Northwestern Univ. football players attempts to unionize

[rams80]

Do the non-revenue NCAA Division I sports spend 50-60 hours per week focused on their activities while in season?

Do Division I institutions keep non-revenue athletes around because they are good students or because they can make major bank off of their athletic performances on a weekly basis?

I'm not sure this is a Title IX issue here. Granted there would need to be a court case for the Supreme Court to get involved anyway.

[rams80]

You're kidding, right? How in the world are student-athletes "employees"? And if you think this is really about what's best for the players, this should put that to rest:

The school keeps them around primarily to play football, benefits economically from their performance, gives them compensation in the form of a scholarship, and can fire "not renew their scholarship" for failure to perform adequately on the football field.

Sounds like employment to me. Hell, their fees are considered taxable income.

===

Outgoing Wildcats quarterback Kain Colter took a leading role in establishing the College Athletes Players Association, or CAPA, which would take the lead in organizing the players. The United Steelworkers union has been footing the legal bills.

===

Thanks in part to the broken financial model, most college athletes cannot afford to have any legal counsel besides the university's on retainer. As this is not true for unions, it makes sense for one of them to provide assistance in getting started. Solidarity yo!

Love this as well:

===

Colter, whose eligibility has been exhausted and who has entered the NFL draft, said nearly all of the 85 scholarship players on the Wildcats roster backed the union bid, though only he expressed his support publicly.

===

Coincidentally most of the scholarship players for Northwestern are underclassmen who are on one year renewable scholarships that can OH YOU WERE PUBLICLY FOR THE UNION? OOPS we decided not to renew your scholarship because you have a boo boo on your rib or something.

Yes that's retaliation. Yes Northwestern could still pull that crap.

Don't get me wrong; college athletics has become a business and the current model needs review. But unions are not the answer.

Nothing else seemed to be working. Better to get this started now before the universities decide to ban health care for their players and ex-players on religious grounds. As an FYI, did you know Northwestern was founded by Methodists and remains associated with the church to this day?

[The_Admiral]

I'm not sure this is a Title IX issue here. Granted there would need to be a court case for the Supreme Court to get involved anyway.

The invocation of Title IX by people who couldn't give a crap about women's issues is always amusing, because it's like "well, you have a great case here but ohhhhhh, Title niiiiiiiine, I'm afraid it juuust won't work. Nice try, though." They do it with the same sneering glee as the DMV clerk who makes you go to the back of the line because you didn't initial a box.

[rams80]

All I know is that I hope to be out of college by the time college players get payed, because tuition will go from ridiculous to ungodly real quick.

Your tuition doesn't pay for the athletic department. Now the involuntary activity fees....

But no, that won't be a problem for you unless your school is on a quixotic quest to become one of the big boys or is already a big boy.

[BlueSky]

@ the admiral...c'mon, man. Your simulator is way off. #'s 4 and 6 are clearly Gothamite, not me. :-P

If you weren't a cherry picker like so many on this board, you would have taken the last line of my post with the rest and realized that we agree on the need for reform in college athletics, but obviously not on what method.

In any case, I really strive to see both sides of an issue. For example, a guy I worked with (yeah, in the airline industry) had been with National and then Pan Am after the two merged. His opinion went like this: "The union is only good for two things: taking your money every month and protecting the lazy SOBs who don't want to work." And I saw that play out. At the same time, there was another quote I saw play out as well: "Companies get the unions they deserve."

My ideal is a partnership like Delta had for decades: they treated their people so well and so fairly that when the union organizers got sent away every few years it was the employees who did it, not management.

If you want to disagree, fine, but at least rebut with some substance like rams80 did. Personal attacks give the impression that you've got nothing else.

[Needschat]

They are employees. They represent the university. They earn money for the university. There's no whitewashing it. This has always been true for big time college football.

[McCall]

They get free rides through college. Ask students who work 2-3 jobs to pay for school if they think free everything is unfair. They're no different than any student-athlete in any sport at any level, all the way down to Middle School. Guarantee scholarships. Yes, that's a reasonable solution. Allow them to maintain jobs out of season. Allow them to sell personal properties. Give them a stipend that amounts to cost of living for any college student. But unionized employees? That's just absurd. If that's the case, then not only are yet gonna have to pay union dues, but they're no longer students, therefore no longer elgible for te scholarships and therefore aren't elgible to play for the school. Schools could easily find athletes willing to take a full ride to come play for them and not join the union.

Does the NCAA need some reforming? Yeah. But unionizing college athletes is not gonna solve any problems.

[Lee.]

It's not really all about pay-for-play, gang.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/1/28/5354718/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play

[JayMac]

I will be on the record in saying that I hate unions but I think this is long overdue. It goes beyond the possibility of paying players and it touches upon safety for these players.

[rams80]

They get free rides through college. Ask students who work 2-3 jobs to pay for school if they think free everything is unfair. They're no different than any student-athlete in any sport at any level, all the way down to Middle School. Guarantee scholarships. Yes, that's a reasonable solution. Allow them to maintain jobs out of season. Allow them to sell personal properties. Give them a stipend that amounts to cost of living for any college student. But unionized employees? That's just absurd. If that's the case, then not only are yet gonna have to pay union dues, but they're no longer students, therefore no longer elgible for te scholarships and therefore aren't elgible to play for the school. Schools could easily find athletes willing to take a full ride to come play for them and not join the union.

Does the NCAA need some reforming? Yeah. But unionizing college athletes is not gonna solve any problems.

So tell me my conservative talk radio listening, fox news watching know it all...

How, pray tell, are the athletes going to be able to achieve those reforms? Are they just going to wait for them to come out of the dubious generosity of the athletic departments? The same athletic departments that created the legal fiction of "student athlete" in the first place to avoid fairly compensating their players for their services or providing support?

Perhaps, rather than waiting for top down reform, it would be best for the athletes to negotiate for those reforms. Of course, one or two athletes won't be able to do a whole lot of good. But if they were say, able to bargain collectively, they might be able to get their institution to listen. Especially if they had formalized protections if they chose to withhold their labor (and the athletic department's weekly profit) in the absence of a contract. Believe it or not, unions can be effective tools to ram through reform.

EDIT-

Also, for the record Illinois is not yet Right to Work (and Thank Belldandy for that).

[Needschat]

I love how the NCAA is trying to covet public favor with playing the education word, but guess what, these athlete are being used by coaches and administrators alike. What do you call it when a wrestling coach receives a cash bonus when one of his athletes wins a championship, yet the kid receives maybe a ring and a t-shirt?

Yeah, the athletes aren't employees, not at all /sarcasm.

Personal anecdote:

When I played college soccer, we were NOT allowed to have a part-time job, not during the season, not during the semester. However, my computer science fellows were paid by the school to work in the computer lab, $4/hr (when the minimum wage was $3.35). I was punished for playing a sport and receiving a scholarship. Before anyone says, "Well, that was your pay," the majority of those working the computer labs were also on scholarship, yet they were allowed to be paid cash money.

[Cosmic]

I don't think unions are the way, but a low-level court siding with the athletes will probably end up spurring the middle-of-the-road action that we need rather than full unionization. It's pretty crazy that a guy can blow out his knee in a bowl game and he'll be on his own like he was hurt playing ultimate frisbee in the quad.

[Burkell007]

So if the athletes feel mistreated why not just boycott?? It's there choice to go there and play correct?? I'm for pay to play and such but me and a friend have been having this talk and he brought up these points.

[rams80]

I don't think unions are the way, but a low-level court siding with the athletes will probably end up spurring the middle-of-the-road action that we need rather than full unionization. It's pretty crazy that a guy can blow out his knee in a bowl game and he'll be on his own like he was hurt playing ultimate frisbee in the quad.

Unfortunately the Kent Waldrep case gives legal precedent to the NCAA. Granted that was ruled back in the 1990s, but there's your legal hurdle if you're looking to the courts to fix things.

[rams80]

So if the athletes feel mistreated why not just boycott?? It's there choice to go there and play correct?? I'm for pay to play and such but me and a friend have been having this talk and he brought up these points.

If you want an NFL career, you pretty much have to play college football at an NCAA institution. I'm not sure how much choice is involved there. Also unionization tends to help facilitate boycotts. Or, to use the preferred nomenclature, "strikes."

[Burkell007]

So if the athletes feel mistreated why not just boycott?? It's there choice to go there and play correct?? I'm for pay to play and such but me and a friend have been having this talk and he brought up these points.

If you want an NFL career, you pretty much have to play college football at an NCAA institution. I'm not sure how much choice is involved there. Also unionization tends to help facilitate boycotts. Or, to use the preferred nomenclature, "strikes."

Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought. Grambling st did boycott last year with out a union, so a union is not needed for a boycott but it does help.

[dfwabel]

They get free rides through college. Ask students who work 2-3 jobs to pay for school if they think free everything is unfair. They're no different than any student-athlete in any sport at any level, all the way down to Middle School. Guarantee scholarships. Yes, that's a reasonable solution. Allow them to maintain jobs out of season. Allow them to sell personal properties. Give them a stipend that amounts to cost of living for any college student. But unionized employees? That's just absurd. If that's the case, then not only are yet gonna have to pay union dues, but they're no longer students, therefore no longer elgible for te scholarships and therefore aren't elgible to play for the school. Schools could easily find athletes willing to take a full ride to come play for them and not join the union.

Does the NCAA need some reforming? Yeah. But unionizing college athletes is not gonna solve any problems.

Those students who happen to be injured while working are protected by state Workers Compensation Laws. The student-athletes are not because it is not considered work.

They are treated akin to some "trust fund" kid who goes to the same school whose parents paid for the education and drinks all day, but in the case of the trust fund kid, the football player is more at risk of losing his education fund.

It's not really all about pay-for-play, gang.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/1/28/5354718/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play

Some of us have indicated that since it was filed, but that has gone on deaf ears and blind eyes.

To All:

1- Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal contacted and compiled the thoughts from many people within law, sports and organized labor. It can be seen here.

2- The Higher Education Act of 1965 is up for re-authorization as it expires this December. Congress, who is already holding hearings, is going to call university chancellors and presidents to Washington to explain how intercollegiate athletics still fits their academic mission. The NCAA, through those same university chancellors and presidents will petition Congress to avoid any changes. It does not help the institutions that Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has thought of starting from scratch. Keep in mind that the 2008 re-authorization took five years to complete.

3- Lastly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has different tests on whether somebody is an employee. It can differ between the IRS code and employment law. Welcome to the USA.

[Burkell007]

So a friend keeps telling me that the student-athletes are not getting shafted, he says that they dont get to pay off loans till your out of college, that if u get hurt disibality will cover it, all students get free health care while in college. Saying that student loans cover living expenses. State aid and that they save 110,000 total over a 4 year period. i think he is wrong, who is correct?

[FiddySicks]

All I know is that I hope to be out of college by the time college players get payed, because tuition will go from ridiculous to ungodly real quick.

Your tuition doesn't pay for the athletic department. Now the involuntary activity fees....

But no, that won't be a problem for you unless your school is on a quixotic quest to become one of the big boys or is already a big boy.

Hmm, that sounds scarily like Arizona State. I almost half expect to get a bill for "Activity fees" years after I graduate. Sun Devil Stadium needs that fresh coat of paint, man!

[dfwabel]

So a friend keeps telling me that the student-athletes are not getting shafted, he says that they dont get to pay off loans till your out of college, that if u get hurt disibality will cover it, all students get free health care while in college. Saying that student loans cover living expenses. State aid and that they save 110,000 total over a 4 year period. i think he is wrong, who is correct?

Your friend is WRONG.

Since the college player is not an employee, there is no "disability"!