- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 7,501
- Reaction Score
- 15,690
As someone that does a lot of work with unions the way I read the decision - and the way many others have - is that basically the NLRB is punting to the individual states:
"By statute the Board does not have jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities, which constitute 108 of the roughly 125 FBS teams.Bolding emphasis is mine.
"In addition, every school in the Big Ten, except Northwestern, is a state-run institution. As the NCAA and conference maintain substantial control over individual teams, the Board held that asserting jurisdiction over a single team would not promote stability in labor relations across the league.
"This decision is narrowly focused to apply only to the players in this case and does not preclude reconsideration of this issue in the future."
Basically the NLRB is saying from a national level they can't decide this case. They have left the door wide open however for state legislatures and other colleges to take action. So if the die-hards at Northwestern decide to continue this push, their next step is to go through the Democratic state legislature in Illinois.
But you have to expand the context of this much much wider.
When it comes to other labor classes on campus, specifically those cited in the initial decision, the courts have already ruled against unionization at state institutions. So the initial mediator cited the Brown U. decision to side in favor of the NU athlete lawsuit. If the NLRB then says we punt BECAUSE you can't separate the private from the public in this case, well then the ruling is already fait accompli since the prior rulings cited even by the initial mediator cited cases in which private schools (like Brown) were separated from public schools.
In other words, this really is a dead end.
Yeah, very true. But you could overcome the court decision with a legislative fix, right?
Of course, if you can find enough legislators who want to see themselves burned in effigy on their lawns, and who are willing to lose the next election in a landslide. The ruling to unionize would end college sports. Ergo, it will not be popular anywhere.
What is interesting is whether a state like Illinois would consider this kind of legislation and what the fallout would be.
For instance if they passed some sort of broad sweeping legislation that would allow athletes to unionize, it would be a boon to big state Universities like Illinois who could pay athletes like employees and now would have a huge recruiting edge when battling other B1G schools, but a death knell to smaller ones like Northern Illinois who don't have the athletic budget to do so.
Additionally, smaller schools like Northwestern would probably be forced to drop B1G sports because of it.
Not that I think this is likely to happen mind you, but it's fun to speculate.