Northwestern votes today for unionization

[SmilinBob]

The players deserve to have their grievances not only heard but with some kind of representation.

 

[texascpa]

Actually, they will not be considered employees unless they vote to unionize.

? Are you sure? Those two things are mutually exclusive. In order to unionize they first needed to be classified as employees, which they were by the regional board. Then they voted to unionize. The only reason the union vote hasn't been made public is that the university appealed the regional office's judgement. If the NLRB reverses the regional office's decision, then the whole union issue is moot, however, if they agree with the decision, then the vote will be unsealed to see if they unionize. Either way the union vote goes, the athletes are still employees if the NLRB upholds the regional office decision.

 

[tep624]

All I see happening as a result of this is the major sports revenue earning schools being incentivized moreso than they already are to permanently do away with scholarships for non-revenue sports. Seriously, why even bother anymore.

At least academic scholarships offer some opportunity for return. Unless a non-revenue sports student is also a great student, what benefit is there to have non-revenue sports other than more expansive student life offerings? That could be accomplished in a number of different ways and it doesn't have to be through offering scholarships for athletics.

 

[CuseOnly]

? Are you sure? Those two things are mutually exclusive. In order to unionize they first needed to be classified as employees, which they were by the regional board. Then they voted to unionize. The only reason the union vote hasn't been made public is that the university appealed the regional office's judgement. If the NLRB reverses the regional office's decision, then the whole union issue is moot, however, if they agree with the decision, then the vote will be unsealed to see if they unionize. Either way the union vote goes, the athletes are still employees if the NLRB upholds the regional office decision.

You are correct about them voting on unionization, but it already has been reported by team captains that the vote was against unionization. Leaving the decision that the Chicago RLB made moot. Yes, the vote was sealed and when the appeal goes through the NLRB who will of course uphold the decision. It will all be an exercise in wasted time until of course another school does vote to unionize in the future which I am sure will happen.

Funny thing is the schools don't have to accept any collective bargaining, they can just shut down the program that voted to unionize to set an example, tell the kids to go home, scholarships won't be honored and they are all fired as employees as they no longer need that "department". Then what...not too many kids will vote to unionize again.

Northwestern has gone on record saying that they might have to shut down the football program as they are not interested in collective bargaining with students.

Wonder how pissed the kids and their parents would be if that happened.

 

[texascpa]

You are correct about them voting on unionization, but it already has been reported by team captains that the vote was against unionization. Leaving the decision that the Chicago RLB made moot. Yes, the vote was sealed and when the appeal goes through the NLRB who will of course uphold the decision. It will all be an exercise in wasted time until of course another school does vote to unionize in the future which I am sure will happen.

Funny thing is the schools don't have to accept any collective bargaining, they can just shut down the program that voted to unionize to set an example, tell the kids to go home, scholarships won't be honored and they are all fired as employees as they no longer need that "department". Then what...not too many kids will vote to unionize again.

Northwestern has gone on record saying that they might have to shut down the football program as they are not interested in collective bargaining with students.

Wonder how pissed the kids and their parents would be if that happened.

Well, I'm not going to go round and round on this, but my understanding was that the Chicago board only stated that they were employees, opening the door to unionization. I'm going to do a little more reading up on it so I fully understand.

 

[CuseOnly]

All I see happening as a result of this is the major sports revenue earning schools being incentivized moreso than they already are to permanently do away with scholarships for non-revenue sports. Seriously, why even bother anymore.

At least academic scholarships offer some opportunity for return. Unless a non-revenue sports student is also a great student, what benefit is there to have non-revenue sports other than more expansive student life offerings? That could be accomplished in a number of different ways and it doesn't have to be through offering scholarships for athletics.

I said it before in another thread that this unionization will kill the Collegiate Olympic sports in this country.

 

[CuseOnly]

Well, I'm not going to go round and round on this, but my understanding was that the Chicago board only stated that they were employees, opening the door to unionization. I'm going to do a little more reading up on it so I fully understand.

My understanding is that to be considered employees that would have to vote to be a union.

 

[Cheriehoop]

http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1653.html

 

[CuseOnly]

http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1653.html

Thanks for the Clraification!! Great Read, very clear, I stand corrected.

 

[CuseOnly]

Well, I'm not going to go round and round on this, but my understanding was that the Chicago board only stated that they were employees, opening the door to unionization. I'm going to do a little more reading up on it so I fully understand.

Texascpa, see Cheriehoop's post and link below. I stand corrected.

http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1653.html

 

[texascpa]

Texascpa, see Cheriehoop's post and link below. I stand corrected.

http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1653.html

Good read. Thanks Cheriehoop.

If this holds, it will be interesting on when the IRS acts.

 

[CuseOnly]

Good read. Thanks Cheriehoop.

If this holds, it will be interesting on when the IRS acts.

What is actually interesting is that if this holds, private schools can actually pay their players giving an advantage over the public schools. SU could actually give a player a scholarship as well as say 15K a year, wouldn't that be something

Then what would the SEC schools do...

 

[texascpa]

What is actually interesting is that if this holds, private schools can actually pay their players giving an advantage over the public schools. SU could actually give a player a scholarship as well as say 15K a year, wouldn't that be something

Then what would the SEC schools do...

I was thinking the same, but then I realized that private schools still play under the NCAA and have to abide by their rules. One of the issues is around amateurism. If they start getting paid directly, then they aren't amateurs. so confusing.

 

[TexanMark]

What is actually interesting is that if this holds, private schools can actually pay their players giving an advantage over the public schools. SU could actually give a player a scholarship as well as say 15K a year, wouldn't that be something

Then what would the SEC schools do...

Nothing...they already pay their players more than $15k

 

[Cheriehoop]

My son and I were talking about this. It sure seems a conflict of interest that the government can make rules/laws for everyone but except themselves from these very same laws.

I may be cynical but I can't believe that there will be an advantage for private schools in having their athletes considered "employees". It eliminates any semblance of a level playing field and I can foresee publics separating themselves from private universities competitively with that argument. Again it might just be my cynicism but I wonder if this was an agenda in the first place. The cost of athletics at private schools are already much higher than at public ones, so the effect of competing monetarily and benefit-wise for athletes could very well put these added costs at an unsustainable level. Private schools aren't subsidized operationally by taxpayers - would it be other students fully funding the load for these added expenses? Where does that money come from?

How would this affect conferences? The ACC, the conference with the most private schools? Wouldn't it cause divisiveness within a conference? How long would 9 public universities stay in a conference where 5 (6 if you include Notre Dame) of its member's athletic departments play under a separate set of rules?(especially when ND already does ) Who would a split benefit? What about the NCAA if they want to stay relevant? Would it be the SEC, Big 10 who have only one private member each? Maybe I'm nuts and just reaching but it does make me wonder in this cut-throat competitive collegiate athletics war where it ends. Aren't there only 11 private BCS football schools and 6 are in the ACC? Strange times and hoping I'm so wrong

Well I hope it ends with the NLRB reversing their decision. Sorry this is so long. Maybe I'm just in a crazy, conspiratorial mood and should just write a murder mystery instead.

 

[Toga]

It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly a shot rang out.

My son and I were talking about this. It sure seems a conflict of interest that the government can make rules/laws for everyone but except themselves from these very same laws.

I may be cynical but I can't believe that there will be an advantage for private schools in having their athletes considered "employees". It eliminates any semblance of a level playing field and I can foresee publics separating themselves from private universities competitively with that argument. Again it might just be my cynicism but I wonder if this was an agenda in the first place. The cost of athletics at private schools are already much higher than at public ones, so the effect of competing monetarily and benefit-wise for athletes could very well put these added costs at an unsustainable level. Private schools aren't subsidized operationally by taxpayers - would it be other students fully funding the load for these added expenses? Where does that money come from?

How would this affect conferences? The ACC, the conference with the most private schools? Wouldn't it cause divisiveness within a conference? How long would 9 public universities stay in a conference where 5 (6 if you include Notre Dame) of its member's athletic departments play under a separate set of rules?(especially when ND already does ) Who would a split benefit? What about the NCAA if they want to stay relevant? Would it be the SEC, Big 10 who have only one private member each? Maybe I'm nuts and just reaching but it does make me wonder in this cut-throat competitive collegiate athletics war where it ends. Aren't there only 11 private BCS schools and 6 are in the ACC? Strange times and hoping I'm so wrong

Well I hope it ends with the NLRB reversing their decision. Sorry this is so long. Maybe I'm just be in a crazy, conspiratorial mood and should just write a murder mystery instead.

 

[HtownOrange]

My son and I were talking about this. It sure seems a conflict of interest that the government can make rules/laws for everyone but except themselves from these very same laws.

I may be cynical but I can't believe that there will be an advantage for private schools in having their athletes considered "employees". It eliminates any semblance of a level playing field and I can foresee publics separating themselves from private universities competitively with that argument. Again it might just be my cynicism but I wonder if this was an agenda in the first place. The cost of athletics at private schools are already much higher than at public ones, so the effect of competing monetarily and benefit-wise for athletes could very well put these added costs at an unsustainable level. Private schools aren't subsidized operationally by taxpayers - would it be other students fully funding the load for these added expenses? Where does that money come from?

How would this affect conferences? The ACC, the conference with the most private schools? Wouldn't it cause divisiveness within a conference? How long would 9 public universities stay in a conference where 5 (6 if you include Notre Dame) of its member's athletic departments play under a separate set of rules?(especially when ND already does ) Who would a split benefit? What about the NCAA if they want to stay relevant? Would it be the SEC, Big 10 who have only one private member each? Maybe I'm nuts and just reaching but it does make me wonder in this cut-throat competitive collegiate athletics war where it ends. Aren't there only 11 private BCS schools and 6 are in the ACC? Strange times and hoping I'm so wrong

Well I hope it ends with the NLRB reversing their decision. Sorry this is so long. Maybe I'm just be in a crazy, conspiratorial mood and should just write a murder mystery instead.

I agree with much of what you posted. However, the cost of sports is simalar among private and public schools. The difference is the subsidies by the states to these schools and where a school allocates money from. Private schools have to fiscally responsible whereas state schools have historically been able to call the state legislature and cry for more money without much difficulty - some still do (Yes, Rutgers, I am talking about you and your $48MM shortfall).

The one good thing that may come of this mess is that state schools may now have to start computing the real cost of attendance and state citizens can see what they are getting in exchange for their tax money.

 

[SmilinBob]

Is this a Chicago ballot box? I think we know how that will turn out.

 

[Cheriehoop]

I agree with much of what you posted. However, the cost of sports is simalar among private and public schools. The difference is the subsidies by the states to these schools and where a school allocates money from. Private schools have to fiscally responsible whereas state schools have historically been able to call the state legislature and cry for more money without much difficulty - some still do (Yes, Rutgers, I am talking about you and your $48MM shortfall).

The one good thing that may come of this mess is that state schools may now have to start computing the real cost of attendance and state citizens can see what they are getting in exchange for their tax money.

Isn't the discrepancy in tuition/R&B a major difference between private and publics when calculating athletic expenses for their athletes? I thought it was also the reason that public universities have an advantage with both the quantity and quality of walk-ons.

Since athletic dept subsidies are financed through state legislatures doesn't that that mean private universities have to rely more heavily on either tuition/fees or private donors to stay competitive? I agree that I'm surprised that taxpayers haven't focused on the cost of their states' subsidies for athletic programs. Maryland and Rutgers are the poster children for over spending. In NYS, even Buffalo, Albany, Stony Brook etc have upgraded their athletic subsidies while taxes remain a huge issue especially considering few athletic programs are real moneymakers. Getting the feds with the IRS involved will really muddle the collegiate landscape further and would state institutions be handled differently than private ones for state taxes?

 

[HtownOrange]

Isn't the discrepancy in tuition/R&B a major difference between private and publics when calculating athletic expenses for their athletes? I thought it was also the reason that public universities have an advantage with both the quantity and quality of walk-ons.

Since athletic dept subsidies are financed through state legislatures doesn't that that mean private universities have to rely more heavily on either tuition/fees or private donors to stay competitive? I agree that I'm surprised that taxpayers haven't focused on the cost of their states' subsidies for athletic programs. Maryland and Rutgers are the poster children for over spending. In NYS, even Buffalo, Albany, Stony Brook etc have upgraded their athletic subsidies while taxes remain a huge issue especially considering few athletic programs are real moneymakers. Getting the feds with the IRS involved will really muddle the collegiate landscape further and would state institutions be handled differently than private ones for state taxes?

With state funding, the "costs" for tuition, room an board are "less" for the state student. However, take a private school and a public school from the same area, say USC and UCLA, assuming equal buildings (dorms, classroom, student activity centers, stadia) do they cost more for a private school to build or are they the same cost to the public school? Do private school professors cost more (higher salaries - this may be true at some Ivies and maybe a little higher because of state control over salaries) but generally they are paid the same for similar quality school. Utilities cost the same. Food service costs the same. When all is said and done, if the state funding is taken away, tuition at state schools would skyrocket (oh, wait, it already has). But don't forget that the buildings are not always funded from the state monies allocated for tuition, these can be and usually are supplemental funds so the state schools often don't have to pay for all of their infrastructure.

The following link explains UT's funding.

http://www.utexas.edu/finances/money-from.html

 

[javadoc]

http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1653.html

I love it. I had not read details of the NLRB finding, and in this article the firm cites two of the crazy ideas I floated in posts here. Will this run into problems with minimum wage laws state by state? And how would players deal with their "employer" on working conditions issues, such as playing time and discipline?

The bit I loved, albeit without full context on a first reading of this source only, was how the NLRB gave "little weight" to the time spent on academic endeavors, including time spent attending classes. So, you are an employee because you are expected to provide football labor, under the supervision of non-academic staff, with weekly time demands of XYZ, etc. And your compensation is... an education, which is of little consideration when determining whether you are an employee!

It is a damned shame that I am not an attorney, because the moment this becomes binding on state schools, I would make a fortune suing the SEC schools for breach of contract in not providing the education.

 

[HtownOrange]

I love it. I had not read details of the NLRB finding, and in this article the firm cites two of the crazy ideas I floated in posts here. Will this run into problems with minimum wage laws state by state? And how would players deal with their "employer" on working conditions issues, such as playing time and discipline?

The bit I loved, albeit without full context on a first reading of this source only, was how the NLRB gave "little weight" to the time spent on academic endeavors, including time spent attending classes. So, you are an employee because you are expected to provide football labor, under the supervision of non-academic staff, with weekly time demands of XYZ, etc. And your compensation is... an education, which is of little consideration when determining whether you are an employee!

It is a damned shame that I am not an attorney, because the moment this becomes binding on state schools, I would make a fortune suing the SEC schools for breach of contract in not providing the education.

I like your idea but I think the SEC would counter that their cash payments and payments in kind more than compensate each player for their lack of education. It isn't like these kids are really academically qualified. The kids who are academically qualified will earn their degree knowing football does not last forever.

Just playing devil's advocate. I still like your idea.