northwestern football unionization

[ric]

On Wednesday, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Northwestern University football players were employees of the school and therefore entitled to form a union.

The blockbuster decision sided with a group of football players at the Big Ten school who argued, among other points, that since their scholarships were tied to performance, they should have the right to collectively bargain.

Officials at the Evanston, Ill, university said the school would appeal the decision to NLRB brass in Washington.

The case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

[ric]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... stern-nlrb

[...]

Northwestern (the school) had argued that a previous case was the proper precedent. In a prior decision, the NLRB had rejected a unionization attempt by graduate students working as teaching and research assistants at Brown University. In that decision, the NLRB found that the employees were primarily students, their roles were tied to their education, their supervisors were school faculty, and their wages were the same financial support given to those who were not working those jobs. Because the graduate students were students first and employees second, they were not employees.

Ohr (nrlb regional director) rejected the argument here, and in doing so, laid bare what he deemed the fallacy at the heart of the sport: That football has anything at all to do with academics. He held that Northwestern football players, who spend 40 to 60 hours a week on football duties during the season and repeatedly adjust their class schedules to make time for football activities, are not primarily students, and that their compensation -- scholarships -- is not financial aid. The scholarships are provided not for the players' academic performance -- in fact, many of the players would not even be admitted to Northwestern were it not for their football prowess -- but for their performance of services for Northwestern on the field of play.

By splitting football from academics, Ohr has made every college football player the equivalent of every other student who is busing tables or working in a call center to pay for school. And that is revolutionary.

[...]

(a union is formed via voting) From there, the union would be entitled to collectively bargain with Northwestern over the players' benefits. NCAA regulations will likely throw a kink into this, as additional benefits could make players ineligible to participate.

Northwestern has already announced its intention to appeal to the National Labor Relations Board proper, where it could receive a more favorable decision. If Northwestern loses at the Board, it could enter the federal courts. The school could delay any negotiations until the appeal is resolved, but that process could take them through the 2014 season. If it agrees to negotiate, Northwestern would cut off its right to appeal into the courts.

[...]

At other private schools (like Notre Dame, USC, and Vanderbilt), players could copy Northwestern's model and work toward unionization, citing Wednesday's decision as precedent. Directors in other districts are not required to follow Ohr's decision, though, so repeated unionization could lead to different results across the country.

State schools (like Alabama, Ohio State, and Texas) are not governed by the NLRB, and its decisions are not enforceable against state-school football programs. State labor laws would apply. In right-to-work states, unionization would be a non-starter. How well it would work elsewhere will depend on each state's laws and regulations.

[ric]

personally i think that ultimately this is where the current decision fails

what he deemed the fallacy at the heart of the sport: That football has anything at all to do with academics

you may buy that at some level (i dont) but the problem in this analysis is that other activities where scholarship money and lessened gpa standards are involved also fall under that umbrella and that is especially problematic given that most football players actually dont receive any financial assistance

as sweet as this shit may be/sound im just speculating that something along the lines of the above will be the rulings ultimate undoing on appeal

however; its a really killer timing on the move to unionize by the northwestern football union in the sense that if the below quote is accurate they really got their foot caught in the fucking door and thats awesome gamesmanship on their part which may actually end up winning the day given the initial nrlb decision by that ohr dude

The school could delay any negotiations until the appeal is resolved, but that process could take them through the 2014 season. If it agrees to negotiate, Northwestern would cut off its right to appeal into the courts.

whether the school can still appeal within the nrlb is another issue but its still a very important point. anybody think nu will will cancel their participation in big ten football because of this? probably not (even though i do think the smart move in an argumentative sense would be to wait on a ruling even if they have to play a shortened season or lose out on a year or whatever that would mean)

[ric]

Also the recruiting implications are huge if the unions can negotiate any sort of real payment

[ric]

Vote to unionize or not is 4/25

[ric]

vote to unionize was yesterday
the nlrb impounded the ballot boxes before a count could take place
what is going on is that the school is appealing to the nlrb
the nlrb appeal process effectively freezes the results of the vote to unionize
the nlrb appeal process could happen for a long time probably a few months and if the process drags out then longer
the process may drag out because there may be other conflicts being handled at the same time
one such conflict is that NU passed out a 21 page Q&A document to the players. the Q&A slyly discourages a vote for unionization but this sort of contact may be against the rules; how the nlrb wants to deal with this document may be an important factor with how they will treat the vote to unionize (if they get that far in their analysis)

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/No ... 94771.html

some info regarding the allegedly coercive document is here
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... h-players-

[Hayzoos]

So you're justin here talking to yourself huh

[capable_keL]

This is a huge story, its historic. Thanks ric

[ThaJim2]

I support the union players.

[ric]

@kel
of course bro

[ric]

@jim
im for the union in the sense that its amazing and interesting what they are doing and the situation that is evolving
im against the union in a sense that i think football really is firmly on the branch of academia and i think saying that college football is a "job" that has "nothing to do with academics" is in and of itself just an inaccurate characterization
but then again i think that paying college players is an attempt to wrap a cast around an annoying flesh wound and i think the ncaa is riding a really difficult line here but ultimately i want the competition in all college sports to be as fair as possible and that means not paying college football players and not making it possible for a booster, say, to "hire" a kid for the summer so they can train and get paid for it

[naturalborn103]

I did a sport for a D3 school and it had nothing to do with academia and took up about 80% of my free time. They also told me what classes to take and what major to do. If you are there for athletic purposes then the coach is your boss and school is secondary.. And this is from a D3 school on a not very popular sport. I can't imagine what big D1 football programs are like. They should definitely get paid and have a union.

[ThaJim2]

@jim
im for the union in the sense that its amazing and interesting what they are doing and the situation that is evolving
im against the union in a sense that i think football really is firmly on the branch of academia and i think saying that college football is a "job" that has "nothing to do with academics" is in and of itself just an inaccurate characterization
but then again i think that paying college players is an attempt to wrap a cast around an annoying flesh wound and i think the ncaa is riding a really difficult line here but ultimately i want the competition in all college sports to be as fair as possible and that means not paying college football players and not making it possible for a booster, say, to "hire" a kid for the summer so they can train and get paid for it

College football will never be fair because Florida and California and Texas. One of the Big 3 from Florida wins a championship every 3 years and plays for it basically every other year. The Florida panhandle to the east excluding Jax produces more talent then Washington state does and this is the least populated area of Florida. Florida produces more talent then the 4th and 5th biggest recruiting states combined.

These are the teams that have recruited more 4 and 5 star recruits then 3 and below since 2004 the first year with reliable enough information. Miami, Auburn, LSU, Alabama, ND, tOSU, USC, FSU, Texas and Oklahoma. Notice what all of these programs have in common? They have all played in a BCS championship game and all but ND have won. (true some where before that 2004 date but honestly you think Miami and tOSU where recruiting scrubs before that time?).


Edit: Just looking at the ESPN 300. The top 11 has 6 players from Florida. To show what kind of advantage FSU has over most schools the number 1 player is from GA yet FSU is the closest campus. The sport will never be "fair". Since the rise of the Florida 3 30 years ago the only real new edition to the top tier has been Oregon.

[ric]

@jim/naturalborn
well for one i think it is pretty fair. lets not exaggerate the effect of raw talent (as important as it is)
for two it seems like youre just pointing out something that is supposedly unfair and then saying 'well well never get to the ideal fairness so screw it' and that not only ignores the idea that maybe its fairer than we think it is
for three lets not cherry pick our examples though; i know you remember the fsu days days where they were middling through the season circa 2000-2010. usc supposedly still has high talent ceiling but theyve been sucking and on top of that the practitioners of the awesome systems are constantly finding ways to get over on supposed football royalty

nonetheless college athletics in general is an academic exercise. were talking about the development of human beings. majors etc are only part of that. at least in theory.

[ThaJim2]

I did a sport for a D3 school and it had nothing to do with academia and took up about 80% of my free time. They also told me what classes to take and what major to do. If you are there for athletic purposes then the coach is your boss and school is secondary.. And this is from a D3 school on a not very popular sport. I can't imagine what big D1 football programs are like. They should definitely get paid and have a union.

I did not see this post but its great. The story I like to tell about this is Robert Smith. Dude was 5 star of 5 star running backs coming out of HS but he wanted to take a pre med track. The coaching staff fought like hell for him to take social science as his major but he refused. Again he was easily the top recruit in his class which would suggest he had the most power and he barely was able to get what he wanted from the academic side. How many 3 stars are forced to take a major other then what they want or are forced to change majors because they don't have the time to devout to it?

[ThaJim2]

@jim/naturalborn
well for one i think it is pretty fair. lets not exaggerate the effect of raw talent (as important as it is)

Raw talent is far and away the most important requirement in college football. If you are not recruiting at elite levels you have no chance. A coach can screw up raw talent like Mushcamp has at uf but even Saben is not winning a title with Washington or UNC talent. Again Oregon is the outlier program in the BCS era getting to the title game without elite talent.

for two it seems like youre just pointing out something that is supposedly unfair and then saying 'well well never get to the ideal fairness so screw it' and that not only ignores the idea that maybe its fairer than we think it is

I have no problem with it being unfair. Kids should go to the school that they feel most comfortable with which is going to create football factories.

I am pointing out that it is unfair and will always be unfair and fairness is your guide you are going to make stupid rules that hurt most kids.

for three lets not cherry pick our examples though; i know you remember the fsu days days where they were middling through the season circa 2000-2010. usc supposedly still has high talent ceiling but theyve been sucking and on top of that the practitioners of the awesome systems are constantly finding ways to get over on supposed football royalty

I do remember the lost decade. But lets put the lost decade which is what FSU fans call it into perspective the worst record we had was still a winning record and still had something like the 15th best record over that timespan. This is with a coach that basically retired on the job and let his incompetent son run the same 3 plays in the same order and missing out on talent that we had the lead on like Harvin.

USC has major depth issues and never should have been ranked that high because of the sanctions. That they had an asshole on top of that as a coach did not help.

What systems? Oregon is it that has used a system to move up to the top of the chain. Leach had 1 year when he had a shot but a team using his system spanked him and then spanked him again for good measure. Talent is king in this game and always has been king in this game.

nonetheless college athletics in general is an academic exercise. were talking about the development of human beings. majors etc are only part of that. at least in theory.[/quote]

[ric]

@jim
well the thing about that is that athletes who are offered scholarship money (or athletes period) dont have to take any scholarship money and really they can do what they want. i mean if the kid makes the team and is good enough to do whatever major he wants AND still play at a level where hes making the team (especially if hes a starter) youre telling me the coaches will just cut him because he didnt do the major theyve got the program already set up for?

i mean if youre a scholarship athlete and you want to take something other than sociology or whatever sure the pressure will be on but its just like any other pressure as long as your performing its not like theyre going to cut you. is that not right? i mean really correct me if im wrong.

the fact that the thing takes up most of your time is irrelevant because the entire system of academia assumes that once you enter college - your choices are your own. the fact that the college facilitates this shit is partly what makes it an academic exercise. after all, academia is supposed to be more than just doing scientific research. its the pursuit of a broad array of disciplines. if a person chooses to specialize they may do so. i mean if people were so super pumped about swimming or sanskrit research that you could televise that shit and make money off it it wouldnt exactly be fair to pay the kids in the sanskrit department or the swimming department and say 'well this is beyond academics now' just because there is a ton of public interest such that theres money and perhaps competition involved

the real problem is that they are awarding scholarships to players who have 2nd grade literacy in institutions where you MUST be able to read etc and where other sports players actually know how to write etc. that is the real fucking problem and its a problem that the schools make for themselves and the players and school and ncaa are all complicit and a part of this massive massive problem. i mean really coaches taking away scholarships isnt a huge deal - i mean most motherfuckers pay to go to school in the first place. the crew team pays and probably none of them have any sort of scholarships and they all spend their time doing crew shit all day ere day. its part of going to school and achieving shit and being on a team etc etc. life skillz and shit.

in this sense paying players is just cosmetic surgery on something thats already broken. i mean do we really think that paying these players during their college career (irrespective of the relationship between $$$ and the other sports) will prevent these same players from going back into brainless enforcer roles in real life after they fail to make the pros?

but the fucked up thing is is that nobody wants to slow down. slowing down would fix a lot of these problems but nobody wants to do it because they fear the product would be worse or that peoples attention will stray. they think you HAVE to have the super athletic 300 lb kid who cant read over the average 250 lb kid who gets a 3.5. thats the fucking problem. in a sense these fucks are too un-creative for their own good.