collective bargaining agreement to try and save the solvency of the colleges and conferences still in the 'game' and there will be new 'labor' agreements every few years to cut up the pie. Colleges will no long be the only hand at the table when the issue is athlete compensation.

In other words, while this is a union in the traditional sense of protecting the economic rights of the employees it is certainly not a traditional union in the sense that the bargaining position of the employees is entirely different- truthfully they have been exploited but now the game changes 180 degrees and they can become exploiters because they possess a unique talent that is in high demand and has a high dollar value. The end result of declaring college athletes 'professionals' is the professionalization of the games for which colleges are willing to pay for play. Presumably many will not wish to or be able to and those who do might rather that the very best players go directly to professional sports.  And in the end the 'national championship' in college football may be Alabama playing Texas every year. And don't think state 'right to work laws' will help- if one school is willing to pay then all schools will have to match or better the price if they want the goods.

I'm in two entertainment unions. One very powerful union... one very average union. If it turns out anything like my experience, it's not going to be that big of a deal. They'll set scales... most will get paid union minimums... because competition for roster spots will be so competitive that people will be glad to play for union minimums just to get an opportunity, a select few (Star QB/Heisman types) will actually make real cash because they'll create enough hype/demand that they can actually muster up some bargaining leverage... everyone will have some form of health coverage... and every player will complain that they hate their union and the union doesn't do enough for them because they're too busy playing politics and pandering to the 1%. 

I still think we're a long, long way from this being a legit conversation though.

[arkmark]

NLRB has no jurisdiction on public/state universities. 

Google NLRB and University Labor and you will find numbers of reports on actions taken by the NLRB involving public/state universities and colleges as the employer.

[Inhogswetrust]

gotta love liberal illinios

No worse than government bureaucrats of any leanings politically.

[sickboy]

Yes, the NCAA was not party to the ruling.

What if the Alabama or Louisiana state legislature passes a bill saying each member of a football team from a BCS conference receives a $500 monthly stipend from the state? You don't think the NCAA rules those players  ineligible?  They made a few OU players pay money because they ate to much pasta.

That would be going against state laws, vs one guy in Chicago. Even when it is appealed, and goes to the DC board, 3 of the 5 members were likely appointed unconstitutionally. The Supreme Court heard the case a few months back.

The NCAA isn't going to cut itself off at the ankles. If this snowballs the NCAA will follow suit or risk getting thumped aside by the major institutions and their conferences, which could happen anyway. If Alabama and LSU passed bills paying players, the NCAA would get nowhere suspending those players. That would be like the US gov't putting a trade embargo on one of it's own states.

If the NCAA still wants to be a player in college football, it's going to eventually have to fold to the schools that hold the power and follow their lead on whatever path they pave.

[Hogwild]

Google NLRB and University Labor and you will find numbers of reports on actions taken by the NLRB involving public/state universities and colleges as the employer.

The following employers are excluded from NLRB jurisdiction by statute or regulation:

Federal, state and local governments, including public schools, libraries, and parks, Federal Reserve banks, and wholly-owned government corporations.
Employers who employ only agricultural laborers, those engaged in farming operations that cultivate or harvest agricultural commodities or prepare commodities for delivery.
Employers subject to the Railway Labor Act, such as interstate railroads and airlines.


http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/jurisdictional-standards

[Inhogswetrust]

If sports is about teaching leadership, then isn't this a prime example of it? Players wanting to be involved in the decision-making process rather than being treated like children?

Let the tail wag the dog I guess.

[Inhogswetrust]

SI's legal analyst ...

http://college-football.si.com/2014/03/26/northwestern-nlrb-union-kain-colter/#more-29261

Some very interesting answers he gave. Especially the part about Grad students and decisions being reversed due to politics..

[Inhogswetrust]

Making them? No. Involved in discussions about those decisions and providing their input? Sure.

As a student and graduate from the UA, I was involved in my college programs decisions for me.  The funny thing was the former NW QB said he had to change his major from premed due to interference. I know of TWO former Hog players and I bet there are some more I can't think of that ARE medical doctors today.  Nothing but sour grapes on his part.

[Inhogswetrust]

The reasoning used to determine that student-athletes are "employees" is ridiculous. By claiming they are employees because their compensation in based on performance, anyone on a merit based scholarship is an employee. I was on an academic scholarship throughout my undergraduate degree and had to maintain certain GPA and credit criteria (level of performance) to maintain the scholarship.

If student-athletes are now employees, I hope they're ready to start having their scholarships taxed.

THIS!

[Inhogswetrust]

Pay might be an issue in the future with this. But today's decision does not necessarily mean players will be paid.

It's a UNION. It is ALWAYS about some form of pay or compensation.

[sickboy]

THIS!

THAT isn't what the ruling was based on.

[alohawg]

Idiots 

[Karma]

Hogville is against anything that might take away it's football.

[husker71]

and like pro athletes they will have to keep records and pay state tax on every state they play in minus Nevada Florida Texas and Arizona and maybe 1 or 2 more.  Good luck to Syracuse and UCLA  basketball players you will be paying a crap load of state taxes   worst will be St Johns players   city and state taxes

[PorkerOinker]

Pay might be an issue in the future with this. But today's decision does not necessarily mean players will be paid.

No it's not a guarantee that they will be paid. You can say your taking a wait and see stance all you want, but you know as well as anyone else on here that monetary compensation for players was a big motivator behinds this whether you want to admit it or not.

[PorkerOinker]

The players aren't part of a union - yet. This just clears the way for them to hold a vote. The players could vote it down.

Do you honestly think he would be pushing this hard for this if he did not know which way his teamates would vote!!!

[EastexHawg]

Hogville is against anything that might take away it's football.

If this ruling and subsequent unionization result in severe damage to college football, how will that benefit the players?  How short sighted is it to assume something could change the game so fundamentally yet everything else about it will stay the same?

[Lake City Hog]

Scott, didn't the University of Arkansas listen to a bunch of 18 to 20 year old players when it came to hiring an interim coach? How did that work out?

Kind of like joining a club and then bitching about the club rules!

[Fatty McGee]

The universities don't make billions off of athletics.  Don't confuse revenue that is distributed out as making money.  Most have costs that exceed what it is brought in. 

Then why do they do it?  Are they just poor businessmen running these schools?

[PorkerOinker]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Wouldn't be the first time somebody fought to get a union vote and then saw it not pass when presented to everybody eligible to vote.

Once again it is highly unlikely that his teamates are not behind this as well an you know it.

[fortsmithokie]

Fortunately, this is likely years away from being settled, first it will be appealed to the NLRB in D.C., then appealed to U.S. District Court, then U.S Court of Appeals and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court, if it chose to hear it.
It's also naive to say this isn't about pay. They're just attempting to disguise it as "scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance" to counter any attempt by the NCAA to rule players ineligible at unionized private schools for accepting impermissible benefits, because hey, it's just a scholarship.
And in addition to a scholarship, they want a trust fund to help pay for schooling if they can't graduate before their NCAA eligibility expires or reward them for finishing school. The reward is a degree.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

If players are considered employees, that makes them subject to the University's
Personnel Policies. This includes, but not limited to, Drug & alcohol use and weapons. Violations of which can be grounds for termination.

[The Divine Swine]

So what about women's sports? Can't pay men and then not women.

this is correct. No way is this not accurate. So most schools will probably drop women's sports as well as many sports in general. I do think the players should receive stipends on top of their scholarship, but it sounds like they are going for the gold and unfortunately it is going to ruin college sports.

[Rzbakfromwaybak]

Heck, I can't wait for the reports the first time a couple of players walk into Saban's office and want to talk about practice schedules.

Lol....yeah, they will be the first... "football player/employees" ....at the University of Alabama, to get a pink slip......

[fortsmithokie]

Lol....yeah, they will be the first... "football player/employees" ....at the University of Alabama, to get a pink slip......

Even if this survives all the appeals, it will only apply to private schools.

[Rzbakfromwaybak]

Pay might be an issue in the future with this. But today's decision does not necessarily mean players will be paid.

Pay is the real issue, no doubt about it.  Having a "say" in the decision making as they claim, will just open the door to being paid.  They are claiming to be employees...& what employee does not want to get paid fairly for their work?  The compensation will start out small, & of course get larger & larger.  Unions won't allow their "members" to make just peanuts... in the multi-million dollar college football business.

[Rzbakfromwaybak]

Even if this survives all the appeals, it will only apply to private schools.

Bet there are 1,000 lawyers out there, that will soon claim it should apply to all schools....

Hope this does not survive all the appeals, but if it does.....all bets are off...

[fortsmithokie]

Bet there are 1,000 lawyers out there, that will soon claim it should apply to all schools....

Hope this does not survive all the appeals, but if it does.....all bets are off as to what will eventually happen....

The they'll have to get the law changed regarding the NLRB's jurisdiction. The NLRB is specifically prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over public schools.

[Fatty McGee]

this is correct. No way is this not accurate. So most schools will probably drop women's sports as well as many sports in general. I do think the players should receive stipends on top of their scholarship, but it sounds like they are going for the gold and unfortunately it is going to ruin college sports.

The gold has been gone for long ago by the schools and NCAA. We are just discussing how it's apportioned.

[Red Tusk]

More of the same "instant gratification", "entitled" society we are breeding. Just show me the money.

[Fatty McGee]

If players are considered employees, that makes them subject to the University's
Personnel Policies. This includes, but not limited to, Drug & alcohol use and weapons. Violations of which can be grounds for termination.

Which puts them in no worse position than they are now.

[Rzbakfromwaybak]

The they'll have to get the law changed regarding the NLRB's jurisdiction. The NLRB is specifically prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over public schools.

If this decision survives the appeals, it will only be a matter of time before some judge rules... that it is unconstitutional or discriminative, for players at non-private schools, not be allowed to join an employee union that is available to other players/employees in the same NCAA.  Eventually, it won't stop at just private schools.  Too much money to be made by players, unions.....& lawyers.

[fortsmithokie]

If this decision survives the appeals, it will only be a matter of time before some judge rules... that it is unconstitutional or discriminative, for players at non-private schools, not be allowed to join an employee union that is available to other players/employees in the same NCAA.  Eventually, it won't stop at just private schools.  Too much money to be made by players, unions.....& lawyers.

Could a judge rule that? Yes. Will it survive an appeal? No. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 leaves the decision of whether to allow public-sector collective bargaining to the states, and states can choose to permit no public-sector bargaining at all. That's been upheld by much more liberal U.S. Supreme Courts than we have now or will have in the foreseeable future.