National Labor Relations Board gives Northwestern players the right to unionize

[SB39]

It wasn't through the generosity of employers that the 40 hour work week occurred, or paid vacations (or any vacations for that matter), or job based health benefits, or workplace safety standards, or the end of child labor, etc. I am well aware of union abuses, but a statement like yours bespeaks an unfathomable ignorance.

100 years ago, unions were a good thing and established those improvements you list above. But the modern day union? Not so much.

 

[Ivan]

Good ruling. If colleges can terminate academic scholarships for athletic reasons the players are employees not students, the educational benefits are for their services to the school.




This isn't about politics and it isn't about what people do or do want for their college sports, it's about rights, and if you can lose your education for missing 20 straight 3 pointers then you are working for the university sports program and got fired, because you can have straight A's in all courses and your ass still got cancelled. No one can tell me that is an academic decision.

 

[fnordcircle]

Most athletic departments already lose a ton of money (that is, the schools are subsidizing those sports out of general revenue, not the football/basketball programs) so I'm not certain how it could hurt them more than it already does.

Well I mean since that guy is already bleeding out then shooting him in the head probably wouldn't hurt him more, right?

 

[EddieBlake]

It wasn't through the generosity of employers that the 40 hour work week occurred, or paid vacations (or any vacations for that matter), or job based health benefits, or workplace safety standards, or the end of child labor, etc. I am well aware of union abuses, but a statement like yours bespeaks an unfathomable ignorance.

If you think the Union is some big benevolent entity only looking out for the little guy then your ignorance is the truly impressive beast.

 

[Gwedd]

Regarding College costs, being unable to afford tuition, etc.......

No one has a right to go to college. No one. Colleges exist to make money in exchange for providing an education. Of sorts. Life isn't fair, and I'd wager that a majority of students on campus don't need to be there. they are throwing good money away in pursuit of something that doesn't have near the value it did 50 years ago. Most High School guidance counselors, if they are honest, will tell you that the reason they push kids to attend college is that their districts and schools get money based upon graduation rates and college attendance. It's all about the money.

Many kids would do much better in a trade school, learning to be plumbers, electricians, X-Ray techs, Nurses, etc. There's a lot of money to be made there. The plumber I use charges $60/hour, and $90/hour after 5pm and on weekends. $120/hour on holidays. His family car is a new Lexus, and he's booked solid 6 weeks in advance.

But kids these days seem unwilling to get their hands dirty. The guidance counselors at their schools fill them with bunki about going to college and making scads of money, but the reality is that most of them will NOT make scads of money right off, and they'll be saddled with student loans whose repayment each month is usually about the same as a mortgage payment.

There are plenty of blue collar jobs available, but we, as a nation, and especially as parents, need to raise our kids with the idea of honest work, or earning your way, of doing whatever it takes to pay the bills. There is a great deal of personal satisfaction in doing work, of paying your way, of being a maker rather than a taker.

The NCAA is a taker, almost equivalent to the mob. Legalized extortion and racketeering. The entire program needs to go away, and if unionizing is what that takes, then so be it.

I'll be right up front: i despise unions. I consider them about the same as the mod too. I think it should be against the law for anyone earning their living with tax money, like teachers, firemen, cops, or any form of government employee, to unionize and use collective bargaining. But unions are legal in the civilian sector, and I have no truck with folks if that's what they want to do. However, I also want a national "right-to-work" law to prevent closed shops, etc. So, that's where I stand.

Colleges need to downsize, more kids need to go to trade schools, and the NCAA (and the entire SAT program) needs to go away. If unionizing the college athletes is what it take to push along that agenda, then I'll gladly hop aboard that train.

Again, YMMV, and that's fine, but this is how I see things.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

100 years ago, unions were a good thing and established those improvements you list above. But the modern day union? Not so much.

The problem with bashing unions is you are lumping unions all together, public and private.
Private unions have a viable basis, where a management team wants the company to succeed by paying their workers as little as possible (while getting sufficient productivity), while the Union wants to get as much wages/benefits as possible for their members (but keep them employed). This kind of adversarial, check and balance relationship can result in workers getting greater benefits for their work but management also retaining productivity/viability. Fyi, the collapse of Chrysler/GM, as an example, is as much a management fault as a union one (short sighted, take the easiest path, what the stock price is tomorrow is all that matters, management decision making was at fault too).

That is how a union should (and can only) work with this check and balance. Public unions do not have that check and balance whatsoever. Theirs is based on a warped system of 'you scratch my back, I scratch your back' electioneering which has given "unions" their biggest black eye. Yes, most public unions have outlived their usefulness (maybe were never useful) and deserve bashing. But bashing private workers getting together to collectively bargain with executive management (again who also work as one) to get a good share of the incredible amounts of profit being made? I don't agree with your assessment that that is not something useful in this day and age......

 

[unoriginal]

Gwedd, I literally don't understand where some of your points are coming from, though I admit I see them a lot whenever "college" comes up.

No one has a right to go to college. No one. Colleges exist to make money in exchange for providing an education. Of sorts. Life isn't fair, and I'd wager that a majority of students on campus don't need to be there.

But colleges don't exist to make money. They exist to facilitate the education of the public and in some cases are self-supporting. There is not supposed to be any profit motive. That is not why they were chartered.

If we can honestly say (perhaps we can?) that nowadays colleges exist to make their shareholders money then something has gone terribly, terribly wrong and students are not longer students but apprentices.

But kids these days seem unwilling to get their hands dirty. […]

There are plenty of blue collar jobs available, but we, as a nation, and especially as parents, need to raise our kids with the idea of honest work, or earning your way, of doing whatever it takes to pay the bills. There is a great deal of personal satisfaction in doing work, of paying your way, of being a maker rather than a taker.

What is this? Education isn't honest work? People who go to college are dishonest people? This is really mystifying. Where is this coming from.

You must really hate College Sports! Everything the Union touches turns to crap,ALA Detroit,the public school system,the post office etc. etc.

I hate college sports almost as much as I hate the NFL, which has also clearly been ravaged by its players union.

(And as an actual Detroiter, I cannot agree with you that unions are why the city turned to crap. The history of Detroit is one long, sad campaign of racism tearing apart a city. There are plenty of unions in the (racially segregated) suburbs and there's still plenty of wealth in the area.)

 

[upstater1]

Graduate students also receive stipends alongside their full-tuition scholarships. Athletes do not.

Stipends pay for living expenses. Athletes receive room and board. Athletes receive the same amount. At a state institution, currently a full board of meals and housing plus utilities is $12,000 (at the AAU land grant I just looked at). That's also the stipend for grad students. So what is the difference?

And the 'benighted students' were satisfactorily covered in the part of the decision that mentioned graduate fellows. 40 hours a week at practice is against NCAA regulations, but if you expand 'practice' to include film study, weight training, team dinners, etc - otherwise known as things that have nothing to do with academics - you're well over 40.

Weight training may be outside the scope of the 20 hours, but the film study certainly isn't. Think about it. 20 hours of 5 practices a week (which is a LOT when you have games, it's probably more like 4 practices), would mean 4 hour practices. Does anyone really believe coaches are running 4 hour practices? Clearly, the 20 hours incorporates meetings and film study. But again, I'd compare this to grad study as well in which there is preparation for service. It's the same thing. Same hours, same recompense, almost down to the dollar.

The academy and sports should be decoupled and amateurism should end. It's a marriage based on history and exploited because it makes some institutions (and the NCAA) a ton of money.

Schools lose money on sports.

 

[upstater1]

Most athletic departments already lose a ton of money (that is, the schools are subsidizing those sports out of general revenue, not the football/basketball programs) so I'm not certain how it could hurt them more than it already does.

Well, they'd lose MORE money, but then there's also the question of TitleIX and whether equitable treatment would require similar dispersals to women s well.

Not to mention the fact that the term "actual costs of attendance" is now a federally mandated metric which schools are required to post. So the stipend is in an amount that is automatically applicable to every student. If the SEC really wanted to jack up stipends for players, they would be federally required to advertise that actual costs of attendance are much higher than tuition, R&B and fees. That would be an odd predicament, can you imagine?

Tuition: $10k
R&B: $12k
Fees: $2k
Additional Costs: $4k

 

[primetime]

Stipends pay for living expenses. Athletes receive room and board. Athletes receive the same amount. At a state institution, currently a full board of meals and housing plus utilities is $12,000 (at the AAU land grant I just looked at). That's also the stipend for grad students. So what is the difference?



Weight training may be outside the scope of the 20 hours, but the film study certainly isn't. Think about it. 20 hours of 5 practices a week (which is a LOT when you have games, it's probably more like 4 practices), would mean 4 hour practices. Does anyone really believe coaches are running 4 hour practices? Clearly, the 20 hours incorporates meetings and film study. But again, I'd compare this to grad study as well in which there is preparation for service. It's the same thing. Same hours, same recompense, almost down to the dollar.



Schools lose money on sports.

If $12,000 stipends, assuming you're accurate, are in no way the norm. Most stipends range from $20 to $30k depending on the department, school and locality. That is in no way comparable to (always artificially inflated) school room and board.

In addition to weight training, you have games and travel for games. Varsity athletics is a demanding full time job, but higher education is also a demanding full time job.

Most schools lose money on sports. Yet they keep them around. They shouldn't - the academy and for profit athletics have no real reason to be married - but schools still subsidize sports that aren't basketball and football, and not just with revenues from those sports.

 

[upstater1]

That's not a simple fact at all.The mere fact that women's field hockey exists at many schools that are not Duke or FSU or Alabama (in fact, Old Dominion is the winningest program of all-time) demonstrates that it's not as simple as you say. It may be that - assuming the academy and athletics continue to hold together (they should not) - schools like Duke are no longer able to field a women's field hockey team, but instead other schools (like Old Dominion) which are willing to subsidize these sports pick up the slack.

And then there's the fact that sports that aren't men's basketball or football are played by men and women aged 18 to 22 in other countries which don't have America's idiosyncratic 'student-athlete' system.

You make a good point here. Schools are willing to lose money on sports even hen they are not competing at the highest level. That's been demonstrated. But this leaves out several considerations:

1. Whenever a school ramps up competition in revenue sports, the expenditures explode. This likely means that stupendous rises in expenditures are tied to ramping up competition in high revenue sports. Compare say U. Buffalo to Rhode Island. They competed at the same level for decades. URI spends $6 million a year (a loss) on all its sport including football. U. Buffalo used to spend $8 million a year. After ramping up football to the MAC conference, costs exploded over an 8 year period from $8m to $28m.

2. We don't know if there will be knock-on requirements to pay all students in non-revenue sports.

3. The cost of affiliation in far-flung conferences have created a situation in which Florida St. has to send its softball team to play Syracuse in April, and this jacks up AD costs, whereas in the past, the games were a bus ride. So, while the small school you mention maintain their non-revenue sports at a loss, they keep a good budget simply because travel and even coaching is more reasonable.

 

[BelichickFan]

Well, they'd lose MORE money, but then there's also the question of TitleIX and whether equitable treatment would require similar dispersals to women s well.

That's the slippery slope. If players for revenue generating sports get paid - I'd be against it but I could could see it to some extent. However if they are then able to get a Title IX type ruling (and I don't know that they would) that all sports need equal pay then the non revenue sports would have to start being cancelled. We already had men's programs cancelled at some schools to fulfill the Title IX requirements. And would the Alabama backup center get paid the same as McCarron or the Aggies 4th QB the same as JFF ?

I have no idea where this is going but if it holds it could literally end college sports if the money they need to pay makes them unsustainable.

 

[primetime]

Well, they'd lose MORE money, but then thlso the question of TitleIX and whether equitable treatment would require similar dispersals to women s well.

Not to mention the fact that the term "actual costs of attendance" is now a federally mandated metric which schools are required to post. So the stipend is in an amount that is automatically applicable to every student. If the SEC really wanted to jack up stipends for players, they would be federally required to advertise that actual costs of attendance are much higher than tuition, R&B and fees. That would be an odd predicament, can you imagine?

Tuition: $10k
R&B: $12k
Fees: $2k
Additional Costs: $4k

Most football and basketball programs lose money as well, so they wouldn't lose more money. Unless they're a huge program, but this decision shouldn't be based on what will happen to the Notre Dames of the world. It's a legal decision.

 

[primetime]

Good. There's no reason higher education and athletics should be combined. If you want to keep tradition, players can be employees of the school but not necessarily students.

 

[upstater1]

If $12,000 stipends, assuming you're accurate, are in no way the norm. Most stipends range from $20 to $30k depending on the department, school and locality. That is in no way comparable to (always artificially inflated) school room and board.

In addition to weight training, you have games and travel for games. Varsity athletics is a demanding full time job, but higher education is also a demanding full time job.

Most schools lose money on sports. Yet they keep them around. They shouldn't - the academy and for profit athletics have no real reason to be married - but schools still subsidize sports that aren't basketball and football, and not just with revenues from those sports.

$20-30k? That's far above what I see daily.

I am looking at AAU institutions like Penn State, Michigan, Buffalo and Boston U.

Students paid by faculty in research labs are different perhaps, and maybe they are earning $30k. But I guarantee you the standardized stipend for a student simply teaching say 2 classes of 35 students each per semester is much lower than that. When I was a grad student 13 years ago, my stipend was $8,000. This was at a top ranked AAU state school in the B1G.

And even if there are outliers in research labs getting paid $20-30k, you still have to account for the class of individuals at top research institutions making $12k. How are they different from athletes.

Besides, this isn't even about the additional $2k stipend for athletes--which I'm not arguing here.

My statements are in regard to this specific legal decision which sought to differentiate athletes from graduate instructors based on the amount of time they put in, as well as the status of the service they provide. I saw a host of errors and misconceptions in the actual ruling, and that's why I responded.

A reverse argument could easily be that the Union v. Brown decision a decade ago was incorrect. Grad instructors should perhaps be treated as employees as well. For that matter, so should interns at businesses, and a host of other areas where such labor concerns arise.

I don't think that people should dismiss the possibility that high caliber schools like Stanford and Northwestern may decide to opt out of sports the way so many top caliber privates have in the past.

 

[primetime]

$20-30k? That's far above what I see daily.

My statements are in regard to this specific legal decision which sought to differentiate athletes from graduate instructors based on the amount of time they put in, as well as the status of the service they provide. I saw a host of errors and misconceptions in the actual ruling, and that's why I responded.

Room and board at FSU is around $10k and the lowest graduate stipend was $12k in 2008-9 (so is probably higher now), per Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle: Facts & Figures: Endowments - Stipends for Graduate Assistants, 2008-9

As for the second part I quoted, I agree here. Keep in mind the NLRB does not respond to precedent to the same extent many higher courts do. I would expect Brown to be overturned sometime in the next couple years. Graduate students are already organizing at certain schools with the blessing of the administration.

 

[upstater1]

Room and board at FSU is around $10k and the lowest graduate stipend was $12k in 2008-9 (so is probably higher now), per Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle: Facts & Figures: Endowments - Stipends for Graduate Assistants, 2008-9

As for the second part I quoted, I agree here. Keep in mind the NLRB does not respond to precedent to the same extent many higher courts do. I would expect Brown to be overturned sometime in the next couple years. Graduate students are already organizing at certain schools with the blessing of the administration.

I'll add this. Grad instructors are a lot more profitable for universities than athletes in revenue sports are.

 

[patsfan13]

Well perhaps the schools can do away with tuition room & board, books ect and then the players union can negotiate their wages of course the players will have to pay their own way in that scenario.

My daughter played 4 years of college softball at the D1 level, they paid a good portion of her tuition (school was 30k+ per year) she got the rest (very good student) from academics. She viewed this as a good deal as it allowed he to attend a University we couldn't have afforded to send her to and she graduated without any student loans.

Since she was in a non revenue part of the recruiting involved using her team to bring up the GPA for the athletic program (top 10 nationally for Athletic Dept GPA).

Her sport was financed in large part by revenue generating sports.

The value for her was getting an education that allowed her to have a good career, if athletes get a free education at Northwestern and take that seriously it is a ticket to a great paying career.


We will see the effects of unintended consequences as a result of this ruling.

 

[Stylez]

OT: NLRB gives Northwestern players the right to unionize

Gwedd, I literally don't understand where some of your points are coming from, though I admit I see them a lot whenever "college" comes up.



But colleges don't exist to make money. They exist to facilitate the education of the public and in some cases are self-supporting. There is not supposed to be any profit motive. That is not why they were chartered.

If we can honestly say (perhaps we can?) that nowadays colleges exist to make their shareholders money then something has gone terribly, terribly wrong and students are not longer students but apprentices.



What is this? Education isn't honest work? People who go to college are dishonest people? This is really mystifying. Where is this coming from.


I hate college sports almost as much as I hate the NFL, which has also clearly been ravaged by its players union.

(And as an actual Detroiter, I cannot agree with you that unions are why the city turned to crap. The history of Detroit is one long, sad campaign of racism tearing apart a city. There are plenty of unions in the (racially segregated) suburbs and there's still plenty of wealth in the area.)

This seems like a very ideal perspective, as if everyone falls in line with the status quo. I think it's great, only we deal in the real world.

Also I think you misinterpreted his economic reference to the auto industry (which does have very good merit).

 

[primetime]

Getting way off topic, Detroit's auto industry decline was bad management, not the unions. Auto manufacturing in other countries actually has much stronger unionization but remains strong because management is creative and dynamic and does not rest on their laurels, assuming they'll remain strong.

We have the most expensive higher education in the free world. Gwedd, in his previous post, made a good point about the fact that higher education doesn't need to be for everyone, but I think he got the details wrong. The growth of cost is due to demand, because the Boomer generation was so large and education did actually help them establish strong productivity growth (and unionization helped ensure the gains of that growth were more evenly distributed) and a strong middle class. When they had children, they insisted that higher education would in turn work for them the same way.

With so much demand, you had a huge number of institutions arise to meet the demand. And they compete for students not by improving their education for the most part, but by improving amenities (student centers, high-tech dorms, and - frankly - varsity sports all fall into this category). These are massively costly. As the demand for higher education decreases due to demographic factors and structural weakness in the labor market, you have institutions that have to charge exorbitant prices to make up for declining enrollment and the prices paid for their amenities.

Of course, enrollment still remains high due to cultural factors. College has become a necessary good, and vocational apprenticeships are actually looked upon with disdain in America rather than as a viable and in fact often better alternative to college like they are in Germany and elsewhere (for an example of the "culture", take the fact that you see student discounts all the time but almost certainly have never seen an "apprentice discount"). And student loans, while onerous, are still fairly forgiving, especially now that the private market for student loans has been done away with.

But in a perfect world we'd have fewer institutions (this is going to happen anyways - estimates are that something like half of private universities in the country will be forced to close in the next decade), much lower costs of tuition (or free education!), and so on. Then you could have club sports (no need for scholarships) and you could have what would essentially be minor league professional teams in basketball and football that could be sponsored by schools such as FSU, Alabama, or Notre Dame. Or, heck, Harvard. But the players wouldn't necessarily need to be students at the school.