(04-19-2024 05:23 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The end result is obvious. Schools are going to "direct" student athlete unions to organize collectively with their conference, even seeding (money via directed donations) a conference level union.

But that goes absolutely against the most fundamental idea of what a union is, and what it exists for. If the public institution itself pays to form the union, and then negotiates the best deal with effectively itself (well... the union it founded) to suit its own best interests (limited NIL, no-transfers, can't work other jobs, etc...), then how can it even be considered a union? That's like an anti-union or something! This idea violates every principal of what a union is supposed be.

The whole point of a union is that it is the workers themselves that organize and negotiate in their collective best interests. Not some employer propped up organization which is just exists to ensure that the hand that feeds it stays happy.

Even if your bizzarro employer vested union somehow did come into being, there's no way any 5-star/4-star/proven-vet-3-star player is going to join something that limits their ability to maximize their income, with unlimited NIL and free ability to transfer. Since these are public institutions, union membership (or lack thereof) cannot be a requirement for employment or attendance. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that no one at a public institution, who is not a member of a union, can be forced to follow a union contract or pay dues, as that's unconstitutional. And the idea that some judge or Congress could force people into a union against their will by some ruling or law, is just plain ludicrous.

I don't see it happening.

(04-19-2024 05:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ...assuming that the SC forces schools to actually "pay" kids, treat them as employees, collectively bargain...

Do you really think the Supreme Court will overturn its own recent ruling and force student athletes to collectively bargain against their will? I just don't think that makes any sense, or is even remotely possible.

(04-19-2024 11:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 11:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  This administration is very pro labor union. But I think the NLRB is irrelevant. Those edicts can be challenged in courts for years and are very dependent on politics. Its the actual court cases out there now that the NCAA likely loses and forces change. Not sure, but I think the big one is scheduled for trial in early 2025. Most experts think the NCAA will lose, which is why the Big 10 and SEC are taking things into their own hands. There isn't much time to reach a settlement.

Support for unions has been on the upswing since 2009. A 2-to-1 majority of the American public today approves of unions gaining strength.

These athletes are taking action in a climate of broad and increasing support for their argument. The public hasn't been this receptive in decades.

Gallup 2023
https://news.gallup.com/poll/510281/unio...ening.aspx

Pew Research 2019-
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2...bership-2/

Totally irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the courts are looking at the athletes as employees. And college employees are starting to unionize.

(04-20-2024 12:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is relevant is that the courts are looking at the athletes as employees. And college employees are starting to unionize.

Are any of those public employees able to command 6 and 7 figure NIL deals? Are any of them in a position to transfer to another college negotiating a deal that is even 5 or 6 figures higher the next year? If any of those employees were in such a position, but the union membership meant limiting their NIL deals to a few tens of thousands of dollars tops, and that they had to stay at the college for the entire length of their career, would any of them join that union?

Note: My questions refer to public colleges.

(04-20-2024 04:04 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:23 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The end result is obvious. Schools are going to "direct" student athlete unions to organize collectively with their conference, even seeding (money via directed donations) a conference level union.

But that goes absolutely against the most fundamental idea of what a union is, and what it exists for. If the public institution itself pays to form the union, and then negotiates the best deal with effectively itself (well... the union it founded) to suit its own best interests (limited NIL, no-transfers, can't work other jobs, etc...), then how can it even be considered a union? That's like an anti-union or something! This idea violates every principal of what a union is supposed be.

The whole point of a union is that it is the workers themselves that organize and negotiate in their collective best interests. Not some employer propped up organization which is just exists to ensure that the hand that feeds it stays happy.

Even if your bizzarro employer vested union somehow did come into being, there's no way any 5-star/4-star/proven-vet-3-star player is going to join something that limits their ability to maximize their income, with unlimited NIL and free ability to transfer. Since these are public institutions, union membership (or lack thereof) cannot be a requirement for employment or attendance. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that no one at a public institution, who is not a member of a union, can be forced to follow a union contract or pay dues, as that's unconstitutional. And the idea that some judge or Congress could force people into a union against their will by some ruling or law, is just plain ludicrous.

I don't see it happening.

(04-19-2024 05:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ...assuming that the SC forces schools to actually "pay" kids, treat them as employees, collectively bargain...

Do you really think the Supreme Court will overturn its own recent ruling and force student athletes to collectively bargain against their will? I just don't think that makes any sense, or is even remotely possible.

Look, I'm about the most anti-union person on this entire board, you're preaching to the choir here. I think it would be very ODD for the Supreme Court to force schools to start paying athletes an actual salary, but I also have read the Alston decision and it was a 9-0 shellacking that has directly led to the recent wave of lawsuits that we've seen.

The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 21, 2021. The decision was unanimous, affirming the Ninth Circuit's ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the opinion. Gorsuch wrote that the lower courts' decision is consistent with established antitrust principles, and thus the Court upheld the ruling, but did not attempt to make any judgment on the aspect related to whether student athletes should receive further pay as this was beyond the remit of the court. Gorsuch acknowledged that "some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief" in addressing the apparent discrepancy of compensation between student athletes and the coaches and administrators of the NCAA.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, stating that antitrust laws "should not be a cover for exploitation of the student athletes." Kavanaugh's opinion also spoke to other NCAA regulations that he believed "also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws" and would be struck down if challenged under the same legal principles used by the lower courts in Alston.

That doesn't exactly look encouraging for the NCAA or its member institutions. However, that was also written before the current wave of 17-21 yo NIL multimillionaire class arose. Will it be enough to help the NCAA weather the aftershocks? Common sense dictates that the kids are better off in today's unlimited transfer, unlimited NIL world, but the courts and congress have a nasty habit of coming to "help" and instead making things far, far worse, so I'm not optimistic.

Realistically, even if the courts and/or congress decide that they've done enough, the Conferences are going to take things into their own hands in the coming years b/c the current model is an unsustainable race to the bottom. And that's coming from one of the biggest winners of the new pay for play era, if anyone has a reason to think that the current era is a good thing it's an Aggie. I can only imagine how fans of WSU, OSU, or smaller ACC schools must feel right now.

(04-19-2024 05:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Look, I'm about the most anti-union person on this entire board, you're preaching to the choir here.

So just so there's clarity on my position: I'm NOT anti-union. At worst, I'm ambivalent, but if anything I'd say slightly pro-union to some small degree - with caveats.

Even if someone is virulently anti-union (and I'm cool with that, there's reasons) and has never been in one:

• Ever taken paid vacation? Thank a union.
• Ever paid into a pension scheme or company matching retirement plan? Thank a union.
• Ever had to take a day of paid sick leave? Thank a union.
• Ever had to go on unemployment, or atleast be grateful that that safety net is there, just in case? Thank a union.
  

There's a whole lot of ways, both direct and indirect that unions have been a positive influence to our society. They've had their bad moments no doubt, and have probably earned some of the bad rep they get among some. But we've all benefitted from their existance at some level. I'm not anti-union.

All I'm saying is that I don't think there is any way any union is ever going to get involved in college sports. It just doesn't make any sense. Anyway you try squeeze one into place, it loses its coherency when you take into account the law, the U.S. Constitution, what colleges ideally would like to have, what the student athletes would like to have (and are slowly now getting). Once you take that all into consideration, this whole collective-bargaining nonsense just falls apart.

Also I think any notion that the United States government would force any citizens into a labor against thier will, either by a judicial court ruling or a congressional act of law, is mind bogglingly ridiculous. I can't even properly construct a dystopian alternate reality where something like that could happen. And I've got a good imagination and am a lifetime lover of sci-fi.

(04-21-2024 04:01 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Look, I'm about the most anti-union person on this entire board, you're preaching to the choir here.

So just so there's clarity on my position: I'm NOT anti-union. At worst, I'm ambivalent, but if anything I'd say slightly pro-union to some small degree - with caveats.

Even if someone is virulently anti-union (and I'm cool with that, there's reasons) and has never been in one:

• Ever taken paid vacation? Thank a union.
• Ever paid into a pension scheme or company matching retirement plan? Thank a union.
• Ever had to take a day of paid sick leave? Thank a union.
• Ever had to go on unemployment, or atleast be grateful that that safety net is there, just in case? Thank a union.
  

There's a whole lot of ways, both direct and indirect that unions have been a positive influence to our society. They've had their bad moments no doubt, and have probably earned some of the bad rep they get among some. But we've all benefitted from their existance at some level. I'm not anti-union.

All I'm saying is that I don't think there is any way any union is ever going to get involved in college sports. It just doesn't make any sense. Anyway you try squeeze one into place, it loses its coherency when you take into account the law, the U.S. Constitution, what colleges ideally would like to have, what the student athletes would like to have (and are slowly now getting). Once you take that all into consideration, this whole collective-bargaining nonsense just falls apart.

Also I think any notion that the United States government would force any citizens into a labor against thier will, either by a judicial court ruling or a congressional act of law, is mind bogglingly ridiculous. I can't even properly construct a dystopian alternate reality where something like that could happen. And I've got a good imagination and am a lifetime lover of sci-fi.

I agree with about 90% of this, as a matter of recognizing the impacts on general society, but want to back it down to the original discussion just for a moment.

Did anyone notice that the unionization efforts a) come from progressives who backed Socialist Congressional members Sanders and Murphy and their (failed so far) legislative attempts to unionize college athletes, and b) the main targets are private schools over which direct action is more difficult (the NCAA is a target because it's in the way)?

Just throwing this out there.

(04-20-2024 01:47 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 12:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is relevant is that the courts are looking at the athletes as employees. And college employees are starting to unionize.

Are any of those employees able to command 6 and 7 figure NIL deals? Are any of them in a position to transfer to another college negotiating a deal that is even 5 or 6 figures higher the next year? If any of those employees were in such a position, but the union membership meant limiting their NIL deals to a few tens of thousands of dollars tops, and that they had to stay at the college for the entire length of their career, would any of them join that union?

Note: My questions refer to public colleges.

A collective bargaining agreement doesn’t inherently mean that outside NIL compensation is restricted. That certainly isn’t the case in pro sports leagues: the players are all in unions, but no one restricts outside NIL/endorsement income. My guess is that college compensation will look like the WNBA: everyone gets a minimal salary under a labor agreement (plus a scholarship in the case of colleges), but a star like Caitlin Clark can make as much outside endorsement income as the market is willing to provide.

(04-20-2024 01:47 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 12:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is relevant is that the courts are looking at the athletes as employees. And college employees are starting to unionize.

Are any of those employees able to command 6 and 7 figure NIL deals? Are any of them in a position to transfer to another college negotiating a deal that is even 5 or 6 figures higher the next year? If any of those employees were in such a position, but the union membership meant limiting their NIL deals to a few tens of thousands of dollars tops, and that they had to stay at the college for the entire length of their career, would any of them join that union?

Note: My questions refer to public colleges.

MLBPA, NFLPA, NBAPA. (or whatever the pro unions specific names are)

(04-20-2024 11:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 04:04 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:23 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The end result is obvious. Schools are going to "direct" student athlete unions to organize collectively with their conference, even seeding (money via directed donations) a conference level union.

But that goes absolutely against the most fundamental idea of what a union is, and what it exists for. If the public institution itself pays to form the union, and then negotiates the best deal with effectively itself (well... the union it founded) to suit its own best interests (limited NIL, no-transfers, can't work other jobs, etc...), then how can it even be considered a union? That's like an anti-union or something! This idea violates every principal of what a union is supposed be.

The whole point of a union is that it is the workers themselves that organize and negotiate in their collective best interests. Not some employer propped up organization which is just exists to ensure that the hand that feeds it stays happy.

Even if your bizzarro employer vested union somehow did come into being, there's no way any 5-star/4-star/proven-vet-3-star player is going to join something that limits their ability to maximize their income, with unlimited NIL and free ability to transfer. Since these are public institutions, union membership (or lack thereof) cannot be a requirement for employment or attendance. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that no one at a public institution, who is not a member of a union, can be forced to follow a union contract or pay dues, as that's unconstitutional. And the idea that some judge or Congress could force people into a union against their will by some ruling or law, is just plain ludicrous.

I don't see it happening.

(04-19-2024 05:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ...assuming that the SC forces schools to actually "pay" kids, treat them as employees, collectively bargain...

Do you really think the Supreme Court will overturn its own recent ruling and force student athletes to collectively bargain against their will? I just don't think that makes any sense, or is even remotely possible.

Look, I'm about the most anti-union person on this entire board, you're preaching to the choir here. I think it would be very ODD for the Supreme Court to force schools to start paying athletes an actual salary, but I also have read the Alston decision and it was a 9-0 shellacking that has directly led to the recent wave of lawsuits that we've seen.

The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 21, 2021. The decision was unanimous, affirming the Ninth Circuit's ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the opinion. Gorsuch wrote that the lower courts' decision is consistent with established antitrust principles, and thus the Court upheld the ruling, but did not attempt to make any judgment on the aspect related to whether student athletes should receive further pay as this was beyond the remit of the court. Gorsuch acknowledged that "some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief" in addressing the apparent discrepancy of compensation between student athletes and the coaches and administrators of the NCAA.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, stating that antitrust laws "should not be a cover for exploitation of the student athletes." Kavanaugh's opinion also spoke to other NCAA regulations that he believed "also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws" and would be struck down if challenged under the same legal principles used by the lower courts in Alston.

That doesn't exactly look encouraging for the NCAA or its member institutions. However, that was also written before the current wave of 17-21 yo NIL multimillionaire class arose. Will it be enough to help the NCAA weather the aftershocks? Common sense dictates that the kids are better off in today's unlimited transfer, unlimited NIL world, but the courts and congress have a nasty habit of coming to "help" and instead making things far, far worse, so I'm not optimistic.

Realistically, even if the courts and/or congress decide that they've done enough, the Conferences are going to take things into their own hands in the coming years b/c the current model is an unsustainable race to the bottom. And that's coming from one of the biggest winners of the new pay for play era, if anyone has a reason to think that the current era is a good thing it's an Aggie. I can only imagine how fans of WSU, OSU, or smaller ACC schools must feel right now.

Ultimately, they need to rule on the law, not perceived inequities. How much money the coaches and administrators are getting simply brings attention to a legal issue, especially from tort lawyers. NIL doesn't change the law.

One big issue for the colleges is that they are compensating with scholarships. You do X,Y,Z and we give you a a scholarship. You don't do that, you lose your scholarship. So the argument they have to overcome is that they are conspiring to hold down the cost. That might get Division III out of employment status since they don't do athletic scholarships, but I doubt it because of the way they are interpreting other factors of control. The NLRB is more political than law, but they did rule the Ivy League had employees even without scholarships.

I don't agree at all with the way the law is trending and I think it will be awful for college sports. But I think its clear Division I and Division II athletes at least will be ruled employees in the near future.
And NW and Dartmouth have already tried to unionize. Organizers will be working the athletes hard. And the colleges won't oppose unions for two reasons; 1) administrators are fairly liberal and like unions; and more importantly, 2) unions can protect them from their own excesses and allow them to fix wages.

(04-21-2024 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  One big issue for the colleges is that they are compensating with scholarships. You do X,Y,Z and we give you a a scholarship. You don't do that, you lose your scholarship. So the argument they have to overcome is that they are conspiring to hold down the cost. That might get Division III out of employment status since they don't do athletic scholarships, but I doubt it because of the way they are interpreting other factors of control. The NLRB is more political than law, but they did rule the Ivy League had employees even without scholarships.

Part of it is that universities are hamstrung on this argument: they can say try to say that athletes are getting an education with their scholarship, but they literally can’t call a scholarship “compensation” for playing a sport because that means that it’s not a scholarship anymore… meaning that it’s no longer tax deductible to donors, no longer a tax-free transfer from the university to the athlete, and no longer tax-free to the athlete. As fans, we can call a scholarship to be “compensation” in practice, but schools legitimately can’t call it compensation or else a whole slew of other even worse tax law implications apply. So, if athletes are being subject to employment-like conditions and legal terms, the universities simply can’t make the claim that scholarships are “compensating” them for that because the whole tax treatment of a scholarship is that that it’s *not* treated as employment compensation.

Essentially, we have to put scholarship funds and employment compensation into two separate buckets. A lot of fans are making a mistake when they’re used interchangeably.

Now, that’s part of why I don’t think we’re going to see employment compensation in *lieu* of scholarships. It takes $1.40 in employment compensation to match the value of $1.00 in scholarship money for all the parties involved (donors, university and student). So, that doesn’t make sense to, say, pay athletes an income but then have those athletes pay tuition on their own out of that income, particularly when this entire exercise is about financial benefits.

My educated guess is that we’ll ultimately see a certain level of employment compensation that is subject to Title IX (which may be a de facto “luxury tax” that effectively disincentivizes schools from directly paying star revenue athletes outsized amounts compared to other athletes), continued scholarships (as that’s “cheap” money with significant tax benefits for schools compared to employment compensation), and unrestricted NIL compensation (which will continue to be the true place where money is made for star athletes since that’s not restricted by Title IX as of now).

(04-21-2024 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 01:47 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 12:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is relevant is that the courts are looking at the athletes as employees. And college employees are starting to unionize.

Are any of those public employees able to command 6 and 7 figure NIL deals? Are any of them in a position to transfer to another college negotiating a deal that is even 5 or 6 figures higher the next year? If any of those employees were in such a position, but the union membership meant limiting their NIL deals to a few tens of thousands of dollars tops, and that they had to stay at the college for the entire length of their career, would any of them join that union?

Note: My questions refer to public colleges.

A collective bargaining agreement doesn’t inherently mean that outside NIL compensation is restricted. That certainly isn’t the case in pro sports leagues: the players are all in unions, but no one restricts outside NIL/endorsement income. My guess is that college compensation will look like the WNBA: everyone gets a minimal salary under a labor agreement (plus a scholarship in the case of colleges), but a star like Caitlin Clark can make as much outside endorsement income as the market is willing to provide.

Ofcourse. However can you actually find a forum post (any forum), or pundit article, or blog of anybody, even resepected poster-pundits-bloggers, that don't specifically target capping NIL when they mention a union/collective bargaining? Your post may literally be the very first on the internet to even suggest the idea.

But I still say that rules out a union. Because controlling the student athletes financially and freedom-of-movement-wise is really the only reason the schools would be interested in dealing with a union. If a union can't offer that most basic quality, no deal. They'll just continue playing on the open-market-wild-west we have now. There's also no incentive for the non-top-NIL-earner student athletes. They get to pay union dues for what? Minimum wage and restricted ability to transfer (maybe no ability at all?)? What good is that for them? Unless they can get in on the big money NIL action, even perhaps getting slice of what's paid to the 4/5 stars, its pointless and maybe even costs them more money than not being in a union as their fees would be subtracted out of their minimum wage. I mean I guess they could organize and threaten to strike and see if they can't coax/coerce the big-name players to join with them, but they are a lot more replaceable than the top starters and star players, especially in an industry with open transfers. And the way these NIL deals seemed to generally be structed, the superstars get paid even if they don't see the field.

I just don't see it happening.

(04-21-2024 10:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 01:47 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 12:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  What is relevant is that the courts are looking at the athletes as employees. And college employees are starting to unionize.

Are any of those public employees able to command 6 and 7 figure NIL deals? Are any of them in a position to transfer to another college negotiating a deal that is even 5 or 6 figures higher the next year? If any of those employees were in such a position, but the union membership meant limiting their NIL deals to a few tens of thousands of dollars tops, and that they had to stay at the college for the entire length of their career, would any of them join that union?

Note: My questions refer to public colleges.

MLBPA, NFLPA, NBAPA. (or whatever the pro unions specific names are)

Those are unions with private organizations. They are not unions for federally funded public institutions which have a very strict set of established laws and even a recent Supreme Court ruling that rings a pretty tight solid fence around what those institutions and their unions can and can't do. That's why I was specific to say public colleges. USC, Notre Dame, TCU can indeed all become union shops if they so choose, just like the MLB, NFL, and NBA have chosen to do. I don't think those schools will as they would be crushed competively by all of their peer institutions that have players making unrestricted NIL. But the private schools atleast could realistically and feasibly do it.

At the federally funded public institutions, no one can be forced to join a union as a requirement for employment (nor can lack of union membership be considered). No non-union employee can be forced to follow a union contract that the federally funded institution may have entered into as that's been recently ruled unconstitutional. Outside of unrealistic dystopian alternate-universe suggestions, I don't see how you can alter reality to make a union work for student athletes.

(04-21-2024 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-21-2024 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  One big issue for the colleges is that they are compensating with scholarships. You do X,Y,Z and we give you a a scholarship. You don't do that, you lose your scholarship. So the argument they have to overcome is that they are conspiring to hold down the cost. That might get Division III out of employment status since they don't do athletic scholarships, but I doubt it because of the way they are interpreting other factors of control. The NLRB is more political than law, but they did rule the Ivy League had employees even without scholarships.

Part of it is that universities are hamstrung on this argument: they can say try to say that athletes are getting an education with their scholarship, but they literally can’t call a scholarship “compensation” for playing a sport because that means that it’s not a scholarship anymore… meaning that it’s no longer tax deductible to donors, no longer a tax-free transfer from the university to the athlete, and no longer tax-free to the athlete. As fans, we can call a scholarship to be “compensation” in practice, but schools legitimately can’t call it compensation or else a whole slew of other even worse tax law implications apply. So, if athletes are being subject to employment-like conditions and legal terms, the universities simply can’t make the claim that scholarships are “compensating” them for that because the whole tax treatment of a scholarship is that that it’s *not* treated as employment compensation.

Essentially, we have to put scholarship funds and employment compensation into two separate buckets. A lot of fans are making a mistake when they’re used interchangeably.

Now, that’s part of why I don’t think we’re going to see employment compensation in *lieu* of scholarships. It takes $1.40 in employment compensation to match the value of $1.00 in scholarship money for all the parties involved (donors, university and student). So, that doesn’t make sense to, say, pay athletes an income but then have those athletes pay tuition on their own out of that income, particularly when this entire exercise is about financial benefits.

My educated guess is that we’ll ultimately see a certain level of employment compensation that is subject to Title IX (which may be a de facto “luxury tax” that effectively disincentivizes schools from directly paying star revenue athletes outsized amounts compared to other athletes), continued scholarships (as that’s “cheap” money with significant tax benefits for schools compared to employment compensation), and unrestricted NIL compensation (which will continue to be the true place where money is made for star athletes since that’s not restricted by Title IX as of now).

To clarify for people who don't understand the point Frank is making with the bold, income is taxed to the recipients AND the colleges have additional costs in benefits, such as social security or teacher's retirement (colleges can opt out of social security) along with other benefits such as health care.

(04-21-2024 10:33 AM)pvk75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2024 04:01 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Look, I'm about the most anti-union person on this entire board, you're preaching to the choir here.

So just so there's clarity on my position: I'm NOT anti-union. At worst, I'm ambivalent, but if anything I'd say slightly pro-union to some small degree - with caveats.

Even if someone is virulently anti-union (and I'm cool with that, there's reasons) and has never been in one:

• Ever taken paid vacation? Thank a union.
• Ever paid into a pension scheme or company matching retirement plan? Thank a union.
• Ever had to take a day of paid sick leave? Thank a union.
• Ever had to go on unemployment, or atleast be grateful that that safety net is there, just in case? Thank a union.
  

There's a whole lot of ways, both direct and indirect that unions have been a positive influence to our society. They've had their bad moments no doubt, and have probably earned some of the bad rep they get among some. But we've all benefitted from their existance at some level. I'm not anti-union.

All I'm saying is that I don't think there is any way any union is ever going to get involved in college sports. It just doesn't make any sense. Anyway you try squeeze one into place, it loses its coherency when you take into account the law, the U.S. Constitution, what colleges ideally would like to have, what the student athletes would like to have (and are slowly now getting). Once you take that all into consideration, this whole collective-bargaining nonsense just falls apart.

Also I think any notion that the United States government would force any citizens into a labor against thier will, either by a judicial court ruling or a congressional act of law, is mind bogglingly ridiculous. I can't even properly construct a dystopian alternate reality where something like that could happen. And I've got a good imagination and am a lifetime lover of sci-fi.

I agree with about 90% of this, as a matter of recognizing the impacts on general society, but want to back it down to the original discussion just for a moment.

Did anyone notice that the unionization efforts a) come from progressives who backed Socialist Congressional members Sanders and Murphy and their (failed so far) legislative attempts to unionize college athletes, and b) the main targets are private schools over which direct action is more difficult (the NCAA is a target because it's in the way)?

Just throwing this out there.

I don't pay attention to which politicians advocates for college athletes back, but I have noticed Ramogi Huma at Congressional hearings. I've noticed him at some statehouse hearings, too. I noticed he played a part in the effort the unionize Northwestern football and I noticed he played a part in the introduction and eventual passage of California's NIL law -- the nation's first. (It seems the NCAA should not have punished his UCLA teammate for accepting a gift of groceries all those years ago.)

I wish Congress would pass Murphy's College Athlete Right to Organize Act. CA's at both private & public schools should have that right IMO, whether it's exercised or not, and it would be nice to expedite things. But that won't happen...

So we wait a longass time on what the courts say about current law, particularly regarding joint employment. Hearings having finally concluded last week, the USC/PAC/NCAA case is slightly closer to ulti.ate resolution. Elsewhere, a Federal trial judge has found it plausible the NCAA jointly employs/employed Johnson plaintiffs (albeit under the FLSA.)

(04-18-2024 05:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 05:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  The complainant is some lawyer out of California?

A little Google digging shows that this lawyer is the founder of the College Basketball Players Association:

https://www.cbpa.us/

An organization that does not, interestingly enough, have any college basketball players.