Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Bone Dog, post: 4657836, member: 12088"] A few oddities in the coverage of this case. 1) TAs and RAs are unionized in the UC system, and will soon be at other unviersities. These are all grad students, which may make them not entirely similar to the athletes. This is also the end of a decades long struggle -- I remember it's very early days from when I was a grad student at UCI. The UC had gradually shifted more and more teaching responsibilities onto the shoulders of the grad students, effectively reducing their teaching budget. The grad students demanded health benefits at the time and lost the argument. 2) The ESPN article doesn't make it entirely clear what the athletes might be seeking as employees. Is it money? Or is it merely better transfer rules? Or longer eligibility? 3) A PAC12 spokesman characterizes this as a legal issue, stating that the NLRB's "allegations are completely at odds with [B]decades of established law.[/B]" But the NLRB's suit is not at odds with any laws, in the strict sense -- that is, Congress has not spoken on this issue as far as I know. The hearing will be before an [B]administrative law judge[/B], which means it is based on years of labor practices that Congress has not codified into law. 4) As for the second claim by the PAC12, that this suit, "if accepted by the NLRB and the courts, would have a profound and negative impact on college sports and [B]the many student-athletes in our Conference[/B]," this is merely their opinion. I think there's reason to believe the status quo already has a negative impact on the many student athletes in football, MCBB and WCBB. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach