MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on April 23, 2014, 11:19:21 AM
-
This can be a game changer for both football and basketball.
Northwestern football players to vote on union Friday
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-northwestern-football-union-vote-20140422,0,4342638.story
8:15 a.m. CDT, April 23, 2014
Northwestern University football players are scheduled to vote Friday morning on whether they want to be represented by a union.
Northwestern, which is a private university, is not allowing reporters on campus at Welsh-Ryan Arena, where the vote will take place, citing the players' wishes to avoid media attention.
Peter Sung Ohr, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, ruled in February that Northwestern's football players on athletic scholarships are university employees, setting the stage for the election.
For the College Athletes Players Association, or CAPA, to bargain on behalf of the players, the majority of the football players voting would have to side with the union.
In total, 76 players are eligible to vote, but they are not required to do so.
During football practices earlier this month, the players were uncomfortable with questions about unionization. Some players ducked the media. Some referred questions to Kain Colter, NU’s former quarterback and the face of the unionization campaign.
Others publicly criticized the effort.
Quarterback Trevor Siemian said he no longer believes a union is the right avenue and that he should have gathered more information before signing a union card in January.
"This all began with the best of intentions," Siemian said during a practice. He added that the players should have taken their concerns to coach Pat Fitzgerald and/or the school's athletic director, Jim Phillips.
Fitzgerald has encouraged the football players to vote against the union.
Earlier this month, the school appealed Ohr’s ruling to the NLRB in Washington. In the appeal, which is known as a request for review, Northwestern argued that Ohr mischaracterized, slanted and ignored relevant facts, such as the evidence of Northwestern's primary commitment to education of all its student-athletes.
The union contended that Ohr's decision was meticulously and carefully reasoned. It added that the school's accusations were unfounded and that many of the supposed errors and omissions the university attributes to Ohr do not qualify for review under NLRB rules.
If the NLRB grants Northwestern's request, both parties would have the opportunity to file more documents in support of their positions. The board would then affirm, modify or reverse the ruling.
The election could be delayed if the NLRB accepts the request before Friday, but that's unlikely. After the election takes place, the ballots will remain secret until the board makes a final decision on the appeal.
The case eventually could be resolved in federal court.
-
I'm going to say they vote no
-
I'm going to say they vote no
You might be correct. I think they approve it but it will be close.
And if NU says no, the union movement is set back but not killed. They will try at another school (most stories suggest Georgia Tech will be next up)
-
Just when you thought Trade Unionism was dead...
Athletes of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your scholarships!
(http://blogs.lt.vt.edu/benw92/files/2013/10/RUSU1827.jpg)
(http://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/6891215/il_fullxfull.341710820.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8GZ-ZEZS1utqriUNHlqZNqBhQ1paxgDv05wCPPAUDn9LOIg7Nsg)
-
I'm going to say they vote no
Doesn't matter anymore - the schools will take things into their own hands and the players will get what they were seeking when they attempted to unionize.
The threat of unionizing will accomplish their purpose.
-
Doesn't matter anymore - the schools will take things into their own hands and the players will get what they were seeking when they attempted to unionize.
The threat of unionizing will accomplish their purpose.
Have to agree with this.
-
Doesn't matter anymore - the schools will take things into their own hands and the players will get what they were seeking when they attempted to unionize.
The threat of unionizing will accomplish their purpose.
Much of it already in the works, but we'll see. If you truly believe what you are saying, then all that has to happen is the players threaten to unionize every Summer....how long do you think that lasts? It's not indefinite, you can't give and give and give and give, but then again unions have refused to learn that lesson for a 100 years to their detriment.
-
Much of it already in the works, but we'll see. If you truly believe what you are saying, then all that has to happen is the players threaten to unionize every Summer....how long do you think that lasts? It's not indefinite, you can't give and give and give and give, but then again unions have refused to learn that lesson for a 100 years to their detriment.
(http://www.rwf2000.com/zau/gifs3/_Patco4.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEF-zJIR-n_ABs0uRTsgJ3gPDHZnBCJl1SpbHQz50V7ZRYsLhs)
-
Much of it already in the works, but we'll see. If you truly believe what you are saying, then all that has to happen is the players threaten to unionize every Summer....how long do you think that lasts? It's not indefinite, you can't give and give and give and give, but then again unions have refused to learn that lesson for a 100 years to their detriment.
Taking things to the extreme much? You've made up a brand new argument here - and it has nothing to do with what the players are asking.
There is no reason to think the college players will increase demands every year because they asked for something one time.
Your hatred of unions isn't allowing you to think straight on this.
-
"Probably the saddest thing you'll ever see is a mosquito sucking on a mummy. Forget it, little friend."
-Jack Handey (1997, The Lost Deep Thoughts)
-
(http://www.rwf2000.com/zau/gifs3/_Patco4.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEF-zJIR-n_ABs0uRTsgJ3gPDHZnBCJl1SpbHQz50V7ZRYsLhs)
And the middle class wonders why their numbers have dwindled so much. Unions have become like most Dems - afraid to take a stand so they don't offend anyone.
-
Taking things to the extreme much? You've made up a brand new argument here - and it has nothing to do with what the players are asking.
There is no reason to think the college players will increase demands every year because they asked for something one time.
Your hatred of unions isn't allowing you to think straight on this.
I don't hate unions...my wife is a member of a union. I hate the rules in place for unions, such as forcing their dues to be spent on things that many in the membership don't support.
As for your first two points, it is human nature and as sure as the day is long this will happen. You can say demands won't increase, but that would buck what we've seen in the marketplace for many years. Is it every year, perhaps not. Will there be this tool to threaten in the future, sure as hell yes. That's how it works, until management puts an end to it or the business goes under. The whole point of the union is to push for greater yields. So to suggest there is no reason to think this will happen, quite frankly is laughable in my opinion. It's all a matter of time...some "great injustice" has to be complained about and leveraged. As some people say, "never let a crisis go to waste"...especially when you can make up a fake crisis whenever you wish.
-
my wife is a member of a union
The making of the MU Quilt
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--wHA79k4fd8/TctmBPJ0TbI/AAAAAAAADF4/w6khzcjoTuU/s1600/sweatshop.jpg)
-
The making of the MU Quilt
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--wHA79k4fd8/TctmBPJ0TbI/AAAAAAAADF4/w6khzcjoTuU/s1600/sweatshop.jpg)
They sure work harder than some of the American kids do today!
-
The making of the MU Quilt
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--wHA79k4fd8/TctmBPJ0TbI/AAAAAAAADF4/w6khzcjoTuU/s1600/sweatshop.jpg)
That's too funny. I've been in some of those places.
-
The making of the MU Quilt
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--wHA79k4fd8/TctmBPJ0TbI/AAAAAAAADF4/w6khzcjoTuU/s1600/sweatshop.jpg)
LOL. Good one. She was a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, though she has not supported many of the "initiatives" her dues went to support. I suppose I should use the former now since she has been a stay at home mom now for quite some time, but was a member of that union for well over a decade.
-
LOL. Good one. She was a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, though she has not supported many of the "initiatives" her dues went to support. I suppose I should use the former now since she has been a stay at home mom now for quite some time, but was a member of that union for well over a decade.
In other words, no union to stand in the way of getting the quilts done.
-
In other words, no union to stand in the way of getting the quilts done.
Chico: "When will that quilt ever get done? I can't believe I married you! No DirecTV for you tonight!"
(http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/primarysources_upload/images/sweatshop_l.jpg)
-
They sure work harder than some of the American kids do today!
My American kid can't even get a job today at traditional teen related jobs because they are all filled by 30 year olds with questionable citizenship. Progress.
-
Chico: "When will that quilt ever get done? I can't believe I married you! No DirecTV for you tonight!"
(http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/primarysources_upload/images/sweatshop_l.jpg)
It's done...I posted pictures of it.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=41541.msg587311#msg587311
-
It's done...I posted pictures of it.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=41541.msg587311#msg587311
That is really, really cool. You found a keeper in that one, JD.
I love how the ND square jumps off the bed.
-
Presented without comment
Oklahoma Athletic Director Gets $30,000 for Gymnastics Titles
2014-04-24 17:45:08.354 GMT
By Eben Novy-Williams
April 24 (Bloomberg) -- University of Oklahoma Athletic Director Joe Castiglione received $30,000 in bonuses tied to the postseason success of the women’s gymnastics team, a program that lost more than $1.5 million last year.
The Sooners won the Big 12 title in March, their sixth in seven years, and shared the National Collegiate Athletic Association championship last weekend. The program was one of four women’s gymnastics teams whose expenses outpaced revenue by more than $1.5 million in the year ended June 30, according to data schools submit to the U.S. Department of Education.
Castiglione, who is being paid a $905,000 guaranteed salary this year, was unavailable to comment, according to athletics spokesman Pete Moris. An e-mail sent to university President David Boren’s office wasn’t returned.
Castiglione’s contract, obtained through open records laws, includes bonuses of $10,000 for the gymnastics team’s conference title, and $20,000 for the NCAA championship.
“‘We try to say college sports isn’t a business, and yet we let athletic directors operate like for-profit CEOs with all this incentive pay,” said David Ridpath, a sports administration professor at Ohio University. Ridpath is president-elect of the Drake Group, a collection of university faculty members who since 1999 have called for reform of an athletic system that they say prioritizes money over academics.
Castiglione isn’t the only athletic director to have bonuses tied to the performance of money-losing teams. Ohio State University’s Gene Smith received an $18,086 bonus -- one week of his $940,000 base salary -- when wrestler Logan Stieber won his weight class at the NCAA championship in March. The wrestling program lost $805,000 in fiscal 2013. California’s Sandy Barbour got a $10,423 bonus -- 2.5 percent of her $416,931 base salary -- for the men’s NCAA swimming and diving title last month. Those programs lost a combined $534,000.
Only Oklahoma
Oklahoma is the only school to reward its athletic director for a women’s gymnastics title among the NCAA’s top- five ranked programs, according to a review of of contracts at the schools.
Lawsuits over use of players’ images and claiming antitrust violations as well as an effort by Northwestern University football players to unionize have led to new scrutiny of college sports.
In current broadcast contracts alone, the NCAA and the five richest conferences are guaranteed more than $31 billion. That doesn’t include other sources of revenue such as sponsorship, merchandise sales, ticket sales and booster donations.
“The only reason we’re able to pay out those salaries and incentives for a gymnastics team’s performance is because we’re suppressing the earning power of the labor, so the system itself is broken,” Ridpath, a former assistant wrestling coach at Ohio, said in a telephone interview. “I know $30,000 for some of these programs would be fantastic. Let’s help out the students.”
$100,000 Bonuses
Heading into this academic year, Sooners teams had won eight national championships and 60 conference titles under Castiglione, who has been with the Norman, Oklahoma, school since 1998. He was named Athletic Director of the Year in 2009 by the Sports Business Journal. Oklahoma’s intercollegiate sports programs turned a $17.5 million profit in the year ended June 30, according to the Department of Education data.
Castiglione this year received $40,000 for the football team’s participation in the Sugar Bowl and $25,000 for the men’s basketball team’s berth in the NCAA tournament. Both those programs made money in fiscal 2013, according to the U.S.
Department of Education.
More Bonuses
He also received a $10,000 bonus for the men’s gymnastics team’s conference title and a $25,000 bonus for the postseason participation of the women’s basketball team, which lost $3.1 million last year. Castiglione’s contract also includes a $10,000 bonus tied to graduation rates.
Oklahoma women’s gymnastics coach K.J. Kindler and her two assistants each received a total bonus of 40 percent of their base salaries for winning the Big 12 and NCAA titles. For Kindler, who is paid $175,000, those bonuses totaled $70,000.
-
Why do bonuses bother you? He or she is the CEO of the athletic department? If the program performs well, wins championships, graduates, etc, they are rewarded. In a world where the GM, coach, etc in sports gets you fired if you lose, shouldn't winning in sports get you rewarded?
-
Sounds like Castiglione is doing a great job guiding the OU sports programs. He should be rewarded for at the highest level in his profession. It would be a refreshing change to watch a Marquette AD register such results rather than being upset about the cheers being used by students who are supporting their team.
Rather than criticize Castiglione I would ask what will it take to poach him from OU to MU?
-
Castiglione isn't the only AD who gets bonuses for student-athletes who get individual NCAA awards in non-revenue sports. Ohio State's Gene Smith pocketed $18K for a wrestler winning this season. There was much outcry then, too.
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/03/ohio_state_ad_gene_smiths_1800.html
-
Sounds like Castiglione is doing a great job guiding the OU sports programs. He should be rewarded for at the highest level in his profession. It would be a refreshing change to watch a Marquette AD register such results rather than being upset about the cheers being used by students who are supporting their team.
Rather than criticize Castiglione I would ask what will it take to poach him from OU to MU?
Castiglione to MU. #DoneDeal
It's happening!
-
I think people tend to overlook that the ruling by the regional director of the NLRB is going to be appealed and it will be heard by the full panel in D.C. Then if Northwestern officials still don't get the answer they're looking for, the case will end up in federal courts where it will likely be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court given the potential ramifications. Point being, there is still a LONG way to go before we can definitively say that college athletes are "employees" legally speaking.
I'm not holding my breath that the regional diretor's decision will make it through the appeals. That being said, it's kind of interesting that NU players are already voting on whether to unionize when the employee determination is far from settled.
-
Castiglione to MU. #DoneDeal
It's happening!
I hope not, he is not what I would deem a great guy, but that's just my opinion.
-
I hope not, he is not what I would deem a great guy, but that's just my opinion.
Never met the man, but have interacted with several of his underlings in the Oklahoma Athletic Department. Not a fan.
-
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140424/northwestern-wildcats-union-vote-nlrb-ruling/
-
Never met the man, but have interacted with several of his underlings in the Oklahoma Athletic Department. Not a fan.
I've met him several times....not a fan.
-
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140424/northwestern-wildcats-union-vote-nlrb-ruling/
This would have been fascinating watching the maneuvering and the outcomes both in voting (if it lost at Northwestern, it would come up again somewhere else) and in court.
This was going to be much different than a typical union - would have been closer to a Players' Association as in Professional sports. These are not adults with families to support and mouths to feed that are demanding a living wage. They are looking for minimal improvements. Safety and the full cost of their education. They don't want to worry whether the Bagel they are eating is a violation of NCAA rules. They would like their families to be able to enjoy the fruition of their work if they make it to the final 4. Etc., Etc.
But I think the moves this week by the Big 5 conferences AND the NCAA really rendered what would have been a monumental vote pretty meaningless.
-
This would have been fascinating watching the maneuvering and the outcomes both in voting (if it lost at Northwestern, it would come up again somewhere else) and in court.
This was going to be much different than a typical union - would have been closer to a Players' Association as in Professional sports. These are not adults with families to support and mouths to feed that are demanding a living wage. They are looking for minimal improvements. Safety and the full cost of their education. They don't want to worry whether the Bagel they are eating is a violation of NCAA rules. They would like their families to be able to enjoy the fruition of their work if they make it to the final 4. Etc., Etc.
But I think the moves this week by the Big 5 conferences AND the NCAA really rendered what would have been a monumental vote pretty meaningless.
In my view, aside from what has happened in the last week or so, the NW players were going to vote this down. My biggest peeve on this is the NW football players, for the vast majority of them feel they are treated well, treated right and have no complaints. You see this with multiple interviews of these student athletes.
At the end of the day the folks pushing this (those actually that are NOT NW football players any longer or ever) wanted them to be categorized as employees and that's the biggest issue in all of this. That goal or declaration by those pushing the unionization efforts elevates things entirely.
Some of these outside forces with various intentions used these kids to push an agenda in my opinion, some less nefarious than others. There are some reforms that are worthwhile, should be pursued, enacted in a proper way. There are others that are problematic for many reasons and open up a pandora's box from hell.
Honestly
-
In my view, aside from what has happened in the last week or so, the NW players were going to vote this down. My biggest peeve on this is the NW football players, for the vast majority of them feel they are treated well, treated right and have no complaints. You see this with multiple interviews of these student athletes.
At the end of the day the folks pushing this (those actually that are NOT NW football players any longer or ever) wanted them to be categorized as employees and that's the biggest issue in all of this. That goal or declaration by those pushing the unionization efforts elevates things entirely.
Some of these outside forces with various intentions used these kids to push an agenda in my opinion, some less nefarious than others. There are some reforms that are worthwhile, should be pursued, enacted in a proper way. There are others that are problematic for many reasons and open up a pandora's box from hell.
Honestly
I think that most student-athletes (including at Northwestern) feel they are treated pretty well. This entire thing is not really about them feeling that they aren't. It is just about a couple areas where the NCAA has been totally unreasonable. That is why we are seeing changes proposed by the NCAA. It is something that should have been done decades ago but is only being pushed to the forefront because of the actions in Evanston.
I still remember Al decrying the NCAA rules when he was at MU. It broke his heart that Earl Tatum, who grew up in abject poverty, had to live under some of the NCAA rules while at MU. This was a great, hard-working kid who had nothing, who couldn't even afford to go out and have a burger with his friends. Who couldn't go home for Christmas to see his family. Why? Just because the NCAA said so.
-
I think that most student-athletes (including at Northwestern) feel they are treated pretty well. This entire thing is not really about them feeling that they aren't. It is just about a couple areas where the NCAA has been totally unreasonable. That is why we are seeing changes proposed by the NCAA. It is something that should have been done decades ago but is only being pushed to the forefront because of the actions in Evanston.
I still remember Al decrying the NCAA rules when he was at MU. It broke his heart that Earl Tatum, who grew up in abject poverty, had to live under some of the NCAA rules while at MU. This was a great, hard-working kid who had nothing, who couldn't even afford to go out and have a burger with his friends. Who couldn't go home for Christmas to see his family. Why? Just because the NCAA said so.
I'm sure Al also understood the massive Pandora's box that opens if those rules aren't in place, of course that didn't stop Earl or others from getting that burger. ;)
Those rules are in place because of massive abuse in the past. No different than the massive scamming of disability of US taxpayers or car insurance scams, etc. Too many people that aren't honest, scam like crazy and it creates an uneven playing field. So rules get put into place. Sure, it sucks for someone in that position as you describe. The problem is that Jock U. decides all 85 football players are in that boat, all 13 basketball players and enough money to get 10 hamburgers a night. If the abuse wasn't there, the rules wouldn't be either. People can't be honest...shame.
-
have a burger
Hey, wait just one minute! That's Bert's line!
-
It's not indefinite, you can't give and give and give and give, but then again unions have refused to learn that lesson for a 100 years to their detriment.
It's also something corporations and business owners didn't learn until workers formed unions after 100 years of taking it in the backside.
There's clearly a balance that needs to be worked out by both sides. Right now the scale is tipped heavily in favor of the schools. Hopefully, initiatives by the players won't tip it too far the other way, and hopefully the schools don't stick their heads in the sand.
-
In my view, aside from what has happened in the last week or so, the NW players were going to vote this down. My biggest peeve on this is the NW football players, for the vast majority of them feel they are treated well, treated right and have no complaints. You see this with multiple interviews of these student athletes.
At the end of the day the folks pushing this (those actually that are NOT NW football players any longer or ever) wanted them to be categorized as employees and that's the biggest issue in all of this. That goal or declaration by those pushing the unionization efforts elevates things entirely.
Some of these outside forces with various intentions used these kids to push an agenda in my opinion, some less nefarious than others. There are some reforms that are worthwhile, should be pursued, enacted in a proper way. There are others that are problematic for many reasons and open up a pandora's box from hell.
Honestly
CBB:
If boosters/alumni/schools are willing to throw money at these kids, and if you fear the rules are being set up to allow it to happen legally, then it tells you a scholarship is not enough to "compensate" these recruits. So why do insist on keeping those kids at an unfair advantage? Change the rules to allow them to get their worth. Again this will only be the case for a handful of recruits for the entire sport.
I think at the end of the day, little changes. If you're a blue chip recruit, you go to Kentucky because Calipari has a proven track record of getting you ready and drafted high into the NBA. Ditto Cocah K at Duke.
The arms race will be like it is now, between Duke and Kentucky boosters so what changes?
Jabari Parker is not going to pick Northwestern because JB Pritzker (billionaire benefactor and NU Trustee) is willing to dump a ton of money in his lap. Jabari will take the long view and understand Duke puts him in the best position for the next level, just like it is now.
And speaking of billionaire benefactors ... Phil Knight (Nike Founder) donates zillions to Oregon so they have the best facilities in the world to attract recruits and coaches. Ditto Boone Pickens at OSU or, to a lesser but still significant extent, Dick Strong with MU. Why is this moral but giving the kids a couple of bucks the Pandora's box from hell?
It won't corrupt the system, it is now. The Pandora's box from hell is the current system (which is why I keep saying the NCAA is a broken clusterf**k now). The changes and potential payment (again potential because no one is arguing for it now) will make things more moral and fair. And MU will come out a winner in this process. The M Club can compete with those other schools when it comes to paying recruits.
-
CBB:
If boosters/alumni/schools are willing to throw money at these kids, and if you fear the rules are being set up to allow it to happen legally, then it tells you a scholarship is not enough to "compensate" these recruits. So why do insist on keeping those kids at an unfair advantage? Change the rules to allow them to get their worth. Again this will only be the case for a handful of recruits for the entire sport.
Exactly... because we all know that every kid today - student athlete or not - deserves the newest iPhones, tablets, laptops, home gaming systems, Dre Headphones, $200 jeans, etc. And those things cost money, yo.
-
Exactly... because we all know that every kid today - student athlete or not - deserves the newest iPhones, tablets, laptops, home gaming systems, Dre Headphones, $200 jeans, etc. And those things cost money, yo.
It has nothing to do with what they deserve, it's about what they are worth. Does an NBA athlete deserve a $20 million dollar contract? No, but that's his market value in the multibillion dollar industry of professional basketball.
School teachers "deserve" to make about four times their current salary, but they'll never see that money because the market doesn't demand it.
BTW, what were you doing with your money in college? I know I wasn't researching mutual funds or buying educational materials at the book store. I was a bartender in college, and many nights the money I made in tips was gone before I passed out face down on my apartment floor.
-
Exactly... because we all know that every kid today - student athlete or not - deserves the newest iPhones, tablets, laptops, home gaming systems, Dre Headphones, $200 jeans, etc. And those things cost money, yo.
Boy are you missing the boat.
If boosters/alumni are willing to throw money at a kid, then their worth to the school is more than a scholarship. This has nothing to do with them being whiny and demanding.
... and this only applies to less than 10 basketball recruits a year, and some years less than 5 (that's for the entire sport, not per school).
-
http://espn.go.com/chicago/college-football/story/_/id/10833981/northwestern-football-players-poised-historic-vote-whether-unionize
Northwestern football players voted Friday morning on whether to unionize, but the ballots will be impounded for now and only opened if the board sides with the players, a decision that could take months. The board's decision to approve the review was expected by both sides in the case.
So nothing will come of this for months.
But this is Chicago and we are good at two things ... shoveling snow and rigging votes.
So expect "unofficial results" before dinner.
-
Right now the scale is tipped heavily in favor of the schools.
People keep saying this but one cannot refute the economic value of an athletic scholarship. We had two kids matriculate at private schools while the third was on a Div I scholarship; the financial difference is staggering.
For many in this country a college education is simply out of the question for reasons of economics. Where is the argument for the enabling benefit of athletic scholarships?
Finally, if we are to allow athletes in revenue-generating sports to be materially compensated what about those in the non-rev sports? And what effect will paying athletes have on competitive balance? Sanctioned payments simply ratchets up the cost of cheating that will continue regardless of economic model because boosters seek victory and not an improved bottom line for the university.
Football and basketball generate revenue which is used to fund many things. While not a zero sum game, compensating athletes will require a restructuring of university budgeting.
-
People keep saying this but one cannot refute the economic value of an athletic scholarship. We had two kids matriculate at private schools while the third was on a Div I scholarship; the financial difference is staggering.
For many in this country a college education is simply out of the question for reasons of economics. Where is the argument for the enabling benefit of athletic scholarships?
Finally, if we are to allow athletes in revenue-generating sports to be materially compensated what about those in the non-rev sports? And what effect will paying athletes have on competitive balance? Sanctioned payments simply ratchets up the cost of cheating that will continue regardless of economic model because boosters seek victory and not an improved bottom line for the university.
Football and basketball generate revenue which is used to fund many things. While not a zero sum game, compensating athletes will require a restructuring of university budgeting.
I don't disagree with you on the enabling benefits of athletic scholarships, but that's a hard argument to make because it's not easily quantifiable and it's based solely on future value. The argument becomes much less valid when talking about basketball players who have no intention of using their degree to earn money after school. They don't need the education to make money in the NBA, Europe, or D-League.
The argument about the negative impacts on non-revenue sports is irrelevant to the issue of benefits to athletes in revenue generating sports. Why should those athletes be responsible for generating revenue to support those that don't? It's not a bball players fault that nobody wants to pay to watch gymnastics.
Finally, competitive balance may very well suffer if the system is changed to benefit athletes in revenue generating sports. While that would be sad from a fan and small school perspective, it doesn't justify the current policies from the elite athlete's perspective. Competitive balance isn't the players' problem. Those players have every right to do everything in their power to leverage their position to get a better deal.
-
I don't disagree with you on the enabling benefits of athletic scholarships, but that's a hard argument to make because it's not easily quantifiable and it's based solely on future value. The argument becomes much less valid when talking about basketball players who have no intention of using their degree to earn money after school. They don't need the education to make money in the NBA, Europe, or D-League.
The argument about the negative impacts on non-revenue sports is irrelevant to the issue of benefits to athletes in revenue generating sports. Why should those athletes be responsible for generating revenue to support those that don't? It's not a bball players fault that nobody wants to pay to watch gymnastics.
Finally, competitive balance may very well suffer if the system is changed to benefit athletes in revenue generating sports. While that would be sad from a fan and small school perspective, it doesn't justify the current policies from the elite athlete's perspective. Competitive balance isn't the players' problem. Those players have every right to do everything in their power to leverage their position to get a better deal.
This
You would never work for an organization that freely admitted they underpaid you so they have the funds to allow people in unprofitable divisions continue to earn a paycheck.
If a school wants to have a gymnastics program, they need to decide it on its merits, just like they do a chemistry program.
-
I don't disagree with you on the enabling benefits of athletic scholarships, but that's a hard argument to make because it's not easily quantifiable and it's based solely on future value. The argument becomes much less valid when talking about basketball players who have no intention of using their degree to earn money after school. They don't need the education to make money in the NBA, Europe, or D-League.
The argument about the negative impacts on non-revenue sports is irrelevant to the issue of benefits to athletes in revenue generating sports. Why should those athletes be responsible for generating revenue to support those that don't? It's not a bball players fault that nobody wants to pay to watch gymnastics.
Finally, competitive balance may very well suffer if the system is changed to benefit athletes in revenue generating sports. While that would be sad from a fan and small school perspective, it doesn't justify the current policies from the elite athlete's perspective. Competitive balance isn't the players' problem. Those players have every right to do everything in their power to leverage their position to get a better deal.
The real issue you are ignoring is the matter of capital and risk in this equation. Student athletes can try to achieve economic gain through strife within a system others have built or they can create their own system. THAT is genuine free enterprise.
Business Case on Capital and Risk: AMR invested huge amounts of capital in creating SABRE. Other airlines cried foul, saying SABRE gave AMR an unfair competitive advantage. But AMR took the risk and were entitled to reap the benefit.
-
I don't disagree with you on the enabling benefits of athletic scholarships, but that's a hard argument to make because it's not easily quantifiable and it's based solely on future value. The argument becomes much less valid when talking about basketball players who have no intention of using their degree to earn money after school. They don't need the education to make money in the NBA, Europe, or D-League.
The argument about the negative impacts on non-revenue sports is irrelevant to the issue of benefits to athletes in revenue generating sports. Why should those athletes be responsible for generating revenue to support those that don't? It's not a bball players fault that nobody wants to pay to watch gymnastics.
Finally, competitive balance may very well suffer if the system is changed to benefit athletes in revenue generating sports. While that would be sad from a fan and small school perspective, it doesn't justify the current policies from the elite athlete's perspective. Competitive balance isn't the players' problem. Those players have every right to do everything in their power to leverage their position to get a better deal.
It's relevant because if you start paying athletes in revenue generating sports and you have to make up that cost somewhere else, cutting non-revenue sports is going to be a way to do that. Then we run into Title IX issues.
-
It's relevant because if you start paying athletes in revenue generating sports and you have to make up that cost somewhere else, cutting non-revenue sports is going to be a way to do that. Then we run into Title IX issues.
True. We could see schools that have men's football, men's basketball, and like 15 women's sports. All the non-revenue men's sports could have to be cut to save money.
-
It's relevant because if you start paying athletes in revenue generating sports and you have to make up that cost somewhere else, cutting non-revenue sports is going to be a way to do that. Then we run into Title IX issues.
Thank you. Universities adapted to many factors that have created the system as it now exists. And Title IX dictates that you must have an equal number of scholarships by gender. Women's sports do not pay for themselves so they must be subsidized. Who pays for that?
-
It has nothing to do with what they deserve, it's about what they are worth. Does an NBA athlete deserve a $20 million dollar contract? No, but that's his market value in the multibillion dollar industry of professional basketball.
School teachers "deserve" to make about four times their current salary, but they'll never see that money because the market doesn't demand it.
BTW, what were you doing with your money in college? I know I wasn't researching mutual funds or buying educational materials at the book store. I was a bartender in college, and many nights the money I made in tips was gone before I passed out face down on my apartment floor.
If you truly believe this, then you would have to believe a bench player is worth less, a qb worth more, so on and so forth.
Why do you think school teachers "deserve" to make about four times more? Cuz it makes you feel good? Should school teachers salaries be pegged to results...wouldn't that be interesting. That's how much of the other world works (I say this as the son of a school teacher).
And since we are talking about worth, how much is the TOTAL VALUE of a college education, not just the tuition avoidance? According to many studies, someone with a college degree earns nearly double a person without it. Over the course of their life, it means earning power of about $2.4M over a 40 year career, vs $1.3M without a degree. More than $1M.
Plus they didn't have to pay for the parchment. They are getting what they are "worth", and then some.
-
NVM
-
Thank you. Universities adapted to many factors that have created the system as it now exists. And Title IX dictates that you must have an equal number of scholarships by gender. Women's sports do not pay for themselves so they must be subsidized. Who pays for that?
Close. Actually you have to have a proportional amount of athletic opportunities based upon your schools enrollment, so both genders should have the same ratios of the athletes to the enrollment. If your school is 60/40 female, you should probably have an athletic department of 60/40 female to male sports. Courts actually found one school guilty of a Title IX violation when they were 3% off. Truthfully you are supposed to spend the same amount on both genders too, including facilities. Finally most athletic departments in the country get subsidized. Only about 30 run at a profit.
-
CBB:
If boosters/alumni/schools are willing to throw money at these kids, and if you fear the rules are being set up to allow it to happen legally, then it tells you a scholarship is not enough to "compensate" these recruits. So why do insist on keeping those kids at an unfair advantage? Change the rules to allow them to get their worth. Again this will only be the case for a handful of recruits for the entire sport.
I think at the end of the day, little changes. If you're a blue chip recruit, you go to Kentucky because Calipari has a proven track record of getting you ready and drafted high into the NBA. Ditto Cocah K at Duke.
The arms race will be like it is now, between Duke and Kentucky boosters so what changes?
Jabari Parker is not going to pick Northwestern because JB Pritzker (billionaire benefactor and NU Trustee) is willing to dump a ton of money in his lap. Jabari will take the long view and understand Duke puts him in the best position for the next level, just like it is now.
And speaking of billionaire benefactors ... Phil Knight (Nike Founder) donates zillions to Oregon so they have the best facilities in the world to attract recruits and coaches. Ditto Boone Pickens at OSU or, to a lesser but still significant extent, Dick Strong with MU. Why is this moral but giving the kids a couple of bucks the Pandora's box from hell?
It won't corrupt the system, it is now. The Pandora's box from hell is the current system (which is why I keep saying the NCAA is a broken clusterf**k now). The changes and potential payment (again potential because no one is arguing for it now) will make things more moral and fair. And MU will come out a winner in this process. The M Club can compete with those other schools when it comes to paying recruits.
Donating to a SCHOOL where the buildings, assets, etc are there for a long period of time to be used for many generations of student athletes is quite different than what you are talking about.
Where I struggle with your logic is the rules in place today were put in place BECAUSE of all the cheating going on in the past. The rules didn't come out of nowhere, they came out as a result of rampant paying off of student athletes, etc...fake jobs, "meal money", etc. It is also why the schools doing the most of it were winning the most. Guess what, they clamped down, busted high profile programs, etc and what happened? More parity set in. Imagine that. Of course it doesn't eliminate all cheating, of course the rule book is absurdly big, of course there are reforms and ways to trim things down, but most of it is there for common sense reasons and a reaction to the massive cheating going on at schools in the past.
-
It's relevant because if you start paying athletes in revenue generating sports and you have to make up that cost somewhere else, cutting non-revenue sports is going to be a way to do that. Then we run into Title IX issues.
No kidding, why these guys keep pretending that 800lb gorilla doesn't exist is astonishing.
-
Close. Actually you have to have a proportional amount of athletic opportunities based upon your schools enrollment, so both genders should have the same ratios of the athletes to the enrollment. If your school is 60/40 female, you should probably have an athletic department of 60/40 female to male sports. Courts actually found one school guilty of a Title IX violation when they were 3% off. Truthfully you are supposed to spend the same amount on both genders too, including facilities. Finally most athletic departments in the country get subsidized. Only about 30 run at a profit.
Risk/reward is not just about capital. Labor needs to understand that if the results are not there then they can and should be replaced as interchangeable parts.
The Marx I take most seriously is named Groucho. Not Karl.
-
If you truly believe this, then you would have to believe a bench player is worth less, a qb worth more, so on and so forth.
Why do you think school teachers "deserve" to make about four times more? Cuz it makes you feel good? Should school teachers salaries be pegged to results...wouldn't that be interesting. That's how much of the other world works (I say this as the son of a school teacher).
And since we are talking about worth, how much is the TOTAL VALUE of a college education, not just the tuition avoidance? According to many studies, someone with a college degree earns nearly double a person without it. Over the course of their life, it means earning power of about $2.4M over a 40 year career, vs $1.3M without a degree. More than $1M.
Plus they didn't have to pay for the parchment. They are getting what they are "worth", and then some.
Also worth considering is the value derived from an athlete's exposure and development thanks to the stage, facilities, and training a university provides. Free education, plus free training, plus free national media exposure, etc. I say free meaning they don't pay tuition and fees, obviously there is a physical investment on their part, but the return on investment for those things is pretty high.
-
This
You would never work for an organization that freely admitted they underpaid you so they have the funds to allow people in unprofitable divisions continue to earn a paycheck.
If a school wants to have a gymnastics program, they need to decide it on its merits, just like they do a chemistry program.
LOL. Actually, this does happen in corporate America. You think the IT division is generating revenue for your company, or is it the sales division? Yet you need both to do business. You don't think there are R&D divisions at companies that may have 10 ideas and spend a bunch of money against them, but only 1 idea goes to market? Look, there are unprofitable areas within corporations that are used for seeding purposes, etc.
But let's use the NCAA example, yes the one line item supports everything else. Guess what Heisenburg, next time you go to a Marquette game, refuse to pay the whole ticket price for the ticket....because guess what, a chunk of that cost is not going to benefit men's basketball. Refuse to pay your cable bill, because a chunk of that bill is going to Fox Sports 1 which in turn is flowing down to the Big East and to the schools, and all the programs benefit from it.
You can say they should all stand on their own merits, well let's go in that direction. Those Olympic medal hauls you see every 4 years...gone. Because you will basically destroy Olympic sports feeder programs throughout the country as a result. The 450,000 student athletes out there, about 430,000...gone. What a great idea. What's next, UW-madison isn't going to make the NCAA tournament but MU is?
-
True. We could see schools that have men's football, men's basketball, and like 15 women's sports. All the non-revenue men's sports could have to be cut to save money.
Can't do that under the current rules. Minimum of 14 squads, 7 men's and 7 women's, or you can go 6 men's and 8 women's. If such a thing were to happen, you would probably just see those schools try to break away or they would lower the minimum sports requirements.
Nevertheless, for schools to save money, because their costs would go up, they have to cut elsewhere. I read some stuff here (not from you TAMU) and I'm convinced more than ever that all MU students should be forced to take a business class or two. Seriously.
-
If you truly believe this, then you would have to believe a bench player is worth less, a qb worth more, so on and so forth.
Why do you think school teachers "deserve" to make about four times more? Cuz it makes you feel good? Should school teachers salaries be pegged to results...wouldn't that be interesting. That's how much of the other world works (I say this as the son of a school teacher).
Yes, a bench player is worth less than a starter, who is worth less than an all-american. I'm sure there are members of the UAW that are much better than others, but the union determines how they wish to address performance and pay in collective bargaining. If the players choose to unionize or organize in other ways, they will have to address this issue. How do the players' unions and owners handle this in pro sports? League minimums, salary caps, bonuses, etc.. I'm not saying that would, or should be the model for NCAA athletes, but it's not an unresolvable issue.
My point about teachers was about market value. Teachers, garbage men, firefighters, etc. deserve more if you consider the importance of the services they provide. However, it's not that hard to generate teachers, garbage men, and firefighters, and they don't generate millions to billions of dollars in revenue. Therefore they don't get paid what they "deserve", they get paid what they are worth.
-
And since we are talking about worth, how much is the TOTAL VALUE of a college education, not just the tuition avoidance? According to many studies, someone with a college degree earns nearly double a person without it. Over the course of their life, it means earning power of about $2.4M over a 40 year career, vs $1.3M without a degree. More than $1M.
Plus they didn't have to pay for the parchment. They are getting what they are "worth", and then some.
but as someone else posted, many of these players wouldn't go to college except as an avenue to a pro gig
IMO there no future earnings applicable in cases like that - if the player wasn't forced to go to a college to get to the pro ranks they never would go to college and instead would be working at the carwash etc.
-
The difference between this scenario and the organization underpaying people/cutting departments is that legally you can't just cut your women's and non revenue programs. While paying athletes doesn't directly implicate Title IX, the rippling effects of those costs will. You don't get to decide if you want to have a gymnastics program or not, you get to decide if you want to be in compliance with Title IX or not, then choose which sports would best help you be in compliance. So while they may not have a gymnastics program, something else will have to be there (generally women's crew).
-
This
You would never work for an organization that freely admitted they underpaid you so they have the funds to allow people in unprofitable divisions continue to earn a paycheck.
If a school wants to have a gymnastics program, they need to decide it on its merits, just like they do a chemistry program.
I strongly urge you to think through the AMR SABRE Business Case. It's not just about Risk/Reward but also articulates the relationship between fixed and variable labor and skilled vs. unskilled. That one case study encapsulates all that is right with American capitalism as well as how regulatory interference upsets certain economic truths.
-
but as someone else posted, many of these players wouldn't go to college except as an avenue to a pro gig
IMO there no future earnings applicable in cases like that - if the player wasn't forced to go to a college to get to the pro ranks they never would go to college and instead would be working at the carwash etc.
Totally disagree....because how many went into college with that mentality (1000's of examples), but came out of it without any pro potential and actually utilized that degree. Thus, tremendous value because it forced a kid to get a degree from which he benefited when he wouldn't have received one at all.
You can also argue the extra value they got if they do make the pros. How much was Dwyane Wade's NCAA tournament performance worth in selecting him 5th in the draft? Or his overall performance that year? Marquette provided the stage for him to display those talents....worth millions.
-
Can't do that under the current rules. Minimum of 14 squads, 7 men's and 7 women's, or you can go 6 men's and 8 women's. If such a thing were to happen, you would probably just see those schools try to break away or they would lower the minimum sports requirements.
Nevertheless, for schools to save money, because their costs would go up, they have to cut elsewhere. I read some stuff here (not from you TAMU) and I'm convinced more than ever that all MU students should be forced to take a business class or two. Seriously.
Gotcha. I wasn't sure what the exact rules were. All I know is that if you are going to increase spending in men's sports, you have to equally increase it in women's sports. If there's a limit on how many men's non-revenue sports you can cut, I don't know how they are going to make up the increase of costs that unions will bring.
-
I think people tend to overlook that the ruling by the regional director of the NLRB is going to be appealed and it will be heard by the full panel in D.C. Then if Northwestern officials still don't get the answer they're looking for, the case will end up in federal courts where it will likely be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court given the potential ramifications. Point being, there is still a LONG way to go before we can definitively say that college athletes are "employees" legally speaking.
I'm not holding my breath that the regional diretor's decision will make it through the appeals. That being said, it's kind of interesting that NU players are already voting on whether to unionize when the employee determination is far from settled.
Yes, there is a long way to go. That stated, the threat of unionization has already forced the NCAA to consider making concessions. They are obviously concerned about their position.
I don't think it's strange the NU players are voting on unionization at this point. Employee determination has been settled by the NLRB. Therefore the NU players can in fact form a union. As you stated, the NCAA still has appeal options, but there would be no need to appeal if the players didn't actually proceed with unionization. The vote by the NU players is the next logical step in the process.
-
It's relevant because if you start paying athletes in revenue generating sports and you have to make up that cost somewhere else, cutting non-revenue sports is going to be a way to do that. Then we run into Title IX issues.
Would the NCAA have grounds to challenge Title IX if the employee determination by the NLRB is upheld?
-
Would the NCAA have grounds to challenge Title IX if the employee determination by the NLRB is upheld?
Law vs. policy
-
Would the NCAA have grounds to challenge Title IX if the employee determination by the NLRB is upheld?
Challenging it on what grounds? Trying to get it to not apply to revenue sports? Or that Title IX shouldn't apply to college athletics in general?
If you're the NCAA challenging Title IX would not be a good idea.
-
Law vs. policy
Both can be challenged
-
Challenging it on what grounds? Trying to get it to not apply to revenue sports? Or that Title IX shouldn't apply to college athletics in general?
If you're the NCAA challenging Title IX would not be a good idea.
The Bush Administration tried to challenge Title IX and it went nowhere. Title IX is here to stay.
-
Both can be challenged
Sure, you can challenge anything. If you think the current group in D.C. is going to let TitleIX go away...LOL. Even with a GOP admin, they ran into way too much opposition. Challenge away, it isn't going away.
-
Challenging it on what grounds? Trying to get it to not apply to revenue sports? Or that Title IX shouldn't apply to college athletics in general?
If you're the NCAA challenging Title IX would not be a good idea.
Title IX was enacted to prevent discrimination from education programs, which included college athletics. It was not meant to apply to employment at a university. I think the NCAA could make a strong argument that Title IX no longer applies if athletes are now considered employees under the law. Title IX doesn't require universities to maintain an equal number of male and female coaches or male and female professors. Why should they be required to maintain an equal number of male and female scholarship athletes or sports if participating in those sports is now considered employment?
I understand this would be unpopular in many circles, but the decision of the NLRB changes the equation.
-
The Bush Administration tried to challenge Title IX and it went nowhere. Title IX is here to stay.
That was before the NLRB decided that athletes were actually employees. Title IX doesn't protect employees, it protects students.
-
Both can be challenged
Sure, anything can be challenged. Always remember the first dictum: assess who has the upper ground.
-
Northwestern Players Complete Union Vote; NLRB Review Under Way
By Mason Levinson
April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Northwestern University’s football players voted today whether to form a labor union in an election with the potential to change college sports.
The vote came a month after a National Labor Relations Board regional director ruled Wildcat scholarship football players are employees and eligible to form a union. Yesterday, the NLRB granted the school’s request to review that ruling and said players’ ballots will be impounded until it decides.
At stake is the status quo of a business whose revenue includes more than $31 billion in guaranteed broadcast contracts involving the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the five most powerful conferences. College sports also provides a free education to thousands of athletes, most on teams that don’t make a profit.
“The typical football player, what they want is solidarity, not divisiveness,” said Paul Haagen, a professor of sports and contract law at the Duke University School of Law in Durham, North Carolina. “They have no option as to a non-divisive outcome. That’s got to make it hard.”
With 76 scholarship players at the Evanston, Illinois, school eligible to vote, it will take a simple majority for the union to succeed. The players weren’t compelled to vote.
A Northwestern player who voted said that he was 80 percent sure the team voted no to unionizing, and almost all of the players opted to vote, according to the Chicago Tribune. The player was granted anonymity by the newspaper for fear of repercussions, it said.
Player Leadership
The effort to form a union has been led by former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma, head of a group that advocates for the rights of college athletes, and former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter, who in January said in a media conference call that “the system resembles a dictatorship where the NCAA mandates rules and regulations that players abide by without any input or negotiation.”
The group trying to unionize, known as the College Athletes Players Association, is seeking guaranteed coverage of sports-related medical expenses for current and former athletes, compensation for sponsorships, a trust fund to help former players finish their degrees and an increase in athletic scholarships.
“Today’s vote clearly demonstrates that amateurism is a myth and that college athletes are employees,” Huma said in a statement. “The NCAA cannot vacate this moment in history and its implications for the future.”
School Statement
Following the election, Alan Cubbage, the school’s vice president for university relations, said in a statement that Northwestern agrees that students should have a voice in discussing important national issues regarding college athletics.
“However, we believe that a collective bargaining process at Northwestern would not advance the discussion of these topics, in large part because most of the issues being raised by the union are outside the purview of Northwestern,” Cubbage said.
The election followed efforts from both sides to sway the players’ decisions.
“Northwestern University has put tremendous pressure on the team to vote against forming a union, but we remain hopeful that the majority of players will feel free to follow their beliefs and vote Yes,” Huma said yesterday in an e-mail.
Cubbage said that the school’s campaign was in line with NLRB procedures and rules.
Trevor Siemian, a Northwestern quarterback, said this month that he would vote against organizing, according to the Chicago Tribune, and coach Pat Fitzgerald also recommended to his players that they turn down the opportunity to unionize.
Trust Issues
“Understand that by voting to have a union, you would be transferring your trust from those you know -- me, your coaches and the administrators here -- to what you don’t know -- a third party who may or may not have the team’s best interests in mind,” Fitzgerald wrote to the players in an e-mail, according to the New York Times.
Henry Bienen, Northwestern’s president emeritus, said last month that if the school got into a collective bargaining situation with its players, “I would not take for granted that the Northwesterns of the world would continue to play Division I sports.”
School’s Campaign
The NLRB will not count the votes if, after the review, the initial ruling that the students are employees is overturned. If the vote is eventually revealed and the players opted not to form the union, it would be harmful to future efforts by other teams to unionize, according to Brian Paul, an employment relations partner at Michael Best and Friedrich LLP in Chicago.
“Once one domino falls it’s easier to do it for everybody else, but if the Northwestern players vote no, that is potentially just as damaging as the NLRB reversing the decision,” Paul said in a telephone interview.
The unionization effort, along with recent lawsuits seeking to increase college players’ rights, has the potential to upend the business of college sports. The 123 football programs in the NCAA’s Football Bowl Subdivision turned a $1.3 billion profit on $3.2 billion in revenue in the fiscal year ended June 2013, according to data schools submit to the U.S. Department of Education.
NLRB Review
In its appeal, Northwestern argued that Chicago NLRB Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr ignored key evidence and that the decision “improperly refused to apply the legal precedent established in the NLRB’s 2004 decision in Brown University, in which the NLRB held that the graduate assistants were primarily students, not employees,” the school said in a news release.
The atmosphere surrounding today’s election was “relatively uncommon” because there are substantial outside interests -- those not directly connected to Northwestern -- who might be affected by its outcome, said Haagen, the Duke law professor.
The choice players have was more ideological than practical, as their college eligibility soon will expire and most of them probably won’t be involved with unions in the next stage of their lives, Haagen said in a phone interview.
“The bulk of the Northwestern players are in a transitional period of their lives,” Haagen said. “There is the negotiating of that shift from one place to another, and that makes their position unusual.”
-
Correct. Title IX applies to education and these athletes will still be enrolled as students in the University, but they will be paid as well. It's somewhat of a gray area. Also because the athletic department at virtually every university receives federal funding, the department as a whole is still subject to Title IX. Given that athletic participation is seen as a part of the educational experience (although not an integral part depending on the court) and schools are still subject to Title IX, paying players probably won't get rid of Title IX.
Also from the standpoint of a school or the NCAA, do you really want to be the one that says "We don't want to comply with Title IX because we want to pay our football team." That would end poorly.
-
Title IX was enacted to prevent discrimination from education programs, which included college athletics. It was not meant to apply to employment at a university. I think the NCAA could make a strong argument that Title IX no longer applies if athletes are now considered employees under the law. Title IX doesn't require universities to maintain an equal number of male and female coaches or male and female professors. Why should they be required to maintain an equal number of male and female scholarship athletes or sports if participating in those sports is now considered employment?
I understand this would be unpopular in many circles, but the decision of the NLRB changes the equation.
It really doesn't. Title IX does apply to university faculty and staff. Just in different ways.
People often forget that equity in college sports is only a minuscule part of Title IX. The main purpose of the bill was to protect against gender discrimination in higher education. This covers everything from college athletics, to admissions standards, to sexual assault (which according to the law is a type of gender discrimination).
Just because the university starts calling them employees doesn't mean that they aren't still athletes. The way Title IX is worded it would still bind universities whether or not the students become unionized.
-
It really doesn't. Title IX does apply to university faculty and staff. Just in different ways.
People often forget that equity in college sports is only a minuscule part of Title IX. The main purpose of the bill was to protect against gender discrimination in higher education. This covers everything from college athletics, to admissions standards, to sexual assault (which according to the law is a type of gender discrimination).
Just because the university starts calling them employees doesn't mean that they aren't still athletes. The way Title IX is worded it would still bind universities whether or not the students become unionized.
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion. It's not a question of employees ceasing to be athletes. It's the fact that being employees means they are not participating in an educational activity or program governed by Title IX.
The only reason Title IX applies to athletics is because it is viewed as an educational program or activity. Title IX does not apply in the same way to employees, even if they are students. Title IX doesn't require the same standards of equality for students working at the student union for example.
The NLRB stated explicitly in the decision that sports were completely seperate from academic programs. That's why they were determined to be employees while teachers aides, for example, are not.
-
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion. It's not a question of employees ceasing to be athletes. It's the fact that being employees means they are not participating in an educational activity or program governed by Title IX.
The only reason Title IX applies to athletics is because it is viewed as an educational program or activity. Title IX does not apply in the same way to employees, even if they are students. Title IX doesn't require the same standards of equality for students working at the student union for example.
The NLRB stated explicitly in the decision that sports were completely seperate from academic programs. That's why they were determined to be employees while teachers aides, for example, are not.
I'm guessing "Legal" Eagle is a lawyer. He certainly seems to have informed opinion on this.
-
I'm guessing "Legal" Eagle is a lawyer. He certainly seems to have informed opinion on this.
Yes, and he conceded that labeling athletes employees puts them in a gray area. He says that it probably won't change how Title IX applies. I agree, but I still think the NCAA has a very strong argument. NLRB statement that athletics is separate from education is contrary to Title IX's categorization of athletics. I would argue that both can't be right.
-
A Northwestern player who voted said that he was 80 percent sure the team voted no to unionizing, and almost all of the players opted to vote, according to the Chicago Tribune. The player was granted anonymity by the newspaper for fear of repercussions, it said.
Like I said a few weeks ago, didn't think they would vote for it. We won't know for certain until the votes are announced down the road, but even out of the gate the very first day a bunch of NW players and their families were not buying the unionization BS in the interviews I saw. Of course, the outside forces pushing this will balk at that assertion. I hope it truly is a number that overwhelming. Heck, 60% or higher would be enough for me.
-
Yes, and he conceded that labeling athletes employees puts them in a gray area. He says that it probably won't change how Title IX applies. I agree, but I still think the NCAA has a very strong argument. NLRB statement that athletics is separate from education is contrary to Title IX's categorization of athletics. I would argue that both can't be right.
Title IX is a very slippery slope. There are legitimate crusades and there is tilting at windmills. I respect Don Quixote for his passion and sense of justice but sacred cows are always safe.
-
Yes, and he conceded that labeling athletes employees puts them in a gray area. He says that it probably won't change how Title IX applies. I agree, but I still think the NCAA has a very strong argument. NLRB statement that athletics is separate from education is contrary to Title IX's categorization of athletics. I would argue that both can't be right.
In grad school I took a semester course only on TitleIX and the sports ramifications. There were only 7 of us in the class, two of them are AD's now so they have to live this stuff daily. After discussing this issue with one of them recently, he just doesn't see that sacred cow ever going away. The women's lib movement would explode.
-
two of them are AD's
You mean one of them. Larry is still unemployed.
-
I'm guessing "Legal" Eagle is a lawyer. He certainly seems to have informed opinion on this.
Actually just a law student at Marquette ;D One year to go. I'm studying sports law though. Marquette has a great sports law program (many consider it the best) but I've been here since '08 for undergrad. We've spent a lot of time discussing this very issue with people in the program and in the industry.
-
Actually just a law student at Marquette ;D One year to go. I'm studying sports law though. Marquette has a great sports law program (many consider it the best) but I've been here since '08 for undergrad. We've spent a lot of time discussing this very issue with people in the program and in the industry.
well done and best wishes!
-
You mean one of them. Larry is still unemployed.
Nah, Larry went to ND. This was IU. Both of them AD's at some high major DI programs.
-
In grad school I took a semester course only on TitleIX and the sports ramifications. There were only 7 of us in the class, two of them are AD's now so they have to live this stuff daily. After discussing this issue with one of them recently, he just doesn't see that sacred cow ever going away. The women's lib movement would explode.
Just curious, did you discuss the issue after the NLRB decision? I wonder if that would impact his views at all?
-
Just curious, did you discuss the issue after the NLRB decision? I wonder if that would impact his views at all?
The NLRB ruling was a regional opinion and certainly not the final word on the matter. And the reality, as Chico points out, is that Title IX in all of its scope is a sacred cow that won't go away easily. The NLRB regional opinion is not necessarily final and remains open for debate. Title IX is Federal Law and will be as easy to change as Rowe v Wade due process under the 14th Amendment.
-
The NLRB ruling was a regional opinion and certainly not the final word on the matter. And the reality, as Chico points out, is that Title IX in all of its scope is a sacred cow that won't go away easily. The NLRB regional opinion is not necessarily final and remains open for debate. Title IX is Federal Law and will be as easy to change as Rowe v Wade due process under the 14th Amendment.
The NLRB opinion is as final as a district court decision. I understand that the NCAA can appeal, but the decision isn't open for debate until an appeal is heard.
Title IX doesn't have to be changed or repealed. It simply may not apply to athletes that are legally determined to be employees. That is an issue for the judiciary not the legislature.
You and Chico keep talking about repealing Title IX or making it "go away", which would require legislation to repeal it or a judicial decision that determines it to be unconstitutional. That is what Bush tried to do. That is the attempt to slaughter the sacred cow. I agree, that will never happen. I'm arguing that the law simply may not apply to athletes because the NLRB ruled they were employees separate from education programs. If the courts agreed they wouldn't be repealing the law.
-
The NLRB opinion is as final as a district court decision. I understand that the NCAA can appeal, but the decision isn't open for debate until an appeal is heard.
Title IX doesn't have to be changed or repealed. It simply may not apply to athletes that are legally determined to be employees. That is an issue for the judiciary not the legislature.
You and Chico keep talking about repealing Title IX or making it "go away", which would require legislation to repeal it or a judicial decision that determines it to be unconstitutional. That is what Bush tried to do. That is the attempt to slaughter the sacred cow. I agree, that will never happen. I'm arguing that the law simply may not apply to athletes because the NLRB ruled they were employees separate from education programs. If the courts agreed they wouldn't be repealing the law.
I said Title IX will not be easy to change much less overturn. In any event, I'm not a lawyer so all I can do is spout ill-informed opinion. But my opinion is that students given athletic scholarships are no more entitled to economic benefit than the far greater number of students engaged in academic research which generates significant revenue for the universities which, in total, far exceed the revenues from sports.
I have worked with two major research universities to commercialize proprietary intellectual property which is done to advance the knowledge base through continued research. Students helping figure out answers through scientific investigation are not considered employees but, rather, scholars. Frankly, they have an equal if not greater stake in the NLRB ruling which could at a minimum disrupt ongoing research efforts. This issue is far wider than just athletes which is a redistribution of broadcast revenues.
-
A Northwestern player who voted said that he was 80 percent sure the team voted no to unionizing, and almost all of the players opted to vote, according to the Chicago Tribune. The player was granted anonymity by the newspaper for fear of repercussions, it said.
Like I said a few weeks ago, didn't think they would vote for it. We won't know for certain until the votes are announced down the road, but even out of the gate the very first day a bunch of NW players and their families were not buying the unionization BS in the interviews I saw. Of course, the outside forces pushing this will balk at that assertion. I hope it truly is a number that overwhelming. Heck, 60% or higher would be enough for me.
Unionization BS? Hoping its over 80%? I get you dont like it but youve made your point no need to keep attacking the idea.
-
Unionization BS? Hoping its over 80%? I get you dont like it but youve made your point no need to keep attacking the idea.
Why not? It's a bad idea.
-
A Northwestern player who voted said that he was 80 percent sure the team voted no to unionizing, and almost all of the players opted to vote, according to the Chicago Tribune. The player was granted anonymity by the newspaper for fear of repercussions, it said.
Like I said a few weeks ago, didn't think they would vote for it. We won't know for certain until the votes are announced down the road, but even out of the gate the very first day a bunch of NW players and their families were not buying the unionization BS in the interviews I saw. Of course, the outside forces pushing this will balk at that assertion. I hope it truly is a number that overwhelming. Heck, 60% or higher would be enough for me.
But like we said too, the threat of a union has already worked. The power conferences are moving on a major overhaul giving the players largely what the union movement was asking for. Yes, you will argue these changes were in the works for a long time but they would have stayed in the works for a long time to come if it wasn't for the battering ram of union movement to force them to act now.
-
Unionization BS? Hoping its over 80%? I get you dont like it but youve made your point no need to keep attacking the idea.
It's a dumb idea, and if 80% of the people that are actually involved vote that way, it shows how epic dumb it is. A lot of people here thought unionization was a slam dunk, go back and read the posts from 6 weeks ago.
Then slowly the back pedaling...back back back back back.
It is a dumb idea that will have massive negative impacts on the whole for college sports to benefit a small few.
DUMB DUMB DUMB
Glad to see the smart kids at NW understood this. My bigger fear is that they try this again and find another school with a lot fewer smart kids to give it a whirl.
-
But like we said too, the threat of a union has already worked. The power conferences are moving on a major overhaul giving the players largely what the union movement was asking for. Yes, you will argue these changes were in the works for a long time but they would have stayed in the works for a long time to come if it wasn't for the battering ram of union movement to force them to act now.
You also said this was going to pass. And UW was going to miss the NCAA tournament, and MU make it, etc.
You're still missing the overall point here, and that is that they are not employees. If that ruling stands or they unionize, its over. Some of you were jumping for joy at that idea, but I seriously think some of you have no idea the ramifications if that were to happen. Absolutely none.
-
The NLRB is staffed currently with appointees that have strong union ties. This ruling is no surprise.
It will be over turned by the supreme court.
-
You also said this was going to pass. And UW was going to miss the NCAA tournament, and MU make it, etc.
You're still missing the overall point here, and that is that they are not employees. If that ruling stands or they unionize, its over. Some of you were jumping for joy at that idea, but I seriously think some of you have no idea the ramifications if that were to happen. Absolutely none.
We don't know what the vote is but I said it would pass but would be close. We'll find out next year.
And you're way overplaying the doomsday scenario. The ruling alone is enough to get the IRS, if they choose, to tax scholarships. That was the make or break ... A professional opinion that they are employees, not the vote.
So, when do college sports end as we know it?
-
On the contrary unionization changes a lot. There are mandatory subjects of bargaining, terms and conditions of the CBA get non-statutory labor exemption from antitrust claims, the union becomes the sole representative of all members (unless both sides agree to negotiating individual contracts, like the pros) and a whole host of other things. The IRS isn't going to tax scholarships until this goes all the way through.
As for a court overruling an NLRB decision, whichever party goes into the court proceedings with a decision in their favor has the advantage. Courts are reluctant to impose their ideas/decisions on the NLRB, so generally they will only review and overturn a case if there were procedural errors or if the NLRB arbitrator "dispensed his own particular brand of industrial justice." Granted that doesn't mean the court won't do it anyways, especially the SC, but that side will have the upper hand going in to it.
It'll be an interesting movement to follow. The NLRB is allowing amicus briefs so you can bet Donald Remy and the NCAA are hard at work preparing one, if they haven't already. By the way thanks for the discussion everyone this is a much better way to study some of my pro sports material for the final on Monday.
-
On the contrary unionization changes a lot. There are mandatory subjects of bargaining, terms and conditions of the CBA get non-statutory labor exemption from antitrust claims, the union becomes the sole representative of all members (unless both sides agree to negotiating individual contracts, like the pros) and a whole host of other things. The IRS isn't going to tax scholarships until this goes all the way through.
As for a court overruling an NLRB decision, whichever party goes into the court proceedings with a decision in their favor has the advantage. Courts are reluctant to impose their ideas/decisions on the NLRB, so generally they will only review and overturn a case if there were procedural errors or if the NLRB arbitrator "dispensed his own particular brand of industrial justice." Granted that doesn't mean the court won't do it anyways, especially the SC, but that side will have the upper hand going in to it.
It'll be an interesting movement to follow. The NLRB is allowing amicus briefs so you can bet Donald Remy and the NCAA are hard at work preparing one, if they haven't already. By the way thanks for the discussion everyone this is a much better way to study some of my pro sports material for the final on Monday.
Legal
How does the regional NLRB ruling affect grad students doing research at universities? These guys are on scholarship and their work helps generate huge sums of revenue for the university. With venture plays and uptick in equity the value to universities can be staggering.
-
It doesn't. The ruling only applies to scholarship football players at Northwestern. Which is odd because some of them won't even be there by the time a final ruling is made. Walk-ons for the football team can't even vote. Besides the NLRB already ruled on graduate assistants I believe and said they aren't employees. I think that was part of Northwesterns case during the original ruling. I'll double check tomorrow.
-
How are grad students on scholarship different than scholarship athletes? Both generate both direct and indirect revenue streams for the enterprise but have similar fixed compensation. Isn't the fundamental argument advanced by the athletes that they should share in more of the upside? If so then research workers could make the same claim.
Grad researchers sign away IP rights in exchange for tuition and use of university infrastructure in which to conduct research. Any innovation with commercial value belongs to the enterprise. And while most grad students work under a professorial grant they do make discoveries that alter or materially change the scope, direction, or emphasis of research. As I said, I'm not a lawyer but if athletes can unionize and seek a greater return then why not scholars?
-
Or vice versa.
This inconsistency will expose this case for what it is.
-
How are grad students on scholarship different than scholarship athletes? Both generate both direct and indirect revenue streams for the enterprise but have similar fixed compensation. Isn't the fundamental argument advanced by the athletes that they should share in more of the upside? If so then research workers could make the same claim.
According to the NLRB, the difference is that sports are completely separate from education programs and activities. That is why I asked the question about Title IX. If it's not an education program or activity it shouldn't apply.
-
According to the NLRB, the difference is that sports are completely separate from education programs and activities. That is why I asked the question about Title IX. If it's not an education program or activity it shouldn't apply.
That's not how the law had been enforced, however. Sports provided an academic institution are part of the educational structure and cannot be separated.
-
Just curious, did you discuss the issue after the NLRB decision? I wonder if that would impact his views at all?
The recent NLRB decision a few days ago allowing the appeal? No. I did talk to them after the original ruling. Also spoke to a friend at the NCAA who primarily works on championships for the non revenue sports. He lives this stuff day to day trying to help the 430K athletes that benefit from the NCAA tournament contract and aren't going to the NBA or NFL after their experience is done. As he said, this could be catastrophic for Olympic and non-revenue sports.
-
That's not how the law had been enforced, however. Sports provided an academic institution are part of the educational structure and cannot be separated.
According to Title IX that's what sports are; part of education. The NLRB says otherwise. It appears that there are conflicting precedents.
-
According to Title IX that's what sports are; part of education. The NLRB says otherwise. It appears that there are conflicting precedents.
I guess I don't see where the NLRB said this, but that doesn't mean they didn't. They ruled they are employees, but still part of the educational system as far as I've been able to determine.
Let's say the NLRB is right and they are employees and let's say they can be separated from TitleIX argument somehow. TitleIX sports is entirely dependent on the revenues of NCAA basketball contract, so if those revenues are taken away as a result of this policy I would love to see the fireworks explode on the left on this one. Unions preventing women from opportunities, that alone might be worth watching the left eat their own....it's also why it won't happen.
-
According to Title IX that's what sports are; part of education. The NLRB says otherwise. It appears that there are conflicting precedents.
The NLRB ruled they are employees. Right now they are non-unionized employees. Whether they become unionized employees is irrelevant. The doomsday scenario Chicos paints has now occurred.
The only thing that can stop it is the larger NLRB or the courts reversing it.
-
According to Title IX that's what sports are; part of education. The NLRB says otherwise. It appears that there are conflicting precedents.
But it doesn't render them non-students. They are reclassified to student employees which has different ramifications than normal employees. I believe this will prevent any major challenge.
My understanding on this is limited. I'm not a lawyer. I have only taken a few classes on higher education law.
-
I guess I don't see where the NLRB said this, but that doesn't mean they didn't. They ruled they are employees, but still part of the educational system as far as I've been able to determine.
Nope, the ruling hinges on the fact that Football was deemed separate from NU educational programs. Read this, http://college-football.si.com/2014/04/24/northwestern-union-vote-legal-clarification/ (http://college-football.si.com/2014/04/24/northwestern-union-vote-legal-clarification/) OR read the excerpt below.
Clearing up legal misconceptions before the Northwestern football players’ union vote
Legal Matters, NCAA, Northwestern Wildcats
By Chris Johnson
Northwestern contended in its appeal of the ruling, formally called a request for review, that Ohr disregarded and misapplied board precedent. In 2004, the board ruled that teaching assistants at Brown University were primarily students and could not collectively bargain with their university.
Northwestern football players are different, Ohr argued, because unlike teaching assistants, their service to the university is completely separate from academics. He relied on testimony given by former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter, who is leading the players in their bid to unionize. Colter suggested that football is inimical to academic success.
William Gould, the NLRB chairman from 1994-98 and a professor of labor and discrimination law at Stanford, believes the Brown decision may eventually be overturned. He also said it does not apply to the Northwestern football union case. “I think the regional director was correct that the Brown ruling, which I think itself is flawed, was based upon the idea that the individuals, the teaching assistants — their work was bound up with the academic mission of the university and was easily distinguishable from this case here,” Gould said. “The work is not tied up with the educational mission of the university.”
-
But it doesn't render them non-students. They are reclassified to student employees which has different ramifications than normal employees. I believe this will prevent any major challenge.
There might not be a challenge, but this won't be the reason. You are just wrong on this.
Title IX doesn't protect students from discrimination in anything and everything they pursue at a university. Title IX protects students from discrimination in education programs and activities. According to Title IX, athletics fits the description of education program or activity. According to the NLRB decision it does not.
Again, student employees at a student union or residence hall aren't affected by Title IX because their jobs aren't tied to education programs.
-
Again, student employees at a student union or residence hall aren't affected by Title IX because their jobs aren't tied to education programs.
I'm pretty sure it does. Just it in a different ways. It doesn't call for gender balance, but it does protect against gender discrimination. Title IX protects student employees from being fired because of their gender for example.
-
I'm pretty sure it does. Just it in a different ways. It doesn't call for gender balance, but it does protect against gender discrimination. Title IX protects student employees from being fired because of their gender for example.
There isn't an employer in America that can fire an employee because of their gender. That's got nothing to do with being a student. It also has nothing to do with the rules mandating equality in athletic programs.
-
How are grad students on scholarship different than scholarship athletes? Both generate both direct and indirect revenue streams for the enterprise but have similar fixed compensation. Isn't the fundamental argument advanced by the athletes that they should share in more of the upside? If so then research workers could make the same claim.
Grad researchers sign away IP rights in exchange for tuition and use of university infrastructure in which to conduct research. Any innovation with commercial value belongs to the enterprise. And while most grad students work under a professorial grant they do make discoveries that alter or materially change the scope, direction, or emphasis of research. As I said, I'm not a lawyer but if athletes can unionize and seek a greater return then why not scholars?
Keefe,
Is this what you were talking about?
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140430/yale-graduate-students-petition-to-form-union
Yale graduate students petition to form union
By Jim Shelton, New Haven Register
Posted: 04/30/14, 7:18 PM EDT
NEW HAVEN >> Riding the momentum of similar movements at the University of Connecticut and New York University, graduate students at Yale University Wednesday presented officials with a 1,000-signature petition asking for a vote to unionize.
Several hundred members of the Graduate Employees and Students Organization, along with supporters from Unite Here Locals 34 and 35, marched in the rain from the Hall of Graduate Studies on York Street to the office of Yale President Peter Salovey on Wall Street. They gave one copy of their petition to Graduate School Dean Thomas D. Pollard and left another copy with Salovey’s secretary.
“If ever there was a day to show this is not a fair-weather movement, this is it,” shouted GESO Chair Aaron Greenberg, on the steps of Woodbridge Hall. Rallying students wore rain gear and chanted, “Our work makes Yale work.”
GESO has existed for decades, supporting union efforts at Yale by Locals 34 and 35 and pushing for the rights of graduate students to bargain collectively with the university. Yale has never recognized the group.
Yet GESO has been buoyed by two recent events. In April, graduate students at UConn voted to form a union after the university agreed to a process by which graduate students could vote on unionization. The same thing happened in 2013 at NYU.
“It’s exciting to have graduate students stand up and say they deserve a seat at the table,” said Ted Fertic, a graduate student in Yale’s history department.
Yale spokesman Tom Conroy said Wednesday the university and graduate school “have worked and will continue to work productively with faculty and students, including the Graduate Student Assembly, on the issues identified by the petition. We are committed to the best possible academic outcomes for our students.”
Conroy did not say whether Salovey had seen the petition. Pressure from GESO on unionization may prove to be Salovey’s first labor relations test since taking over as Yale president last year.
For GESO members at the rally, unionization is a matter of fair treatment for an increasing workload during tense economic times. They spoke of pay equity, health benefits, child care and negotiated grievance procedures, among other items.
“We teach, we grade, we hold office hours, we oversee experiments. We do work, and our work matters,” said Greenberg, a graduate student in political science. “If the university trusts us to teach, they should trust us to negotiate over the conditions of our work.”
According to Greenberg, an increasing amount of the teaching and academic work at U.S. colleges and universities is being done by graduate students who are not on a tenure track and have no job security.
Kim, a fourth-year graduate student in the English department, said she teaches two classes at Yale. She wrote the syllabus, teaches each class session and grades every paper.
“My work here takes many forms,” Kim said.
GESO gathered signatures for the petition over the past four weeks. The document asked that Yale work with GESO to create a fair process for graduate students to vote on union representation.
The petition also asked Yale to maintain competitive wages and benefits, address unfair workload situations, negotiate with graduate students as Yale adds two residential colleges and boost hiring of women and people of color.
“We have the same issues,” Tyisha Walker, secretary-treasurer of Local 35, said at the rally. “You’re not trying to get rich. You’re trying to take care of your families and yourselves.”
Also attending the rally was Local 34 Vice President Maureen Jones. “You say ‘yes,’ they say ‘no.’ You know what happens? They come around,” Jones said. “They really ought to understand that all work is work.”
Call Jim Shelton at 203-789-5664. Have questions, feedback or ideas about our news coverage? Connect directly with the editors of the New Haven Register at AskTheRegister.com.
-
Keefe,
Is this what you were talking about?
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140430/yale-graduate-students-petition-to-form-union
Yale graduate students petition to form union
By Jim Shelton, New Haven Register
Posted: 04/30/14, 7:18 PM EDT
NEW HAVEN >> Riding the momentum of similar movements at the University of Connecticut and New York University, graduate students at Yale University Wednesday presented officials with a 1,000-signature petition asking for a vote to unionize.
Several hundred members of the Graduate Employees and Students Organization, along with supporters from Unite Here Locals 34 and 35, marched in the rain from the Hall of Graduate Studies on York Street to the office of Yale President Peter Salovey on Wall Street. They gave one copy of their petition to Graduate School Dean Thomas D. Pollard and left another copy with Salovey’s secretary.
“If ever there was a day to show this is not a fair-weather movement, this is it,” shouted GESO Chair Aaron Greenberg, on the steps of Woodbridge Hall. Rallying students wore rain gear and chanted, “Our work makes Yale work.”
GESO has existed for decades, supporting union efforts at Yale by Locals 34 and 35 and pushing for the rights of graduate students to bargain collectively with the university. Yale has never recognized the group.
Yet GESO has been buoyed by two recent events. In April, graduate students at UConn voted to form a union after the university agreed to a process by which graduate students could vote on unionization. The same thing happened in 2013 at NYU.
“It’s exciting to have graduate students stand up and say they deserve a seat at the table,” said Ted Fertic, a graduate student in Yale’s history department.
Yale spokesman Tom Conroy said Wednesday the university and graduate school “have worked and will continue to work productively with faculty and students, including the Graduate Student Assembly, on the issues identified by the petition. We are committed to the best possible academic outcomes for our students.”
Conroy did not say whether Salovey had seen the petition. Pressure from GESO on unionization may prove to be Salovey’s first labor relations test since taking over as Yale president last year.
For GESO members at the rally, unionization is a matter of fair treatment for an increasing workload during tense economic times. They spoke of pay equity, health benefits, child care and negotiated grievance procedures, among other items.
“We teach, we grade, we hold office hours, we oversee experiments. We do work, and our work matters,” said Greenberg, a graduate student in political science. “If the university trusts us to teach, they should trust us to negotiate over the conditions of our work.”
According to Greenberg, an increasing amount of the teaching and academic work at U.S. colleges and universities is being done by graduate students who are not on a tenure track and have no job security.
Kim, a fourth-year graduate student in the English department, said she teaches two classes at Yale. She wrote the syllabus, teaches each class session and grades every paper.
“My work here takes many forms,” Kim said.
GESO gathered signatures for the petition over the past four weeks. The document asked that Yale work with GESO to create a fair process for graduate students to vote on union representation.
The petition also asked Yale to maintain competitive wages and benefits, address unfair workload situations, negotiate with graduate students as Yale adds two residential colleges and boost hiring of women and people of color.
“We have the same issues,” Tyisha Walker, secretary-treasurer of Local 35, said at the rally. “You’re not trying to get rich. You’re trying to take care of your families and yourselves.”
Also attending the rally was Local 34 Vice President Maureen Jones. “You say ‘yes,’ they say ‘no.’ You know what happens? They come around,” Jones said. “They really ought to understand that all work is work.”
Call Jim Shelton at 203-789-5664. Have questions, feedback or ideas about our news coverage? Connect directly with the editors of the New Haven Register at AskTheRegister.com.
Exactly, Nutmeg. I am on the campus of a major research university every week and I work closely with grad students. There are very mixed feelings about unionizing here but there is unanimity around compensation. I will say that the U Dub might be different in that it rewards faculty and grad students with equity in commercialization of research; this policy is definitely not universal within academia.
I liken research-based comp programs to equity and profit sharing schemes offered by corporations. U Dub never had a gun to its head but recognized that giving people a piece of the upside might be an inducement to innovation in the laboratory. Regardless of work setting or locale, people will always perform according to how they are rewarded. I am a big fan of defining the levers that will make a difference for the organization and its shareholders and putting into place the mechanisms that will deliver the desired outcomes. The most successful enterprises do this as a matter of policy.
-
In the SI piece I linked in an earlier post they discuss the grad student issue and why the NLRB viewed them differently than Northwestern football players. The difference came down to each programs primary function. The NLRB decided that football was completely separate from university education programs, and grad research programs were not. One of lawyers or law professors quoted in the article believes that the decision on grad students will be reversed at some point and they would then be allowed to proceed with unionization.
-
So where's the outrage over graduate researchers attempting to unionize?
Isn't the opportunity the University gives them to get an education and gain valuable experience/exposure in their field enough?
What will this do to University graduate programs across the country?
-
So where's the outrage over graduate researchers attempting to unionize?
Isn't the opportunity the University gives them to get an education and gain valuable experience/exposure in their field enough?
What will this do to University graduate programs across the country?
I don't think there is nearly the outrage for many reasons, one of them in your very first sentence in this post. You've almost answered it yourself. The distinction between graduate researchers and undergraduate student athletes couldn't be more stark.