Northwestern players win right to unionize

[ecasadoSBU]

Your last statement points to a great fact, how on earth do all these Wall Street guys get filthy rich if they have no Union? I mean wouldn't Goldman Sachs just exploit them and make them work for nothing in a dungeon? They are in fact the big powerful corporations putting down every individual who doesn't band up together and fight the power.

In reality when you look at it, the only ones out there forcing someone to do something they don't want to do is the Unions, forcing you to pay dues. If I want to go and be a teacher because I love it, work for zero dollars a year because I am was a big fat cat Wall Street Greedy Corporate Monster, and I wanted to make up for that, the Union would literally not allow me to do that. I would have to join the union, be paid the wage and pay the union their dues. Something about that sounds evil, and its not the Greedy Wall Street part.

In the end though, I say why don't we just get rid of scholarships and pay the athletes what they deserve. Looking at the D-league salaries that would be about 17,000 minus taxes of course, and looking at Arena Football Salaries that would be 50k minus taxes, which would make it maybe 40k of actual money. Pretty much every other sport would earn nothing, so you would have a situation where every single athlete was worse off than they are now, but hey, no worries, the union would be collecting their dues...

Such a unrealistic and hypothetical situation. Who the hell wants to get pay less for being a teacher? You can love your profession (like most of do), doesn't meant you want to do it for free however... Union dues is the price you pay so that you can all collectively defend each other (legal battles, lobbying, negotiations, etc).

 

[JayRU09]

If this kills Syracuse athletics I am A-OK with it. Just don't touch the public schools.

 

[sportsart]

I don't want to jump in on either side of the debate because I want to see where this thing goes and what shape it takes. However, I find it hilarious that some of you have said that you "are done with college sports" if it happens. Like hell you are! I'll see you here 5 years from now, no matter what happens...

Dan....I, and many others will be done with it, if it goes through with the unionization of college sports. I am all for them getting a nice stipend, say in the 3-5K range. But if you get unionized you are looking at raising the bar every year in terms of more money. Then what happens if the union wants the stipend at 10K per year and they don't get it? A strike....? Not for me thanks. I despise the NBA, don't even know if the NHL still exsists and the NFL is...eh...

But college athletics is what makes me excited. What the CR has done to college sports makes me ill. But I can still root for the athletes.

If they unionize, college sports and the NCAA, as we know it, is ruined forever. I think $200K-300K in tuition plus a nice stipend of say $4k is enough.

I can't fathom the cheating that will take place if the playing field gets more uneven than it already is.

 

[sportsart]

Unions arguably being out of control over the last 50 years does nothing to change the fact that they unequivocally have helped improve the lives of every single working-class American in every walk of life.

Indiana football/basketball generates $40 million in TV revenue, once the new Big Ten deal is done. Hell yes, the athletes who are the reason absolutely deserve AT LEAST a stipend.

If unions are so great, why are their fewer and fewer of them in existence today? Unions had/have their place but usually get greedy and protect workers who are useless or abuse the system.

 

[Dizzy21]

Such a unrealistic and hypothetical situation. Who the hell wants to get pay less for being a teacher? You can love your profession (like most of do), doesn't meant you want to do it for free however... Union dues is the price you pay so that you can all collectively defend each other (legal battles, lobbying, negotiations, etc).

You want a real world situation you got it...Look at what happened about a month ago to the UAW in the Tennessee VW plant, they were allowed to go and pitch themselves and had the support of VW. The workers voted against Unionizing for the exact same reasons you give that they should want to unionize. That is the real world, and the fact is that being non-union, they actually make more than the UAW unionized employees...below is a little quote from an article about it



"More workers were persuaded to vote against the union by the UAW's past of bitter battles with management, costly labor contracts and complex work rules. "If the union comes in, we'll have a divided work force," said Cheryl Hawkins, 44, an assembly line worker with three sons. "It will ruin what we have."

Other UAW opponents said they dislike the union's support of politicians who back causes like abortion rights and gun control that rub against the conservative bent of Southern states like Tennessee. Still others objected to paying dues to a union from Detroit that is aligned with Volkswagen competitors like GM and Ford.

"I just don't trust them," said Danielle Brunner, 23, who has worked at the plant for nearly three years and makes about $20 an hour—about $5 an hour more than new hires at GM, Ford and Chrysler plants."

 

[UConnDan97]

Dan....I, and many others will be done with it, if it goes through with the unionization of college sports. I am all for them getting a nice stipend, say in the 3-5K range. But if you get unionized you are looking at raising the bar every year in terms of more money. Then what happens if the union wants the stipend at 10K per year and they don't get it? A strike....? Not for me thanks. I despise the NBA, don't even know if the NHL still exsists and the NFL is...eh...

But college athletics is what makes me excited. What the CR has done to college sports makes me ill. But I can still root for the athletes.

If they unionize, college sports and the NCAA, as we know it, is ruined forever. I think $200K-300K in tuition plus a nice stipend of say $4k is enough.

I can't fathom the cheating that will take place if the playing field gets more uneven than it already is.

If you say that's what you'll do, then so be it. But knowing how die-hard all of the fans on this board are (you included), you'll have to forgive me if I take a "I'll believe it when I see it" stance...

 

[sportsart]

If you say that's what you'll do, then so be it. But knowing how die-hard all of the fans on this board are (you included), you'll have to forgive me if I take a "I'll believe it when I see it" stance...

I find it hard to believe it when I say it too. But....think it through. IF this union thing went through, and I think it's still a big if, it would only affect private institutions, if I read it correctly. I can't even fathom what recruiting would look like. Come to BCU and you get an extra $10K a year or go to UConn and only get $2K.

While I doubt that will ever be the case you then have the NCAA and the P5....it would be a freaking nightmare.

That is why I believe it will either never happen or the golden goose will lie dead.

 

[Dizzy21]

I find it hard to believe it when I say it too. But....think it through. IF this union thing went through, and I think it's still a big if, it would only affect private institutions, if I read it correctly. I can't even fathom what recruiting would look like. Come to BCU and you get an extra $10K a year or go to UConn and only get $2K.

While I doubt that will ever be the case you then have the NCAA and the P5....it would be a freaking nightmare.

That is why I believe it will either never happen or the golden goose will lie dead.

I look at it more this way, come to BC and you can get 10k a year, but our coaches and facilities suck because we can't afford to pay them or come to UConn get 2k and work with some of the best coaches and facilities around. I know some may choose the fast money, but I would imagine any serious athlete would choose UConn in that case.

 

[Dizzy21]

I find it hard to believe it when I say it too. But....think it through. IF this union thing went through, and I think it's still a big if, it would only affect private institutions, if I read it correctly. I can't even fathom what recruiting would look like. Come to BCU and you get an extra $10K a year or go to UConn and only get $2K.

While I doubt that will ever be the case you then have the NCAA and the P5....it would be a freaking nightmare.

That is why I believe it will either never happen or the golden goose will lie dead.

I look at it more this way, come to BC and you can get 10k a year, but our coaches and facilities suck because we can't afford to pay them or come to UConn get 2k and work with some of the best coaches and facilities around. I know some may choose the fast money, but I would imagine any serious athlete would choose UConn in that case.

In all honesty, this creates a huge dilemma for the private schools, not most of the P5. Say BC for example has to pay he kids 10k and they were still able to afford a coach and whatever, they would immediately be in violation of NCAA rules and their entire team would be ruled ineligible to play against NCAA opponents...

 

[FAIRTIDES]

This is a showstopper for me. I have battled unions and have seen the destruction they have caused in the Northeast and the Rust Belt states for 20 plus years. I have been physically assaulted, threatened, spat at, had vehicles egged, tires slashed, and have been prevented from entering facilities due to erroneous picket lines. I have seen their actions add up to thousands and thousands of dollars of additional cost to my customers due to her arcane rules and regulations. I have been escorted out of many facilities for violating the most minor union rules, thus costing the customer and companies thousands of additional dollars. I have seen them protect the worst of the worst of employees have no business being employed. There is a reason heavily unionized Northeastern and Rust Belt states are losing population. I really enjoy watching college football. I already cut the cable cord because of what ESPN (I'm from Bristol ) has done to us concerning our conference realignment situation. I won't support ESPN why we are in conference purgatory. I simply will not support college football if it goes to a union pay system. Student athletes receive tens of thousands of dollars a year in compensation in the form of tuition, room and board, full medical, academic support, and numerous other benefits. I have no problem with student athletes receipt of a small stipend. Everything that unions get involved with they simply destroy. It's no surprise this started in Chicago.

Look at the bright side. Stuff you described above could happen to Emmert.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

I don't agree with the unionized employee model for college athletes, but students should have some say in the framework they are playing under.
I'm OK with stipends, but I believe student athletes should be able to profit however they see fit via their personal likeness/autographs/marketing/etc.

Bingo!!!!! If a company wants to enlist a Napier or Cochran to do promotional work, SN and/or CC should benefit. And, the Title IX argument goes away. Title IX can dictate that the Badminton player receive equal treatment within that which a University has control. It can't dictate that sponsors provide promotional opportunities on an equal basis to unequal "Q" factors.

 

[sportsart]

Bingo!!!!! If a company wants to enlist a Napier or Cochran to do promotional work, SN and/or CC should benefit. And, the Title IX argument goes away. Title IX can dictate that the Badminton player receive equal treatment within that which a University has control. It can't dictate that sponsors provide promotional opportunities on an equal basis to unequal "Q" factors.

In theory this sounds good except for one thing. "Hey come to UConn and one of our boosters, who owns a car dealership, will buy 100 autographed posters for $1,000 a piece. Quick $100,000. Then the same player goes to another school and they offer $200 per signing. That's a quick $200,000. Then he goes......etc, etc....

 

[ecasadoSBU]

You want a real world situation you got it...Look at what happened about a month ago to the UAW in the Tennessee VW plant, they were allowed to go and pitch themselves and had the support of VW. The workers voted against Unionizing for the exact same reasons you give that they should want to unionize. That is the real world, and the fact is that being non-union, they actually make more than the UAW unionized employees...below is a little quote from an article about it



"More workers were persuaded to vote against the union by the UAW's past of bitter battles with management, costly labor contracts and complex work rules. "If the union comes in, we'll have a divided work force," said Cheryl Hawkins, 44, an assembly line worker with three sons. "It will ruin what we have."

Other UAW opponents said they dislike the union's support of politicians who back causes like abortion rights and gun control that rub against the conservative bent of Southern states like Tennessee. Still others objected to paying dues to a union from Detroit that is aligned with Volkswagen competitors like GM and Ford.

"I just don't trust them," said Danielle Brunner, 23, who has worked at the plant for nearly three years and makes about $20 an hour—about $5 an hour more than new hires at GM, Ford and Chrysler plants."

Good read. I read the article. This is an interesting situation because it seems like the labor union is desperate for members because it needs bargaining power to increase the hourly rate of current members, yet in this case it offers little to potential members (the VW employees) because they currently get paid higher than the rate of those in the union. So the labor union its in a bit of a catch-22 situation. They can't bargain for a higher rate without more membership, and potential members don't want to join due to the pay cut. That probably explains why VW executives were so willing to negotiate with the union in the first place...

Yet, this is not what I was considering hypothetical in your previous statement. You stated the situation in which and employee would actually turn down a union because they prefer getting paid less than the union rate, and the case you showed me is actually the opposite

 

[Dizzy21]

Good read. I read the article. This is an interesting situation because it seems like the labor union is desperate for members because it needs bargaining power to increase the hourly rate of current members, yet in this case it offers little to potential members (the VW employees) because they currently get paid higher than the rate of those in the union. So the labor union its in a bit of a catch-22 situation. They can't bargain for a higher rate without more membership, and potential members don't want to join due to the pay cut. That probably explains why VW executives were so willing to negotiate with the union in the first place...

Yet, this is not what I was considering hypothetical in your previous statement. You stated the situation in which and employee would actually turn down a union because they prefer getting paid less than the union rate, and the case you showed me is actually the opposite

With the VW deal, the reason the executives were willing to deal with the union is because they are forced to in Germany, so the German union essentially had to work with the UAW in the states, there are weird laws that say they can't directly from Germany. Therefore the company just thought it would be easier not to object.

But to make the point that the UAW does not have enough members to bargain is a bit crazy, they have 400,000 members. I don't know what critical mass you need for your union to have power, but that is one of the larger unions in the world. They once had 1.5 million members and the reason they don't now is? It's because they thought that there was this magic money out there that some greedy corporations were taking and they thought they should take it, but it turns out they were wrong about the money and those companies went belly up and 1.1 mln of them lost there jobs.

I'm pretty sure this next article sums up the fact that my other point was not hypothetical, every day people turn down money because they don't want the restrictions of the union, they want freedom to be better and it's not all about the money. This is the main reason that there is such a huge union battle with the right to work states, they realize that if they don't put a gun to people's heads, they won't join the union. Listen, I have no problem with people forming a union, the problem I have is being forced to join the union if I want to take any particular job. I am more than happy to negotiate for myself and deal with those consequences, but what I am not comfortable with is getting together and forcing people to follow me if they want to work. But as you asked, the point is that people are willing to work for less if they don't have to abide by the union rules, and the following article is about just that...

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110424/LOCAL04/304249877/1002/LOCAL

 

[NotreDameJoe]

Dan....I, and many others will be done with it, if it goes through with the unionization of college sports. I am all for them getting a nice stipend, say in the 3-5K range. But if you get unionized you are looking at raising the bar every year in terms of more money. Then what happens if the union wants the stipend at 10K per year and they don't get it? A strike....? Not for me thanks. I despise the NBA, don't even know if the NHL still exsists and the NFL is...eh...

But college athletics is what makes me excited. What the CR has done to college sports makes me ill. But I can still root for the athletes.

If they unionize, college sports and the NCAA, as we know it, is ruined forever. I think $200K-300K in tuition plus a nice stipend of say $4k is enough.

I can't fathom the cheating that will take place if the playing field gets more uneven than it already is.

The cheating is what happens in certain places where the compensation comes in cash. Honest compensation above the table would hurt a certain conference.

I am a bit more skeptical of the union idea, based on the way existing unions think they are there to manage the entirecompany instead of just protect the workers.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You know what occurred to me today- as I'm printing out yet another batch of checks for the government this year - if this actually happens and goes through. Scholarship money should be considered income if the players are considered employees.

I wonder how many athletes would be happy to realize what they would owe Uncle Obama.

 

[NotreDameJoe]

You know what occurred to me today- as I'm printing out yet another batch of checks for the government this year - if this actually happens and goes through. Scholarship money should be considered income if the players are considered employees.

I wonder how many athletes would be happy to realize what they would owe Uncle Obama.

tuition paid is tax deductible.

 

[Carl Spackler]

tuition paid is tax deductible.

Exactly.

It's not tuition anymore. They are employees if they unionize. That means they are collecting income, not paying tuition.

 

[NotreDameJoe]

Exactly.

It's not tuition anymore. They are employees if they unionize. That means they are collecting income, not paying tuition.

Yeah but they would just pay it back to the U and it is an above the line deduction #34, so it wouldn't even show up in their Adjusted Gross Income.

Can you tell I've been doing my taxes all day?

 

[methodology]

I don't think the Northwestern football players looked at the complete picture. If they are allowed to unionize that doesn't stop at football. That will be every single sports program including the sports programs that don't make money. I think football and bball are the only money making sports. You cant pay football/bball players X amount and not pay a women's crew member the same. Title IX protects all the other athletes and sports.

The money made from football and bball fund the other sports. This will destroy all college athletics.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Count me in among those who would be DONE with college athletics if they are allowed to unionize. Mostly because college athletics will cease to exist.

 

[Johnny Mac]

........college athletics will cease to exist.

Or at least cease to exist as we currently know it. I'm OK with that. Why is it incumbent upon the University system to act as the minor league feeder system for the pros?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Or at least cease to exist as we currently know it. I'm OK with that. Why is it incumbent upon the University system to act as the minor league feeder system for the pros?

No. Hundreds of universities who aren't in major money generating conferences will simply no longer support athletic programs. Thousands upon thousands of kids who normally wouldn't be able to attend college simply won't. You act as though the University and the kids get nothing out of this.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Its hard for me to write about this without getting really lengthy and wordy. Keeping it short and simple.....everything that's happening right now, and has happened to corrupt intercollegiate athletics is due to deregulation of television broadcasting revenue around college football 30 years ago - mandated by a U.S. Supreme Court anti-trust decision against the NCAA. Everything that's happened with every conference change, the creation and demise of the BCS, all of it was entirely predictable, right up to this unionization thing - and WAS predicted 30 years ago when it was deregulated. It can all be summed up very easy. When the Supreme Court decided as they did, the goose that laid the golden egg would eventually be killed if their decision was not reversed in time.

It's been 30 years. A lot of people have gotten really rich on the golden eggs, and the goose is very close to being axed.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Its hard for me to write about this without getting really lengthy and wordy.

 

[Carl Spackler]

CO to the rescue.

LOL. I get more compliments on my length than I get complaints, so I guess that's a good thing.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Jim Delany said that the Big Ten would deemphasize athletics if O'Bannon won his court case ant it had lasting implications (I doubt that. The Big Ten was formed because of athletics. Where does it go without them?).

Is there any possibility that the Big Ten dismisses Northwestern for not conforming to the mission and morals of the league? On top of that Is there a "Public Ivy" located in a region of the country into which the Big Ten would expand?

Hmm interesting.

I saw a quick sound-bite that hi-lighted the Northwestern QB/Student that seems to be the face of the whole thing. I was impressed with the kid. He is not some wild-eyed, frothing at the mouth 60's SDS agitator. He also seems to be smart enough to avoid the "payment" issue; at least as it relates to direct pay (stipends).

My sense is that athletes want a seat at the table when issues like safety, coaching staff's ability to dictate Majors/Courses, scholarship non-renewal and post-career medical coverage for college related injuries, etc. are discussed. It's hard to believe, but it seems that some athletes no longer trust the NCAA or, in many cases, their own institutions with their well-being. I can't imagine why.

I understand that a scholarship and the perks that support college athletes are valuable to those equipped to understand the value. A only value a scholarship given to a kid with 3rd grade reading skills is value that accrues to the University, while he's eligible.

The whole idea would be more palatable if the words "Union" and "Employee" were avoided; if the stipend issue works itself out and "OBannon" is allowed to run its course. People understand the "other" issues and probably why athletes have lost faith in the NCAA, University Management and, even, coaches. Emmert has become nothing more than a Commissioner of Professional (and a few amateur) Sports. It throws B.S. platitudes at the "student/athletes" while trying to ensure its viability with the owners (big-time member institutions). Emmert will do what he has to do to keep his seven-figure pay check. Most of the time, the well-being of athletes argument is beneath "take-home" on his priorities.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The NCAA is essentially neutered when it comes to any control over any big money around college football, unless something goes through all the way to the supreme court again involving the NCAA. I'm 100% behind the concept of income redistribution - when it comes to intercollegiate athletics. In actual business and real world economics - nope. But the concept works in the academic world (which is probably why - oh never mind - let's not go there)..........

It's a concept that should be part of intercollegiate athletics - because keeping the mission of education and the integration of athletics and academics true - means that you can't have the free market forces competing like they do now. You got posts like the one above wondering about "minor leagues for the pro's". That's what happens, when the athletics revenue streams start dictating the missions and activities of entire academic institutions. When there is revenue sharing and control of revenue sharing, that is less likely to happen.

I wrote it early on somewhere, the only good thing that I can see coming from this - and I hope the young man from Northwestern is educated and smart enough in his history to know it, is that the way it all gets fixed is that it makes it's way back to the Supreme Court, the old decisions are opened up for review, and the course of action changed back to a model fo revenue sharing control that exists for the NCAA in every other sport - like say - men's basketball and the NCAA tournament.

At that point, the concepts of stipends, which make sense, can be addressed - there is more than enough money to go around, and schools can actually emphasize the student part of student athlete to athletes, and not have intelligent athletes feel like slaves.

Hopefully this unionization issue is the thing that makes it's way back up the court system and closes up the Pandora's box - without actually being put into effect and destroying intercollegiate athletics before it gets a chance to be fixed.

 

[Johnny Mac]

No. Hundreds of universities who aren't in major money generating conferences will simply no longer support athletic programs. Thousands upon thousands of kids who normally wouldn't be able to attend college simply won't. You act as though the University and the kids get nothing out of this.

I don't think that's true. Universities will still feel compelled to provide a college experience and that college experience could still include both intercollegiate and club sports. Thousands upon thousands of kids could still play sports in college, just not as a feeder system for the pros...and without a $350 million stadium and without a $5 million/year coach. Hundreds of colleges and universities around the nation do that today.

I don’t know how this thing is going to shake out but I assume it will take several years. If, in the end, the existing system is blown up, I’m ok with that. I’m confident that the Jadeveon Clowney’s of the world will still find a place to play football and develop their skills, you as a lover of minor league football will still be able to pay your money to watch him do that, and Wesleyan University will still have an intercollegiate football team and an equestrian club team.

 

[NotreDameJoe]

I cannot trust any forecast of doom that comes from a college administrator. They are the ones raking in the money and not sharing with the players who are getting the concussions.

Mostly I hear a plantation owner complaining that there will be no more cotton if he has to treat the sharecroppers like employees.