This would be how it already is if only they could get around Title 9.
There's a difference in the school sponsoring the sport and giving scholarships, paying for coaches, travel etc. and the kids organizing themselves, coaching themselves and paying for their own travel.
Yeah I think you're going the wrong way with that what the Regional labor relations board has said Is that the act of playing sports on behalf of a school creates an employee/employer relationship. I'm not confident that paying an employee less, Or "nothing"'has ever been viewed as a remedy by a NRLB board. as you know, club sports to receive a modicum of support from the university.
If the premise is that a student participating in an activity if they receive any benefit from the school means that they are an employee, then how does that change if the benefits smaller, absent a deminimus carve out.
There is no benefit from the school to the athlete for club sports, so I'm not sure what you're saying. There is no relationship between a school and a club sports team other than the fact that the membership is voluntarily made up of a population of local college students.
It that the test for employment? Whether it benefits one side? Club teams do have funds allocated to the them. The difference is one of extent.
“Monday's ruling determined otherwise. Dartmouth players, like all athletes across the Ivy League, don’t receive athletic scholarships. Sacks determined that they receive compensation in the form of lodging, food and other expenses and that the program treats them as if they are employees.”
This is so stupid.
Yeah, can’t imagine this comes close to touching clubs for that reason. Club membership does their own scheduling, sets practice schedules, etc. They may get some funding from university but are not directed by them on any way.
Actually these clubs get thrown a few bucks by the schools. It’s called placate kids that want to do sports but we have no interest in supporting. Ski teams, equestrian, rugby, bowling, etc.
Yeah, but if that would be the difference of having to pay people as employees and not, they would no longer.
Nothing to do with being in a union or not being in a union. If your scholarship is determined to be income for tax purposes, it taxable. Right now it mostly is not. One wonders what the impact might be on other scholarships if athletic ones are ruled taxable income.
What about the Universities and their non athlete students? Kids get free educations, room and board, food and they are obligated to take classes where professors set the schedules and the work the students have to do so that they keep getting that free education, room and board, food etc.
To the contrary. It's a NLRB case about the right to unionize. The vast majority of campus workers in the country fall under the same umbrella as faculty and are therefore covered by the same agreements. In some states you can ask out of the union, but that still means you get union wages and benefits.
First, the NLRB has ruled on this multiple ways in the past, and none of the rulings seem to have convinced other directors as to which way to vote.
The NLRB actually ruled against the petition of Brown U. grad assistants to unionize because it determined they were not workers, even though they received these forms of compensation.
