(02-19-2024 11:21 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 10:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 10:07 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 10:00 PM)clunk Wrote:  That kind of absolutism is actually pretty rare in law. The reason we have people instead of robots as judge and jury.
I've pushed a stray cart into the corral at Walmart. I benefited the company. Nobody is saying that makes me an employee. Kindergartners are asked to pick up after themselves instead of paying janitors. Nobody is saying that makes them employees. In a few weeks I'm volunteering a significant amount of time and money at an event put on by a multi-million dollar organization. Does it matter they have non-profit status? Pro football does by law.
There is a non-zero revenue line on who an employee is. I don't know where that is, but it exists.

All I can say is your comments indicate you have no experience or knowledge of employment law. There's no test of how much revenue an organization makes in determining who is and who is not an employee.

So your view is school athletics at all levels is a business and all students are employees? That means grade school athletics violates child labor laws and the only choice is to shut it down completely. Do you really think that's what the ruling will be? Wouldn't that also make all volunteering illegal?
I don't know where the line is on what's a business and what isn't, but it's ridiculous to say it doesn't exist.

Did you read the quotes from the Inside Higher Ed article on the Dartmouth NLRB decision I quoted above?

I am not an expert on this either, but the NLRB judge-type-person ruled that Dartmouth men's basketball players qualified as employees.

Important elements seemed to be:
1. The players' activities benefit the school. That's not just money, it's all the stuff that administrators tell the faculty senate when the faculty asks why they do sports at all when it runs a multimillion dollar deficits in most of Division I.

2. The players' lives are signifiicantly controlled by the athletic department. Missing class time, often steered into certain classes, team curfews, players told what to eat, how to exercise

3. Players get benefits. Free sneakers, professional nutritionists, special fitness centers, preferential admission even if you're not on scholarship.

The "upside" for the non-power schools is that, paying the players woudl't cost THAT much money relative to athletic budgets. If you have 200 players, pay them $15 an hour for a 20 hour week, call it a 14 week season, that's $840,000. If you're UW-Milwaukee, that's a big expense but it's not world-changing. You can pay the women the same as the men, no big problems

If you're UW-Madison, you still have to figure out how to square the NIL and TV money your football stars are getting with Title IX.

Why do you keep bringing up Dartmouth? I do not dispute all D1 athletes are most likely employees. It's absurd to think they'll rule grade school athletes are employees. That means somewhere in between those 2 is the line. I think D3 could be on either side of it, we'll see what the court decides.
For anyone who insists on being an absolutist, I have a simple yes or no question. Is volunteering for a non-profit always a violation of labor law?

You aren't paying any attention to what either of us is saying.

First of all, I don't think they qualify as employees, but the courts are tending to disagree with me. Its a test of a series of things as mentioned in that link. None of those things have to do with revenue. The biggest issue is control. Schools don't have control over club sports athletes, even though many of them represent the university. But there are a lot of restrictions on NCAA athletes. The courts are starting to say that is enough for them to qualify as employees along with the other factors.

(02-19-2024 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:21 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 10:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 10:07 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 12:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  All I can say is your comments indicate you have no experience or knowledge of employment law. There's no test of how much revenue an organization makes in determining who is and who is not an employee.

So your view is school athletics at all levels is a business and all students are employees? That means grade school athletics violates child labor laws and the only choice is to shut it down completely. Do you really think that's what the ruling will be? Wouldn't that also make all volunteering illegal?
I don't know where the line is on what's a business and what isn't, but it's ridiculous to say it doesn't exist.

Did you read the quotes from the Inside Higher Ed article on the Dartmouth NLRB decision I quoted above?

I am not an expert on this either, but the NLRB judge-type-person ruled that Dartmouth men's basketball players qualified as employees.

Important elements seemed to be:
1. The players' activities benefit the school. That's not just money, it's all the stuff that administrators tell the faculty senate when the faculty asks why they do sports at all when it runs a multimillion dollar deficits in most of Division I.

2. The players' lives are signifiicantly controlled by the athletic department. Missing class time, often steered into certain classes, team curfews, players told what to eat, how to exercise

3. Players get benefits. Free sneakers, professional nutritionists, special fitness centers, preferential admission even if you're not on scholarship.

The "upside" for the non-power schools is that, paying the players woudl't cost THAT much money relative to athletic budgets. If you have 200 players, pay them $15 an hour for a 20 hour week, call it a 14 week season, that's $840,000. If you're UW-Milwaukee, that's a big expense but it's not world-changing. You can pay the women the same as the men, no big problems

If you're UW-Madison, you still have to figure out how to square the NIL and TV money your football stars are getting with Title IX.

Why do you keep bringing up Dartmouth? I do not dispute all D1 athletes are most likely employees. It's absurd to think they'll rule grade school athletes are employees. That means somewhere in between those 2 is the line. I think D3 could be on either side of it, we'll see what the court decides.
For anyone who insists on being an absolutist, I have a simple yes or no question. Is volunteering for a non-profit always a violation of labor law?

You aren't paying any attention to what either of us is saying.

First of all, I don't think they qualify as employees, but the courts are tending to disagree with me. Its a test of a series of things as mentioned in that link. None of those things have to do with revenue. The biggest issue is control. Schools don't have control over club sports athletes, even though many of them represent the university. But there are a lot of restrictions on NCAA athletes. The courts are starting to say that is enough for them to qualify as employees along with the other factors.

Quote:Revenue has absolutely ZERO to do with whether someone is an employee or not.

Umm...I really don't know what to say. How do I debate someone that takes both sides? All I can do is ask again a yes or no question:
Is volunteering for a non-profit always a violation of labor laws?

(02-19-2024 04:38 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:21 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 10:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 10:07 AM)clunk Wrote:  So your view is school athletics at all levels is a business and all students are employees? That means grade school athletics violates child labor laws and the only choice is to shut it down completely. Do you really think that's what the ruling will be? Wouldn't that also make all volunteering illegal?
I don't know where the line is on what's a business and what isn't, but it's ridiculous to say it doesn't exist.

Did you read the quotes from the Inside Higher Ed article on the Dartmouth NLRB decision I quoted above?

I am not an expert on this either, but the NLRB judge-type-person ruled that Dartmouth men's basketball players qualified as employees.

Important elements seemed to be:
1. The players' activities benefit the school. That's not just money, it's all the stuff that administrators tell the faculty senate when the faculty asks why they do sports at all when it runs a multimillion dollar deficits in most of Division I.

2. The players' lives are signifiicantly controlled by the athletic department. Missing class time, often steered into certain classes, team curfews, players told what to eat, how to exercise

3. Players get benefits. Free sneakers, professional nutritionists, special fitness centers, preferential admission even if you're not on scholarship.

The "upside" for the non-power schools is that, paying the players woudl't cost THAT much money relative to athletic budgets. If you have 200 players, pay them $15 an hour for a 20 hour week, call it a 14 week season, that's $840,000. If you're UW-Milwaukee, that's a big expense but it's not world-changing. You can pay the women the same as the men, no big problems

If you're UW-Madison, you still have to figure out how to square the NIL and TV money your football stars are getting with Title IX.

Why do you keep bringing up Dartmouth? I do not dispute all D1 athletes are most likely employees. It's absurd to think they'll rule grade school athletes are employees. That means somewhere in between those 2 is the line. I think D3 could be on either side of it, we'll see what the court decides.
For anyone who insists on being an absolutist, I have a simple yes or no question. Is volunteering for a non-profit always a violation of labor law?

You aren't paying any attention to what either of us is saying.

First of all, I don't think they qualify as employees, but the courts are tending to disagree with me. Its a test of a series of things as mentioned in that link. None of those things have to do with revenue. The biggest issue is control. Schools don't have control over club sports athletes, even though many of them represent the university. But there are a lot of restrictions on NCAA athletes. The courts are starting to say that is enough for them to qualify as employees along with the other factors.

Quote:Revenue has absolutely ZERO to do with whether someone is an employee or not.

Umm...I really don't know what to say. How do I debate someone that takes both sides? All I can do is ask again a yes or no question:
Is volunteering for a non-profit always a violation of labor laws?

Always? No.

But if that nonprofit tells you where you can live, what to eat, what time to be home, how much to work out, and what college to enroll in, it's probably a cult. If the director of the nonprofit looks your mama in the eye and swears he'll take care of her boy...that's kind of a cult.

And cults are generally in violation of labor laws, among a lot of other things.

(02-19-2024 04:38 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 11:21 AM)clunk Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 10:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 10:07 AM)clunk Wrote:  So your view is school athletics at all levels is a business and all students are employees? That means grade school athletics violates child labor laws and the only choice is to shut it down completely. Do you really think that's what the ruling will be? Wouldn't that also make all volunteering illegal?
I don't know where the line is on what's a business and what isn't, but it's ridiculous to say it doesn't exist.

Did you read the quotes from the Inside Higher Ed article on the Dartmouth NLRB decision I quoted above?

I am not an expert on this either, but the NLRB judge-type-person ruled that Dartmouth men's basketball players qualified as employees.

Important elements seemed to be:
1. The players' activities benefit the school. That's not just money, it's all the stuff that administrators tell the faculty senate when the faculty asks why they do sports at all when it runs a multimillion dollar deficits in most of Division I.

2. The players' lives are signifiicantly controlled by the athletic department. Missing class time, often steered into certain classes, team curfews, players told what to eat, how to exercise

3. Players get benefits. Free sneakers, professional nutritionists, special fitness centers, preferential admission even if you're not on scholarship.

The "upside" for the non-power schools is that, paying the players woudl't cost THAT much money relative to athletic budgets. If you have 200 players, pay them $15 an hour for a 20 hour week, call it a 14 week season, that's $840,000. If you're UW-Milwaukee, that's a big expense but it's not world-changing. You can pay the women the same as the men, no big problems

If you're UW-Madison, you still have to figure out how to square the NIL and TV money your football stars are getting with Title IX.

Why do you keep bringing up Dartmouth? I do not dispute all D1 athletes are most likely employees. It's absurd to think they'll rule grade school athletes are employees. That means somewhere in between those 2 is the line. I think D3 could be on either side of it, we'll see what the court decides.
For anyone who insists on being an absolutist, I have a simple yes or no question. Is volunteering for a non-profit always a violation of labor law?

You aren't paying any attention to what either of us is saying.

First of all, I don't think they qualify as employees, but the courts are tending to disagree with me. Its a test of a series of things as mentioned in that link. None of those things have to do with revenue. The biggest issue is control. Schools don't have control over club sports athletes, even though many of them represent the university. But there are a lot of restrictions on NCAA athletes. The courts are starting to say that is enough for them to qualify as employees along with the other factors.

Quote:Revenue has absolutely ZERO to do with whether someone is an employee or not.

Umm...I really don't know what to say. How do I debate someone that takes both sides? All I can do is ask again a yes or no question:
Is volunteering for a non-profit always a violation of labor laws?

There is nothing contradictory in those two statements. Try reading it again. The courts have the say. I don't. They interpret this control as being enough to make them employees. I understand what standards they are evaluating. They are subjective. And its clear if they rule Ohio St. football players are employees, that applies to all Division I and II athletes because they are treated basically the same. The higher revenue of Ohio St. over Pittsburg St. has nothing to do with it. And there is nothing different in Dartmouth's model than in Emory's Division III model except the competition. So if Dartmouth athletes are employees, Emory athletes are likely employees.

And I think JohnBragg answered your other question. Simply volunteering does not make you an employee.

<snip>

Quote:Always? No.

Quote:Simply volunteering does not make you an employee.

Thanks. It really was that simple. There is some amount of revenue/work/control where you are not an employee. I don't know that line, I'm not asking you to define that line, just an acknowledgement that the line exists.