Want to unionize and be an employee instead of an athlete?

[Inhogswetrust]

Your posts are chicken little posts.  My posts are awesome, so I don't mind if you're wrong on mine.

OK then. ONLY idiots think their posts are awesome. I never said mine were. You did. Idiotic. Go look in that mirror.

[Inhogswetrust]

love the way fair treatment is thrown around.

so you think it is fair for a college team to have a qb making money from jersey sales, but the third string guard won't be able too.

plus, most of these kids get $5000 a year pell grant in addition to the scholarship. problem is when they get the $2500 check in late august, it is all spent by,  the next day, and they scream they have no money.

no, you had money, you just wasn't responsible with it.

and everyone's answer to this is give them more money.

how about teaching responsibility, after all they are at an educational institution

A lot of people don't realize what other avenues for help the NCAA allows or provides. It is all right there available to read on the NCAA website.

[Fatty McGee]

Unless you didn't know schools subsidize athletic departments so they don't go bankrupt. Athletic departments do their own P{ & L statements so what they take in and spend is accounted for separate from the academic and administrative side of colleges. They are subsidizes by the schools (State governments to some degree), Student athletic fees, donors and media contracts. Do you honestly believe that the people running the colleges would continue to subsidize the athletic departments that are run somewhat independently now the same if you got your way. I don't believe so. It's the DONORS AND ticket buyers that pay for the majority of facilities and salaries now. You might want to look up who actually pays for most of the coaches salaries and the facilities. It's the donors. The TV money helps but it isn't the only source of revenue. People keep talking about Billions to the schools yet those contracts are spread out over years and many schools to where by the time it gets to the schools it isn't that much to the totality of the budget on a yearly basis. Do you think that without those donors and large number of ticket buyers that the schools would build those facilities? Nope. Did the UA put in millions to build BWA like Bud did? Nope. How about the upgrades to RRS. Nope. Would they have done it without them or someone like them doing it. Nope. I'd bet that those schools that have an athletic fees for students would be pressured to drop those fees if it was unionized or pay for play. AD's ALWAYS have to raise money outside the confines of the college to balance the budgets even with the revenue that media and ticket sales bring in to the big sports.

They don't subsidize them, any more than they "subsidize" the television stations they buy commercials for, or they "subsidize" the recruiters they pay.  Athletics is one big commercial for the university.  They are paying for this commercial.  If they ultimately profit on it, that's great, but they'd do it anyway even if they didn't.  Why?  Because there's no better exposure for a school.

I'm not sure why you struggle with this concept, when it's obvious and has been obvious for decades.

And AD's don't HAVE to do anything.  There is no requirement that we participate in sports at this level.  None.  Zip.  Zero.  We do it because it is one big commercial for the University.  It adds nothing to our educational standing.  It simply adds to name recognition. 

[Fatty McGee]

history, if humans & money are involved, then you can expect the worst.

figures it would take a bunch of liberals to open another pandora's box

don't be fooled it is not  about the college athlete, it is about union dues, and votes. the athlete will again be screwed, just by different people

It's weird that people would call being able to make a profit off your individual skills and to maximize that value a "liberal" concept.  Maybe in the classical sense, but I don't think you're using it that way.  Also weird how so many who self-identify as "conservatives" are good with such socialist thinking as the current landscape.

[Fatty McGee]

A lot of people don't realize what other avenues for help the NCAA allows or provides. It is all right there available to read on the NCAA website.

Can I still buy Johnny Manziel's jersey there too?

[Inhogswetrust]

They don't subsidize them, any more than they "subsidize" the television stations they buy commercials for, or they "subsidize" the recruiters they pay.  Athletics is one big commercial for the university.  They are paying for this commercial.  If they ultimately profit on it, that's great, but they'd do it anyway even if they didn't.  Why?  Because there's no better exposure for a school.

I'm not sure why you struggle with this concept, when it's obvious and has been obvious for decades.

Keep believing your fantasies.

[Fatty McGee]

Keep believing your fantasies.

Why do you think we do athletics at this level?  Why do you think Appalachian State and Georgia Southern are joining the FBS - to win titles?  If as you correctly claim most universities lose money on sports, why do you think they do it?

[Inhogswetrust]

Can I still buy Johnny Manziel's jersey there too?

It never was Johnny's jersey. No different than an employees uniform with their name on it at McDonalds. I do agree though that facial likenesses and such should be the property of the individual. But once they put on the uniform........................

[Hogfaniam]

They don't subsidize them, any more than they "subsidize" the television stations they buy commercials for, or they "subsidize" the recruiters they pay.  Athletics is one big commercial for the university.  They are paying for this commercial.  If they ultimately profit on it, that's great, but they'd do it anyway even if they didn't.  Why?  Because there's no better exposure for a school.

I'm not sure why you struggle with this concept, when it's obvious and has been obvious for decades.

And AD's don't HAVE to do anything.  There is no requirement that we participate in sports at this level.  None.  Zip.  Zero.  We do it because it is one big commercial for the University.  It adds nothing to our educational standing.  It simply adds to name recognition. 

Yep.  Florida and Florida St. and Miami will now have to fight even harder due to UCF's BCS run.  That place is a hidden gem that many more people know about due to the football team.

[Inhogswetrust]

Why do you think we do athletics at this level?  Why do you think Appalachian State and Georgia Southern are joining the FBS - to win titles?  If as you correctly claim most universities lose money on sports, why do you think they do it?

You are correct in that it is partly a marketing tool. There are other reasons for it though like to provide opportunity for an education to those athletes as well as fun for the other students. But what I'm calling subsidies you are calling marketing expenses and like any expense IF it gets out of whack it can be cut.

[Hogfaniam]

They don't subsidize them, any more than they "subsidize" the television stations they buy commercials for, or they "subsidize" the recruiters they pay.  Athletics is one big commercial for the university.  They are paying for this commercial.  If they ultimately profit on it, that's great, but they'd do it anyway even if they didn't.  Why?  Because there's no better exposure for a school.

I'm not sure why you struggle with this concept, when it's obvious and has been obvious for decades.

And AD's don't HAVE to do anything.  There is no requirement that we participate in sports at this level.  None.  Zip.  Zero.  We do it because it is one big commercial for the University.  It adds nothing to our educational standing.  It simply adds to name recognition. 

Here is another little tidbit.  This is from basketball.

"After making the Final Four in 2006, for example, George Mason generated more than $650 million in free publicity, according to a university professor, and monthly bookstore sales increased by 1,300%."
Mötley Fool

[Fatty McGee]

You are correct in that it is partly a marketing tool. There are other reasons for it though like to provide opportunity for an education to those athletes as well as fun for the other students. But what I'm calling subsidies you are calling marketing expenses and like any expense IF it gets out of whack it can be cut.

Partly?  Almost totally.  Do you call the computer you buy at your office a "Dell subsidy"?  How about the payments to the cleaning people - "Mr. Clean subsidy"?  When you buy paper - "Dunder Mifflin subsidy"?  Be serious.

You're right it CAN be cut.  What do you think the likelihood of that is?  When schools who will not have a shot at the title in our lifetime are still joining this level?  1%?  Less? 

Where else can you get on TV every weekend for 2 hours on a show with those ratings, plus be on Sportscenter and every other sports show nonstop on the ticker and in the highlights if you're ranked or playing a ranked team, regularly for that period for the same cost? 

Did you know that a 30 second spot on NBC's Sunday Night football costs $600,000?  Our Sugar Bowl game a couple years ago had an 8.2 Nielsen rating.  NBC's Sunday Night football has an average 7.9 Nielsen rating.  Were we to make the SEC Championship game, it had an 8.7 rating last year. 

Now, typically we average a 1.5 Nielsen rating for our games.  A comparable ordinary TV show with that rating in 18-49 year olds will run about $62,000 for a 30 second spot.  30 seconds.

So tell me, where are we going to more effectively spend our marketing money than college athletics?  Or our marketing "subsidies", if you will.

I agree that there is some sense of "intercollegiate experience" in having a football team.  I'm not with you on the generosity of providing an education to these kids - again if that was a goal the scholarships would be 4 years.  But a school doesn't need to have a budget of $70 million to provide that intercollegiate experience of playing football.  Schools all over the country do it at a far cheaper level.  This is marketing.

[ChitownHawg]

I didn't see this comment, so I will say it. Sorry if someone else has already pointed it out. The new ruling is for private schools. States schools are under a completely different set of labor laws. Not sure if the states could get the laws changed for athletes to be considered employees.

Especially Southern states where unions are not liked.

[thegreatone]

bad idea

[Kevin]

i notice fatty did not want to talk about the $5000 dollars most student-athletes get per year on the pel grant.


always change the subject, when you have no response

[LZH]

I think what happens is athletes get walking around $ of say $500 - $750 a month.  That in no way will break the bank for schools.  It will probably apply just to major college programs.

That would be a minimum of a million dollars a year....more than likely two million.  That's big money for all but a couple dozen schools.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I didn't see this comment, so I will say it. Sorry if someone else has already pointed it out. The new ruling is for private schools. States schools are under a completely different set of labor laws. Not sure if the states could get the laws changed for athletes to be considered employees.

Especially Southern states where unions are not liked.

Athletes better be careful what they ask for. Sure, I suppose that they could and maybe should receive a percentage of licensed apparel sales, but if it is say, 5%, after it is shared with all other university sports, which it will be, it becomes very little, AND it would be classified as being unearned income, which is taxed at higher level than ordinary income.

And if they receive a percentage from EA Sports for the use of their image, how many of the guys on each team will really benefit from that? The "stars" from college football for sure, but what percentage of all athletes on their teams do they account for? How long is it before the O-Line says to an Alex Collins or Derrick Henry (Alabama) that they deserve a cut because if it wasn't for them, they wouldn't have the production or noteriety that they have? Or the guys on defense say, we deserve our cut too because we gave you better field position? I believe this is opening up a can of worms, or Pandora's Box, if you prefer.

On top of that, once these kids are recognized as "employees" of the university and are receiving compensation, all of that scholarship money, medical benefits and provided professional, superior training, as well as free tutoring, may become taxable benefits as well.

I'm just saying, I'm not sure that these kids have been advised wisely and they may not realize all of the potential future implications of that which they are asking for.

[LZH]

I'm just saying, I'm not sure that these kids have been advised wisely and they may not realize all of the potential future implications of that which they are asking for.

Of course they haven't.  I just watched "Outside the Lines", and all they could talk about was all the money that the NCAA was making and how the players deserved some of it.  No one, not once, mentioned anything else.

[secfan30]

I'm not making it about race. It's an opinion so don't get offended

You brought up one race making more than another. You made it about race. Racist.

[ChitownHawg]

I'm just saying, I'm not sure that these kids have been advised wisely and they may not realize all of the potential future implications of that which they are asking for.

Don't even get me started on the selfish demands of the unions. I am sure some of the legal advising probably has ties to unions.

A good friend of mine lost his job and watched his employer beg the union not to strike. The union went on strike, the owner filed bankruptcy, the US lost its last tuna boat manufacturer, my friend lost his job, and the union boss went back to his job in LA. Unions only care about unions - not the members. These kids will learn this lesson the hard way.

[secfan30]

history, if humans & money are involved, then you can expect the worst.

figures it would take a bunch of liberals to open another pandora's box

don't be fooled it is not  about the college athlete, it is about union dues, and votes. the athlete will again be screwed, just by different people

Short, sweet and right on.

I've seen employees unionized and a good situation turned into a complicated one. People in those positions are making 40% less than they were pre union 13 years ago and there is higher turnover.

[Inhogswetrust]

Interesting Poll on MSN.com and current results:


Northwestern to appeal player union ruling
The university takes position that 'student-athletes are not employees.'
Should college athletes be allowed to form a union?

16 %
Yes, it's only fair
11,578 votes
57 %
No way, the NCAA works
41,674 votes
8 %
I need to read more
6,122 votes
19 %
I have other things going on
14,309 votes

[Inhogswetrust]

i notice fatty did not want to talk about the $5000 dollars most student-athletes get per year on the pel grant.


always change the subject, when you have no response

As I've said if anyone wants to see what IS already available to them then check out the NCAA website.

[Inhogswetrust]

That would be a minimum of a million dollars a year....more than likely two million.  That's big money for all but a couple dozen schools.

A lot of regular students that work don't get much more if anymore than that after taxes.

[Fatty McGee]

Athletes better be careful what they ask for. Sure, I suppose that they could and maybe should receive a percentage of licensed apparel sales, but if it is say, 5%, after it is shared with all other university sports, which it will be, it becomes very little, AND it would be classified as being unearned income, which is taxed at higher level than ordinary income.

And if they receive a percentage from EA Sports for the use of their image, how many of the guys on each team will really benefit from that? The "stars" from college football for sure, but what percentage of all athletes on their teams do they account for? How long is it before the O-Line says to an Alex Collins or Derrick Henry (Alabama) that they deserve a cut because if it wasn't for them, they wouldn't have the production or noteriety that they have? Or the guys on defense say, we deserve our cut too because we gave you better field position? I believe this is opening up a can of worms, or Pandora's Box, if you prefer.

On top of that, once these kids are recognized as "employees" of the university and are receiving compensation, all of that scholarship money, medical benefits and provided professional, superior training, as well as free tutoring, may become taxable benefits as well.

I'm just saying, I'm not sure that these kids have been advised wisely and they may not realize all of the potential future implications of that which they are asking for.

More oh so scary scenarios.  You act as if all this already doesn't play out in the pro leagues, which do all these same things and somehow manage to exist.

You don't know the future implications, you just assume they're bad.

[Fatty McGee]

Don't even get me started on the selfish demands of the unions. I am sure some of the legal advising probably has ties to unions.

A good friend of mine lost his job and watched his employer beg the union not to strike. The union went on strike, the owner filed bankruptcy, the US lost its last tuna boat manufacturer, my friend lost his job, and the union boss went back to his job in LA. Unions only care about unions - not the members. These kids will learn this lesson the hard way.

I'm sure Miguel Cabrera is lamenting unions.  Does anyone really believe that the players will end up with less?  The colleges are right now offering compensation - a scholarship - that costs them almost nothing.  Why would they go lower in their offer?

If unions only care about the unions, then the players will be no worse off than they are now, because no one gives a damn about their well being in the current system.

[Fatty McGee]

i notice fatty did not want to talk about the $5000 dollars most student-athletes get per year on the pel grant.


always change the subject, when you have no response

What do you want to talk about?  Does that make collusion alright?  Does that make them less of employees?  Let's chat, brother. 

[LZH]

If unions only care about the unions

There's no "if"........the unions most certainly care only about the unions.  If you think they're truly interested in supporting the working man's rights, try to roll into NYC with a tool belt and a pair of steel-toe boots and see what happens.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

More oh so scary scenarios.  You act as if all this already doesn't play out in the pro leagues, which do all these same things and somehow manage to exist.

You don't know the future implications, you just assume they're bad.

You are changing the face of college football in this way and you have no idea whether it might be good or bad for college football as it has existed for a long time.

Maybe it would be good if you had walked a few steps in their moccasins before you pass judgement.

[FrozenHam]

If one of the proposals was to include players as recipients of apparel sales, might schools like Texas, Alabama, and Notre Dame gain even more advantage in recruiting?  Wouldn't players be further drawn to campuses whose player-share of profits are larger?  FWIW, the University of Arkansas collected the 10th largest royalty from the Collegiate Licensing Company in 2013:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9560094/texas-longhorns-again-top-merchandise-sales-list

[Inhogswetrust]

There's no "if"........the unions most certainly care only about the unions.  If you think they're truly interested in supporting the working man's rights, try to roll into NYC with a tool belt and a pair of steel-toe boots and see what happens.

Fly's in the face of Fatty's individual freedom for everyone doesn't it! My current business partner has had to deal with that EXACT scenario in NYC in the past. Some people need to understand unions stupidity is one of the reasons that companies have moved to non-union states.

[Inhogswetrust]

What do you want to talk about?  Does that make collusion alright?  Does that make them less of employees?  Let's chat, brother. 

Aw yes. Once again your proverbial collusion for management is wrong but collusion for employees is fine.

[Fatty McGee]

You are changing the face of college football in this way and you have no idea whether it might be good or bad for college football as it has existed for a long time.

Maybe it would be good if you had walked a few steps in their moccasins before you pass judgement.

The face of college football (whatever that means) changes all the time. Did you argue against the forward pass?  It "changed the face of college football", after all.

Whose moccasins?  The players?  I don't have to-they've filed suit, I know what they want. I don't see any other players joining the defense with the NCAA. How do you propose we walk in the footsteps of the players this is most likely to affect?  The Johnny manziel's of the world. Since you're not a first rounder does that mean you can't have an opinion also?

[Inhogswetrust]

Congrats Fatty you have joined a very exclusive yet hard to get into club of idiots. My ignore list. Bye.

[Fatty McGee]

Aw yes. Once again your proverbial collusion for management is wrong but collusion for employees is fine.

I'm starting to think you just can't read. Or refuse to acknowledge US law.

[Inhogswetrust]

If one of the proposals was to include players as recipients of apparel sales, might schools like Texas, Alabama, and Notre Dame gain even more advantage in recruiting?  Wouldn't players be further drawn to campuses whose player-share of profits are larger?  FWIW, the University of Arkansas collected the 10th largest royalty from the Collegiate Licensing Company in 2013:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9560094/texas-longhorns-again-top-merchandise-sales-list

That's one reason why players names should have never been on jerseys to begin with.  I applaud coaches that don't allow it.

[Fatty McGee]

Congrats Fatty you have joined a very exclusive yet hard to get into club of idiots. My ignore list. Bye.

No soup for me!

[LZH]

Fly's in the face of Fatty's individual freedom for everyone doesn't it! My current business partner has had to deal with that EXACT scenario in NYC in the past. Some people need to understand unions stupidity is one of the reasons that companies have moved to non-union states.

I know a contractor from Arkansas who did some work for a developer in Myrtle Beach.  When that developer and his buddies had an opportunity to buy a building in the lower East side of Manhattan, he invited the contractor to do some demo and remodel work on it (he was waaaaay cheaper - even with his travel and expenses).  Long story short, everyone had to come home.  The guys from South Carolina wound up selling the property without losing any money, but sure didn't make any money, either.

The day a union can strong-hand a court into telling a man who he can and cannot hire to spruce up his own property is the day that unions need not only to go away, but to be blasted into oblivion.  For most of us around here, if that were our building the governor would have to call out the National Guard....can you just imagine?

Anyone who defends unions without knowing the whole story should try signing the other side of a paycheck for once.

[Fatty McGee]

You guys realize the the NFLPA is the weakest sports union and your comparisons to the pipefitters unions or boilermans unions really aren't applicable right?  Sports unions live in a rather unique world.

It's funny that all the sudden, after years of everyone else making tens of millions, the mere thought of players having a little bargaining power will bring the world crashing down.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The face of college football (whatever that means) changes all the time. Did you argue against the forward pass?  It "changed the face of college football", after all.

Whose moccasins?  The players?  I don't have to-they've filed suit, I know what they want. I don't see any other players joining the defense with the NCAA. How do you propose we walk in the footsteps of the players this is most likely to affect?  The Johnny manziel's of the world. Since you're not a first rounder does that mean you can't have an opinion also?

You are truly "obtuse" in your replys. "Walk in their moccasins?" You don't get the meaning of that? I mean that the vast majority of these players have an opportunity to get their college educations, top level training, the best medical available, all taken care of, for free. If you have never been there, I can understand why you are so perplexed about what I am talking about.

Go the route that you are talking about and for the most part, most players will end up on the short end of the perceived value of being considered "employees" of the Universities that they choose to attend.

[Fatty McGee]

You are truly "obtuse" in your replys. "Walk in their moccasins?" You don't get the meaning of that? I mean that the vast majority of these players have an opportunity to get their college educations, top level training, the best medical available, all taken care of, for free. If you have never been there, I can understand why you are so perplexed about what I am talking about.

Go the route that you are talking about and for the most part, most players will end up on the short end of the perceived value of being considered "employees" of the Universities that they choose to attend.

I got the meaning of it.  I just don't think it's all that relevant.  Because out of those thousands of players there are going to be lots of different views.  Kain Colter may have a vastly different view than Jonathan Luigs did.  You think that your experience gives you some special knowledge that Colter's doesn't? 

You have literally no clue what will happen, so your second paragraph is simply more of the chicken little stuff.  Somehow, despite the players being paid, the NFL is the most successful sports league in the world.  Wonder how they do it since according to you the whole thing should have already blown up?  Just luck, I guess.  Good of you to watch out for the players though. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I got the meaning of it.  I just don't think it's all that relevant.  Because out of those thousands of players there are going to be lots of different views.  Kain Colter may have a vastly different view than Jonathan Luigs did.  You think that your experience gives you some special knowledge that Colter's doesn't? 

You have literally no clue what will happen, so your second paragraph is simply more of the chicken little stuff.  Somehow, despite the players being paid, the NFL is the most successful sports league in the world.  Wonder how they do it since according to you the whole thing should have already blown up?  Just luck, I guess.  Good of you to watch out for the players though. 

Your problem is, though you attempt to present yourself as a capitalist when you are more of a socialist in nature by philosophy, that not all players will be treated equally in terms of capitalistic opportunity. You want everyone to have the same opportunity for advancement, and they have that now, in the absence of change.

[Fatty McGee]

Your problem is, though you attempt to present yourself as a capitalist when you are more of a socialist in nature by philosophy, that not all players will be treated equally in terms of capitalistic opportunity. You want everyone to have the same opportunity for advancement, and they have that now, in the absence of change.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. 

The same opportunity for advancement?  Because they're all capped in what they can receive through the collusion of those trying to preserve their ever growing income?  Why don't we just call the teams collectives, Nikita? 

I noticed another thread mentioning Jeff Long's potential raise to $2 million.  Tell me again how all this money going to the players will simply wreck the game!  Perhaps some animals are more equal than others?

[Josh Goforth]

Well, if they are employees, I guess that they can pretty much work a full time job, just like the NFL.  No more rules about 20 hours or practice a week.  Curfews and contracts prohibiting risky behavior can be instituted.  Oh....crap I have to stop it.  It is too stupid to even be contemplated.  There is simply no way that colleges can stay in the athletics business at all if the athletes are employees.  It just can't be done.  They wouldn't even do it at places like Alabama of FSU.  It just isn't going to happen.  It can't be done.

If this all really does come to pass, it means minor league football.  It means that most of these kids will not only fail to get college educations, they will fall to complete obscurity.

The NFL actually has stricter rules on how many hours per week and how many padded practices in preseason camp etc than does college football.

[Inhogswetrust]

I know a contractor from Arkansas who did some work for a developer in Myrtle Beach.  When that developer and his buddies had an opportunity to buy a building in the lower East side of Manhattan, he invited the contractor to do some demo and remodel work on it (he was waaaaay cheaper - even with his travel and expenses).  Long story short, everyone had to come home.  The guys from South Carolina wound up selling the property without losing any money, but sure didn't make any money, either.

The day a union can strong-hand a court into telling a man who he can and cannot hire to spruce up his own property is the day that unions need not only to go away, but to be blasted into oblivion.  For most of us around here, if that were our building the governor would have to call out the National Guard....can you just imagine?

Anyone who defends unions without knowing the whole story should try signing the other side of a paycheck for once.

Your last sentence says it all! I know about unions from my work in a couple of places AND my Dad was in a union until I was about 20 or so.

[Inhogswetrust]

I'm starting to think you just can't read. Or refuse to acknowledge US law.

Just because there is a law doesn't make it right or fair. It only makes it a legal issue unless or until it is changed. Ever hear of Prohibition.

[Inhogswetrust]

You guys realize the the NFLPA is the weakest sports union and your comparisons to the pipefitters unions or boilermans unions really aren't applicable right?  Sports unions live in a rather unique world.

It's funny that all the sudden, after years of everyone else making tens of millions, the mere thought of players having a little bargaining power will bring the world crashing down.

Every sports union at some point has gone on strike. Some more than once. Any power for them no matter how small is too much.

[Fatty McGee]

Just because there is a law doesn't make it right or fair. It only makes it a legal issue unless or until it is changed. Ever hear of Prohibition.

Are you comparing US anti-trust law to Prohibition?  Hehe.

I thought you put me on ignore?  Does this mean you like me?  You really, really like me?

[Fatty McGee]

Every sports union at some point has gone on strike. Some more than once. Any power for them no matter how small is too much.

That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.  You know that the owners have locked out players, too, right? 

But let me get this straight - you don't want the players to be able to negotiate individually, but you also don't want them to be able to negotiate collectively.  Basically you want them to be happy with whatever the schools feel like handing down once they've collectively decided what those crumbs should be.  God Bless America, brother!

[HF#1]

Unions are very effective.  They elect Presidents, get stupid rediculous benefits for their members, and bring down entire industries. 

Oh and if you've ever been an outsider that has had to deal with Union workers then you've felt true frustration.

Good luck Northwestern.