Shyamalan Twist! NCAA athletes joining labor union?

[FerryFor50]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...in-labor-union

Would be an interesting headache for the NCAA...

[UrinalCake]

Does this mean the first union will be awesome and ground breaking, but then each one afterwards will get progressively worse until it's not worth our time anymore?

[FerryFor50]

Does this mean the first union will be awesome and ground breaking, but then each one afterwards will get progressively worse until it's not worth our time anymore?

Actually, that's a pretty accurate description of unions in general, without getting too political.

[A-Tex Devil]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...in-labor-union

Would be an interesting headache for the NCAA...

This seems like it is either absolutely nothing, or earth shattering. Lean toward former, but will have my popcorn ready.

There are so many variables at play here if this gets traction at other schools: from the fact that the NLRA only governs private enterprises (so, ostensibly, the private schools only), to the interplay with Title IX if the football players are deemed employees, to the effect in right to work states vs. non-right to work states.

[JasonEvans]

I am no labor lawyer, but would think the players will have to prove they are actually employees before they can be recognized as a union and collectively bargain. Actually being declared employees would be a huge, significant step as it would require the schools to at least pay them minimum wage, right? If you took all the hours of practice and game time and paid the players $8-10/hour for that time, it would be a fairly decent stipend and spending money.

-Jason "I think the NCAA's lawyers are going to have a fairly easy time proving the players are not employees" Evans

[FerryFor50]

I am no labor lawyer, but would think the players will have to prove they are actually employees before they can be recognized as a union and collectively bargain. Actually being declared employees would be a huge, significant step as it would require the schools to at least pay them minimum wage, right? If you took all the hours of practice and game time and paid the players $8-10/hour for that time, it would be a fairly decent stipend and spending money.

-Jason "I think the NCAA's lawyers are going to have a fairly easy time proving the players are not employees" Evans

But hasn't the NCAA's argument been "we pay them in scholarships and education"? There is an implied exchange for services there...

[peterjswift]

I am no labor lawyer, but would think the players will have to prove they are actually employees before they can be recognized as a union and collectively bargain. Actually being declared employees would be a huge, significant step as it would require the schools to at least pay them minimum wage, right? If you took all the hours of practice and game time and paid the players $8-10/hour for that time, it would be a fairly decent stipend and spending money.

-Jason "I think the NCAA's lawyers are going to have a fairly easy time proving the players are not employees" Evans

I'm not too worried about that. The tuition alone would be significantly more than minimum wage for any scholarship athlete. The scholarship would no longer be a gift, it would be salary.

Also - any student that is suddenly employed to play their sport would lose their amateur status and be in violation of NCAA rules...

[alteran]

I'm not too worried about that. The tuition alone would be significantly more than minimum wage for any scholarship athlete. The scholarship would no longer be a gift, it would be salary.

I think there are laws that require employee compensation be convertible to cash without penalty. It was a reform to stop employer abuses like only paying in company IOUs and such.

Pulling this back to the main subject, any time the NCAA has to defend their lucrative collegiate sports arrangement in court is a bad thing for the NCAA. People are worried about the O'Bannon case nuclear bomb going off, but the NCAA needs to be equally aware of a bunch of nickel and dime precedents that collectively overwhelm the status quo.

[77devil]

I am no labor lawyer, but would think the players will have to prove they are actually employees before they can be recognized as a union and collectively bargain. Actually being declared employees would be a huge, significant step as it would require the schools to at least pay them minimum wage, right? If you took all the hours of practice and game time and paid the players $8-10/hour for that time, it would be a fairly decent stipend and spending money.

-Jason "I think the NCAA's lawyers are going to have a fairly easy time proving the players are not employees" Evans

Nor am I but I suspect if the players were able to make the employee case the NCAA lawyers would argue that the direct economic value of the free education far exceeds the minimum wage because it does.

[fuse]

Tough topic. While I think the students should have rights and a voice, I'm not a big fan of the union approach.
A union is a construct whose time has come and gone.
Look at how unions almost destroyed the US auto industry.

I know pro player unions are a better analogy, but would NCAA/schools lock out players/students for seasons if the labor agreement was in dispute?

I'm picturing a professor ejecting a student athlete from a class because there is a union/NCAA/university dispute and that student is not allowed to pursue their education during the dispute.

[crimsondevil]

I'm picturing a professor ejecting a student athlete from a class because there is a union/NCAA/university dispute and that student is not allowed to pursue their education during the dispute.

At UNC they might be forced to attend class...

[allenmurray]

Look at how unions almost destroyed the US auto industry.

American car manufacturers thought the American public wanted, and would purchase and embrace, the following, so they made and marketed them:

Ford Pinto
Oldsmobile Cutlass Diesel
Ford Mustang II (70s version)
Chevrolet Vega
Cadillac Cimarron
AMC Gremlin
Chevrolet Chevette
Pontiac Aztek
Chrysler K-car (every one of them)

Somehow I think whatever the unions did that may have contributed to the demise of the US auto industry was overshadowed by the engineering and marketing decisions that led to the production of the above automobiles. The greatest union employees of all time couldn't have saved an auto industry that had executives who thought those cars were a good idea.

[JasonEvans]

I'm not too worried about that. The tuition alone would be significantly more than minimum wage for any scholarship athlete. The scholarship would no longer be a gift, it would be salary.

Nor am I but I suspect if the players were able to make the employee case the NCAA lawyers would argue that the direct economic value of the free education far exceeds the minimum wage because it does.

If I was the lawyer representing the players and the NCAA made the "but your scholarship is ample compensation" argument, I would have a hard time deciding who to call as my first witness, Trajan Langdon, Clay Matthews, Andre Drummond, or perhaps Patrick Davidson.

-Jason "I'd probably opt for Patrick as the jury would look at him and instantly bend to his will... that's one of his superpowers" Evans

[alteran]

Tough topic. While I think the students should have rights and a voice, I'm not a big fan of the union approach.
A union is a construct whose time has come and gone.
Look at how unions almost destroyed the US auto industry.

I know pro player unions are a better analogy, but would NCAA/schools lock out players/students for seasons if the labor agreement was in dispute?

I'm picturing a professor ejecting a student athlete from a class because there is a union/NCAA/university dispute and that student is not allowed to pursue their education during the dispute.

Please be cognizant of the rule against discussing politics / public policy on this board. I think the mods are giving us leniency on the potential union discussion here because it is directly related to the NCAA, but making blanket statements about unions in general abuses this leniency, and invites those that disagree vehemently to respond in kind.

If it's something you'd like to discuss I would certainly respond to IM.

Getting back on topic, the NCAA has accumulated enough enemies that people are hitting them on this on multiple fronts. They are losing the PR war of defending the status quo. They are on the receiving end of multiple legal threats. The O'Bannon lawsuit is essentially an existential threat, but a series of small precedents could easily undermine them as well. A union would open a huge can of worms.

Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before the NCAA status quo hits a tipping point.

[alteran]

Nor am I but I suspect if the players were able to make the employee case the NCAA lawyers would argue that the direct economic value of the free education far exceeds the minimum wage because it does.

Are you allowed to compensate employees entirely without money even if the employee requests monetary compensation? I don't think so.

There was a case a month or two back about employees being paid with cash cards (which required service fees to actually get one's pay). I remember an interviewer saying that was illegal-- I think it went back to laws preventing employers from issuing IOU's / company cash and then forcing employees to use company stores, etc. I'm sure there's someone here who can speak more knowledgeably than me on this topic.

I think the NCAA is trying to hit some legal sweet spot where they can compensate people (who they're making a lot of money off of), but the people are simultaneously not employees or contractors. I just don't think that's tenable when it gets looked at closely.

[JasonEvans]

Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before the NCAA status quo hits a tipping point.

To me, there is an obvious and clear end to all this. There are a group of schools -- the rich, TV-contract billionaire, BCS conference schools -- who would be perfectly happy to pay the players and set up a new structure outside the confines of the NCAA. Right now, inertia and a sense of obligation to their smaller counterparts; along with a desire to not have to deal with everything involved in managing the smaller non-revenue sports; is keeping those school stitched to the NCAA. But, a couple court rulings and lawsuits will likely provide all the incentive the ACC/SEC/PAC?/Big12/B!G schools need to build their own sandbox to play in... and there will be money for the players in that new sandbox.

-Jason "I will mourn it because it will be the end of the beautiful David-Goliath matchups in the NCAA hoops world that are so much fun, but I think it will be good for the players in the long run" Evans

[77devil]

If I was the lawyer representing the players and the NCAA made the "but your scholarship is ample compensation" argument, I would have a hard time deciding who to call as my first witness, Trajan Langdon, Clay Matthews, Andre Drummond, or perhaps Patrick Davidson.

-Jason "I'd probably opt for Patrick as the jury would look at him and instantly bend to his will... that's one of his superpowers" Evans

Ample compensation, which is subjective, and a state or federal minimum wage, which is precise, are different. And I would argue that a walk on is in a voluntary relationship that would not be deemed employment and ineligible to join the union.

[77devil]

Are you allowed to compensate employees entirely without money even if the employee requests monetary compensation? I don't think so.

There was a case a month or two back about employees being paid with cash cards (which required service fees to actually get one's pay). I remember an interviewer saying that was illegal-- I think it went back to laws preventing employers from issuing IOU's / company cash and then forcing employees to use company stores, etc. I'm sure there's someone here who can speak more knowledgeably than me on this topic.

I think the NCAA is trying to hit some legal sweet spot where they can compensate people (who they're making a lot of money off of), but the people are simultaneously not employees or contractors. I just don't think that's tenable when it gets looked at closely.

Pay the minimum wage and invoice the scholarship athlete partial tuition, room and board for the after tax equivalent.

[Duvall]

To me, there is an obvious and clear end to all this. There are a group of schools -- the rich, TV-contract billionaire, BCS conference schools -- who would be perfectly happy to pay the players and set up a new structure outside the confines of the NCAA. Right now, inertia and a sense of obligation to their smaller counterparts; along with a desire to not have to deal with everything involved in managing the smaller non-revenue sports; is keeping those school stitched to the NCAA. But, a couple court rulings and lawsuits will likely provide all the incentive the ACC/SEC/PAC?/Big12/B!G schools need to build their own sandbox to play in... and there will be money for the players in that new sandbox.

-Jason "I will mourn it because it will be the end of the beautiful David-Goliath matchups in the NCAA hoops world that are so much fun, but I think it will be good for the players in the long run" Evans

Which players? Doesn't seem like it will do much for players in the leagues that would be deprived of NCAA tournament revenue, or the players from non-revenue sports whose teams are dropped to find the funds to pay football and basketball players.

[brevity]

If I was the lawyer representing the players and the NCAA made the "but your scholarship is ample compensation" argument, I would have a hard time deciding who to call as my first witness, Trajan Langdon, Clay Matthews, Andre Drummond, or perhaps Patrick Davidson.

-Jason "I'd probably opt for Patrick as the jury would look at him and instantly bend to his will... that's one of his superpowers" Evans

Patrick Davidson is a special case. The NCAA has rules regarding payment to amateurs, but they never anticipated a player whose nail clippings serve as currency in many countries. He is so money, literally.