College Football Players Not Employees; Can't Unionize

[What Would Jesus Do?]

SIAP

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/n...ize/103265?cid=bn&utm_source=bn&utm_medium=en

It doesn't really sound to me like this completely "decides" the issue, but it surely makes it tougher to go forward.

The National Labor Relations Board declined on Monday to rule on whether Northwestern University football players are employees of the college, effectively dooming their bid to unionize. The ruling supersedes a regional office’s 2014 decision in the players’ favor.


In its decision, the board wrote that considering the athletes’ case “would not promote stability in labor relations,” and cited “recent changes, as well as calls for additional reforms” as evidence that “the situation of scholarship players may well change in the near future.”


The decision renders moot the results of the athletes’ vote last year on whether they would unionize. Those ballots were impounded while the full NLRB considered the case.


The athletes had said that they were seeking long-term health care and better educational assistance. The National Collegiate Athletic Association and Northwestern argued against the union drive, saying the athletes were primarily students and didn’t qualify as university employees.


In a statement, Northwestern said it was “pleased” with the board’s ruling. “As the University has stated previously, Northwestern considers its students who participate in NCAA Division I sports, including those who receive athletic scholarships, to be students, first and foremost.” The college added that it “applauded” the athletes for “bringing national attention to these important issues.”

 

[Bob Pelini_]

They are not employees, the declination was not unexpected.

 

[theIowaHawk]

They are not employees, the declination was not unexpected.

That isn't what they ruled.

 

[GarryO37]

That isn't what they ruled.

Employees have the right to unionize. The NLRA gives employees that right. By dismissing their bid to unionize, you are effectively saying that they are not considered employees. That may change in the future. But as of right now, they are not.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Employees have the right to unionize. The NLRA gives employees that right. By dismissing their bid to unionize, you are effectively saying that they are not considered employees. That may change in the future. But as of right now, they are not.

Except that is a complete mischaracterization. They simply dismissed it, making no conclusion regarding their status as employee/student/whatever.

You got one part right: they can not unionize within the NLRB.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Except that is a complete mischaracterization. They simply dismissed it, making no conclusion regarding their status as employee/student/whatever.

You got one part right: they can not unionize within the NLRB.

Why is it so important to you to quibble over the wording - even as you walk back your objections?

They left standing the university's assertion that they aren't employees. So they aren't employees. And, as you now acknowledge, they can't unionize.

If you want to quibble about something, I'd suggest quibbling about the board's dubious reasoning that because there are conversations and possible changes on the horizon, they shouldn't rule.

Imagine if the Supreme Court used that argument to not rule on Obamacare or same sex marriage. There are always such conversations going on and it's always possible that changes will come by other avenues. That's not a good excuse to shirk their responsibility. Chicken shits.

 

[joelbc1]

Why is it so important to you to quibble over the wording - even as you walk back your objections?

They left standing the university's assertion that they aren't employees. So they aren't employees. And, as you now acknowledge, they can't unionize.

If you want to quibble about something, I'd suggest quibbling about the board's dubious reasoning that because there are conversations and possible changes on the horizon, they shouldn't rule.

Imagine if the Supreme Court used that argument to not rule on Obamacare or same sex marriage. There are always such conversations going on and it's always possible that changes will come by other avenues. That's not a good excuse to shirk their responsibility. Chicken shits.

Because Iowa Hawk is right. The case was dismissed w/o comment by the NLRB. I don't believe they said that "students are not employees therefore have no right to unionize." They simply said, "No, were aren't going to hear this case and we are not going to make a ruling on it, at this time."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Because Iowa Hawk is right. The case was dismissed w/o comment by the NLRB. I don't believe they said that "students are not employees therefore have no right to unionize." They simply said, "No, were aren't going to hear this case and we are not going to make a ruling on it, at this time."

Good grief! This happens all the time when SCOTUS lets lower rulings stand or reverts to the original court ruling over the appeals court ruling.

We always take that as an endorsement of the position that was not upheld. Why are you 2 normally smart people going off on a different tangent on this one?

Are you protecting some preconceived opinion about whether footballers are employees? Something else?

Your views don't make sense.

 

[GarryO37]

Because Iowa Hawk is right. The case was dismissed w/o comment by the NLRB. I don't believe they said that "students are not employees therefore have no right to unionize." They simply said, "No, were aren't going to hear this case and we are not going to make a ruling on it, at this time."

Do you actually need them to come out and say it? I don't.

Like I said, things may change in the future, but they definitely took a position when they dismissed this case. Do you actually think that if they could make a case that students are employees of a university, the NLRB wouldn't be all over it?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why is it so important to you to quibble over the wording - even as you walk back your objections?

They left standing the university's assertion that they aren't employees. So they aren't employees. And, as you now acknowledge, they can't unionize.

If you want to quibble about something, I'd suggest quibbling about the board's dubious reasoning that because there are conversations and possible changes on the horizon, they shouldn't rule.

Imagine if the Supreme Court used that argument to not rule on Obamacare or same sex marriage. There are always such conversations going on and it's always possible that changes will come by other avenues. That's not a good excuse to shirk their responsibility. Chicken shits.

?

I walked back nothing.

It is an extremely important distinction, ruling them non-employees (like the regional board ruling them so) would have strong implications towards the entire NCAA model.

Dismissing it as they did has much, much narrower implications, while continuing to allow the status quo to continue.

If you think that is "quibbling", you are in over your head.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Good grief! This happens all the time when SCOTUS lets lower rulings stand or reverts to the original court ruling over the appeals court ruling.

We always take that as an endorsement of the position that was not upheld. Why are you 2 normally smart people going off on a different tangent on this one?

Are you protecting some preconceived opinion about whether footballers are employees? Something else?

Your views don't make sense.

No, no we have not. Declining to take a case does not decide the lower issue, even more so at the SCOTUS level, because it can leave various interpretations in place controlling only their own circuits.

Garry, and your, general assertion is right, as I said, these students will not be considered employees because that was the status quo.

That is important, because it is not based on facts or law, but status quo upon dismissing the case.

Of course it was a chickenshit move, surprisingly so. But we can not, should not, take this as an endorsement that student =\= employee.

In fact I think the opposite is more logical. Had they believed, through law, that they were not employees they would have just done so. No real shockwaves from that. But what if they felt they couldn't? But at the same time didn't want to disrupt the NCAA? This would be there way out. Dismiss for weird reasons.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Do you actually need them to come out and say it? I don't.

Like I said, things may change in the future, but they definitely took a position when they dismissed this case. Do you actually think that if they could make a case that students are employees of a university, the NLRB wouldn't be all over it?

All they had to do was uphold the prior decision, something that happens all the time. See my above post, I believe the opposite that you do here.