For Northwestern Unionization Movement Impacts, Look to FCS, Not FBS

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fcs-football/814-for-northwestern-unionization-movement-impacts-look-to-fcs-not-fbs

The impact on FBS of Northwestern's quest for college football player unionization is likely to be extremely limited. The impact on FCS, however, could be giant.

[DFW HOYA]

The idea that progams at Georgetown and St. Francis PA are in danger of shutdown is contrary to the ruling; in fact, for Georgetown, it is quite the opposite. From the ruling: "As the record demonstrates, players receiving scholarships to perform football-related services for the Employer under a contract for hire in return for compensation are subject to the Employer’s control and are therefore employees within the meaning of the Act"

and

"In contrast to scholarships, need-based financial aid that walk-ons (and other regular students) receive is not provided in exchange for any type of service to the Employer. For this reason, the walk-ons are free to quit the team at any time without losing their financial aid. This simply is not true for players receiving football scholarships who stand to lose their scholarship if they “voluntarily withdraw” from the team."

The sumamry reads as follows: "Based on the foregoing and the entire record herein, I have found that all grant-in-aid scholarship players for the Employer’s football team who have not exhausted their playing eligibility are “employees” under Section 2(3) of the Act."

Should we worry about the viability of some other Patriot League programs instead?

http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-director-region-13-issues-decision-northwestern-university-athletes

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Should we worry about the viability of some other Patriot League programs instead?

If this precedent plays itself out, yes, I think we do need to worry.


The idea that progams at Georgetown and St. Francis PA are in danger of shutdown is contrary to the ruling; in fact, for Georgetown, it is quite the opposite. From the ruling: "As the record demonstrates, players receiving scholarships to perform football-related services for the Employer under a contract for hire in return for compensation are subject to the Employer’s control and are therefore employees within the meaning of the Act"

and

"In contrast to scholarships, need-based financial aid that walk-ons (and other regular students) receive is not provided in exchange for any type of service to the Employer. For this reason, the walk-ons are free to quit the team at any time without losing their financial aid. This simply is not true for players receiving football scholarships who stand to lose their scholarship if they “voluntarily withdraw” from the team."

The sumamry reads as follows: "Based on the foregoing and the entire record herein, I have found that all grant-in-aid scholarship players for the Employer’s football team who have not exhausted their playing eligibility are “employees” under Section 2(3) of the Act."


In fact, Ohr's decision on the status of walk-ons is very wooly, and makes little sense.


I find that the Employer’s football
players who receive scholarships fall squarely within the Act’s broad definition of
“employee” when one considers the common law definition of “employee.” However, I
find that the walk-ons do not meet the definition of “employee” for the fundamental
reason that they do not receive compensation for the athletic services that they perform.
Unlike the scholarship players, the walk-ons do not sign a “tender” or otherwise enter
into any type of employment contract with the Employer. The walk-ons also appear to be
permitted a greater amount of flexibility by the football coaches when it comes to missing
portions of practices and workouts during the football season if they conflict with their
class schedule. In this regard, it is noted that both scholarship players who testified,
Colter and Ward, testified that they did not enroll in classes that conflicted with their
football commitments. This distinction is not surprising given that the players are
compelled by the terms of their “tender” to remain on the team and participate in all its
activities in order to maintain their scholarship.


The walk-ons, on the other hand, have nothing tying them to the football team
except their “love of the game” and the strong camaraderie that exists among the players.
That some of the walk-ons may also have aspirations of earning a football scholarship
does not change the fact that they do not receive any compensation at that point in their
collegiate football careers. Thus, the mere fact that they practice (and sometimes play)
alongside the scholarship players is insufficient to meet the definition of “employee.”
However, if a walk-on were to be awarded a scholarship at some later point, they would
then be an “employee” within the meaning of the Act and would be included in the unit.


Walk-ons, who supposedly are doing it all for the love of the game, get the same type of need-based scholarship everyone else in the school supposedly qualifies for - until they achieve their goal, and make the team... and then become employees that "deserve to be paid." Yet walk-ons and scholarship players are expected to attend the same meetings, do the same lifting regimens, basically do all the things that are expected of "employees" that are supposedly so onerous that they "deserve to be paid." Somehow, I doubt it's all about the camaraderie.

It also rapidly devolves into a definition as to the services rendered for the school.


1. The Employer’s Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Football Players are not
“Primarily Students”
The first factor that the Board considered in Brown University was the fact that all the
graduate assistants were enrolled as students and that their purported employment status was
contingent on their enrollment. Id. at 488. But this alone was not dispositive because the Board
went on to consider the amount of time the graduate assistants spent on their educational studies
as opposed to their work duties. In finding that they were “primarily students,” the Board held
that “students serving as graduate student assistants spend only a limited number of hours
performing their duties, and it is beyond dispute that their principal time commitment at Brown
is focused on obtaining a degree and, thus, being a student.” Id.


In contrast, in the instant case it cannot be said the Employer’s scholarship players are
“primarily students.” The players spend 50 to 60 hours per week on their football duties during a
one-month training camp prior to the start of the academic year and an additional 40 to 50 hours
per week on those duties during the three or four month football season. Not only is this more
hours than many undisputed full-time employees work at their jobs, it is also many more hours
than the players spend on their studies. In fact, the players do not attend academic classes while
in training camp or the first few weeks of the regular season. After the academic year begins, the
players still continue to devote 40 to 50 hours per week on football-related activities while only
spending about 20 hours per week attending classes. Obviously, the players are also required to
spend time studying and completing their homework as they have to spend time practicing their
football skills even without the direct orders of their coaches. But it cannot be said that they are
“primarily students” who “spend only a limited number of hours performing their athletic
duties.”


This section doesn't talk about athletic aid at all- it talks about the amount of hours an athlete devotes to athletics and the amount of hours devoted to studies. It says that football players "are not primarily students". This applies whether someone is a walk-on or gets a scholarship, whether they are going to Harvard where they scholarship the entire student body or San Diego whee they do not. Harvard has preseason training camp. San Diego has preseason training camp. Harvard needs to prep before they play Lafayette. San Diego needs to prep before they play Mercer.

A Division I FCS football player, whether receiving a whole scholarship (or no scholarship), is still performing the exact same duties that a Northwestern football player does when it comes to preparation for a season or an individual game. I think it is difficult, if not impossible, to say that in one case it benefits the school and in the other it does not. At some point it goes from "they're not paid to do it; it's for the love of the game" to "hey, they perform a service for the school - how come they're not getting paid for it?"

[Green26]

If this precedent plays itself out, yes, I think we do need to worry.



In fact, Ohr's decision on the status of walk-ons is very wooly, and makes little sense.



Walk-ons, who supposedly are doing it all for the love of the game, get the same type of need-based scholarship everyone else in the school supposedly qualifies for - until they achieve their goal, and make the team... and then become employees that "deserve to be paid." Yet walk-ons and scholarship players are expected to attend the same meetings, do the same lifting regimens, basically do all the things that are expected of "employees" that are supposedly so onerous that they "deserve to be paid." Somehow, I doubt it's all about the camaraderie.

It also rapidly devolves into a definition as to the services rendered for the school.



This section doesn't talk about athletic aid at all- it talks about the amount of hours an athlete devotes to athletics and the amount of hours devoted to studies. It says that football players "are not primarily students". This applies whether someone is a walk-on or gets a scholarship, whether they are going to Harvard where they scholarship the entire student body or San Diego whee they do not. Harvard has preseason training camp. San Diego has preseason training camp. Harvard needs to prep before they play Lafayette. San Diego needs to prep before they play Mercer.

A Division I FCS football player, whether receiving a whole scholarship (or no scholarship), is still performing the exact same duties that a Northwestern football player does when it comes to preparation for a season or an individual game. I think it is difficult, if not impossible, to say that in one case it benefits the school and in the other it does not. At some point it goes from "they're not paid to do it; it's for the love of the game" to "hey, they perform a service for the school - how come they're not getting paid for it?"

I don't disagree with what you are saying, and I haven't studied the ruling yet (spring break in Costa Rica), but it seems to me that the fact that the scholarship players are getting paid, and the walk-ons aren't, is what the judge based his ruling on. All of players look and act like employees, but only the scholarship players are employees. In some respects, the walk-ons are unpaid interns, under the labor laws. If I missed your point, my apologies. Just got home from a great dinner (and they drink here).

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

I call BS on the 40-50 hours a week estimate during the season. Are you counting the time they spend on buses, planes, and hotels as time? I think even if you are a star and speak with media fairly regularly then you aren't topping that much every week during the season

Also, I'm curious as to how you can justify saying college football players are employees and that, say, college basketball or baseball players (who do more traveling than football players every year).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I call BS on the 40-50 hours a week estimate during the season. Are you counting the time they spend on buses, planes, and hotels as time? I think even if you are a star and speak with media fairly regularly then you aren't topping that much every week during the season

Also, I'm curious as to how you can justify saying college football players are employees and that, say, college basketball or baseball players (who do more traveling than football players every year).

Agreed. For that matter, if you're calling football players employees, aren't women's field hockey players? They train. They prepare. They travel.

I felt like Ohr simplistically called anyone playing for an athletic scholarship an "employee" and walk-ons doing almost 100% of the same preparation "doing it for the love of the game" players. But that doesn't even stop to consider non-scholarship or partial-scholarship D-I FCS, D-II or D-III players. Does a non-scholarship kid playing for Williams in the NESCAC not materially benefit their school, and is what he does a different job than what Kain Colter does at Northwestern? Ohr put a line in the sand that doesn't consider all the flavors of NCAA competition, and one that is potentially (IMO) very, very damaging.

[PAllen]

I call BS on the 40-50 hours a week estimate during the season. Are you counting the time they spend on buses, planes, and hotels as time? I think even if you are a star and speak with media fairly regularly then you aren't topping that much every week during the season

Also, I'm curious as to how you can justify saying college football players are employees and that, say, college basketball or baseball players (who do more traveling than football players every year).

I also strongly question the rational of players spending less than 40-50 hr per week on academics. While this may be true at some football factories, it certainly wasn't the case at Lehigh, and I would question it not being the case at Northwestern. He also does a bit of mixing of apples and oranges. The players play for "pay" (scholarship) which is year round, yet he then comments on them "working" 40-50 hrs a week for three to four months. How about looking at the entire average over the year that the scholarship is in effect? If not, where do I sign up for a job where I can bring in $60K/year with full benefits and housing while putting in 40-50 hrs/week for only four months? The more I read this ruling, the more of a joke it becomes.

[ngineer]

While only focused on football and basketball right now, the moneymakers; this will certainly apply to all athletics, crew, wrestling, softball, cross-country, etc. One of the 'fallouts' of this, if upheld, which doesn't seem to have gotten much attention, is the TAXES that will then be required to be paid. Certainly if the students are ruled to be getting compensation as 'employees' then they should be paying taxes on this earned income, as well as building up their social security and medicare balances. A lot of ramifications that need to be sorted out.

[Seawolf97]

Rather see the program shut down. FCS college football is great but not on these terms, bring on mens soccer.

[DFW HOYA]

Rather see the program shut down. FCS college football is great but not on these terms, bring on mens soccer.

Except that men's soccer faces many of the same conditions the ruling cites in football.

[Nova09]

The line of thinking that this could only apply to revenue producing sports or scholarship athletes is absurd. Whether or not your employer is turning a profit is irrelevant; if you are an employee, you get paid. Some have argued that walk-ons could be considered essentially the same as unpaid interns--but the legal definition of interns is very specific, and they cannot be replacing an existing employee position nor can they do any work whatsoever that would otherwise be done by an employee. Walk-ons are very clearly doing all the exact same things the "employees" are doing, so Ohr's reasoning that they are not employees because they can leave the program without financial loss doesn't hold up. By that logic I could round up a bunch of homeless people to do manual labor around my yard, offer them lunch (walk-ons do get free meals as part of participation) and not pay those guys anything. It's not legal.

Also overlooked by every published commentary I have seen is the case of partial scholarships. I know, Northwestern football is full ride or nothing, but looking ahead it is important for FCS or other sports to think about those people. If they are employees on a $5000 scholarship, are they meeting minimum wage? What about the athletes who would get the exact same financial aid package in terms of bottom line regardless of athletic scholarship? By Ohr's reasoning, are they not employees because they do not suffer financial loss if they leave the team?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The line of thinking that this could only apply to revenue producing sports or scholarship athletes is absurd. Whether or not your employer is turning a profit is irrelevant; if you are an employee, you get paid. Some have argued that walk-ons could be considered essentially the same as unpaid interns--but the legal definition of interns is very specific, and they cannot be replacing an existing employee position nor can they do any work whatsoever that would otherwise be done by an employee. Walk-ons are very clearly doing all the exact same things the "employees" are doing, so Ohr's reasoning that they are not employees because they can leave the program without financial loss doesn't hold up. By that logic I could round up a bunch of homeless people to do manual labor around my yard, offer them lunch (walk-ons do get free meals as part of participation) and not pay those guys anything. It's not legal.

Also overlooked by every published commentary I have seen is the case of partial scholarships. I know, Northwestern football is full ride or nothing, but looking ahead it is important for FCS or other sports to think about those people. If they are employees on a $5000 scholarship, are they meeting minimum wage? What about the athletes who would get the exact same financial aid package in terms of bottom line regardless of athletic scholarship? By Ohr's reasoning, are they not employees because they do not suffer financial loss if they leave the team?

Exactly. Also worthy of mention is when you open up the "partial-scholarship" box, you now are talking about all equivalency sports. In most collegiate sports, scholarships are split, ex. men's tennis might have 5 1/2 scholarships to spread out through a team of 11 athletes. Though all FCS football programs split scholarships up to some degree, the ratio of "full-to-partial" is much smaller in other equivalency sports.

Ohr's opinion, as are the opinions of many of the columnists spouting about it online, are based on an extremely narrow view (FBS football-based + men's basketball) based on a false assumption (the amateurism model is designed by The Man to keep people down - it actually dates from ancient Greece) without any regard to how it applies to not only the other flavors of football (FCS/D-II equivalency, FCS/D-III non-scholarship) and not only the other sports (field hockey, lacrosse, 20+ other sports) but to subsets of players on FBS teams that are an intrinsic part of the process (walk-ons).

[Sandlapper Spike]

I get the impression sometimes that a lot of columnists hold to a narrow view of the landscape (FBS football/men's hoops) simply because they are just too lazy to even think about anything else.

Also, this subject is very nuanced. It's hard to be nuanced when you're making snarky comments on Twitter...

[walliver]

I get the impression sometimes that a lot of columnists hold to a narrow view of the landscape (FBS football/men's hoops) simply because they are just too lazy to even think about anything else.

Also, this subject is very nuanced. It's hard to be nuanced when you're making snarky comments on Twitter...

To most columnists, "college sports" means football and men's basketball games shown in prime time on ESPN or the major broadcast networks. They are oblivious to the fact that most D-I conferences do not have well-paying TV contracts like the Big 5 (and maybe Big East and Atlantic-10 for BB), if any contracts. For men's basketball, the median attendance is around 2500 +/-, and a number of schools average less than 1000 -- most of these schools are not getting rich off men's basketball
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2013.pdf

[Sandlapper Spike]

This is a very well-considered article on the potential impact of unionization at the FCS, D2, and D3 levels:

Link (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/2/5573592/college-football-union-fcs-d2-d3)


One misconception is that this somehow only applies to the schools that make big money off sports.In labor law, whether an employer is actually making money isn't particularly relevant. You still have to pay the people who work for you, and the definition of whether you're an employee doesn't take into account your employer's profit margin.

The only thing that matters is whether you're working for someone's benefit. If the employer is failing to take proper advantage of your labor, that's its problem. Now, the opinion does state that Northwestern's revenue is relevant, but what it's relevant to here is whether there's even something the union might be able to bargain for.

So yes, this might have an impact on lower divisions, although even if union organization reaches down that far the impact of actual union organization on those schools would very likely be minimal. When you're bargaining collectively, how much money the boss is making does have a relevant impact. But a ruling might still allow for players at those low-revenue schools to unionize (or, more likely by that point, join the existing union).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Nice piece getting to some of the same points I was trying to articulate. It doesn't mention, though, one of the other points I was trying to make:


Currently there are 24 states that have right-to-work laws on the books, which, broadly, restricts a union's ability to forcibly collect dues from its members.

This means even if, say, Rice University voted on unionization of its college football athletes and managed to convince the Republicans on their state labor board to pass their request, they couldn't force any of its members to pay dues to the new union.

In states with a Republican governor and Republican representatives on the labor board, unionization is seen as an uphill battle, at best.

Of the seventeen private institutions in FBS, only five - Northwestern (Illinois), Boston College (Massachusetts), Syracuse (New York), Stanford and USC (California) - operate in states that currently don't have right-to-work laws in place.


This further complicates matters. If Rice football players joined a federal union, they would not be required to pay dues but would get all of the "benefits". When you're in a right-to-work state, even if the union is federally-based you don't have to pay these dues. This is one reason why car plants in Tennessee and the Deep South are not union shops, since it's not profitable for the unions.

[DFW HOYA]

By the expansive review of this one NLRB official, lots of college students could claim to be employees--marching bands, work-study students, student journalists, even those "hostesses" popular at SEC schools. Could they all unionize? In theory, perhaps. Would they? Probably not. Unionism is dying regardless of the NLRB's best intentions.

So what if Northwestern said no to the union? They could certainly recruit non-union talent, correct?

Eventually, this gets solved (for better or worse) by Congress, who will work with its friends at the NCAA to so narrowly define permissible benefits outside of elite I-A football and D-I basketball so as to make collective bargaining impractical.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

By the expansive review of this one NLRB official, lots of college students could claim to be employees--marching bands, work-study students, student journalists, even those "hostesses" popular at SEC schools. Could they all unionize? In theory, perhaps. Would they? Probably not. Unionism is dying regardless of the NLRB's best intentions.

So what if Northwestern said no to the union? They could certainly recruit non-union talent, correct?

Eventually, this gets solved (for better or worse) by Congress, who will work with its friends at the NCAA to so narrowly define permissible benefits outside of elite I-A football and D-I basketball so as to make collective bargaining impractical.

Along with throwing a bone or three to the players, most likely.

[Nova09]

By the expansive review of this one NLRB official, lots of college students could claim to be employees--marching bands, work-study students, student journalists, even those "hostesses" popular at SEC schools. Could they all unionize? In theory, perhaps. Would they? Probably not. Unionism is dying regardless of the NLRB's best intentions.

So what if Northwestern said no to the union? They could certainly recruit non-union talent, correct?

Eventually, this gets solved (for better or worse) by Congress, who will work with its friends at the NCAA to so narrowly define permissible benefits outside of elite I-A football and D-I basketball so as to make collective bargaining impractical.

You're missing the point, as are many, that becoming a union is such an unimportant part of all this. The big news is that those football players at Northwestern, and all those groups you mentioned, and the guys at the Y in the rec league, ARE all employees right now. That's what the NLRB said. As employees, they can organize or not BUT are still protected by all the existing legislation pertaining to labor relations.

[superman7515]

UD President Harker on unionization...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/opinion/student-athletes-shouldnt-unionize.html


NEWARK, Del. — LAST week’s ruling by a regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_labor_relations_board/index.html?inline=nyt-org) that players on Northwestern University’s football team were school employees, and thus eligible to unionize, has been celebrated by those who believe that it will benefit student athletes everywhere.

It won’t. Player unions would be a disaster for universities, for college sports fans and, most important, for student athletes themselves. The prospect of college football players bargaining to exchange scholarships for salaries is still remote, but if it comes about, even the most valuable athletes would be worse off.

Turning student athletes into salaried employees would endanger the existence of varsity sports on many college campuses. Only about 10 percent of Division I college sports programs turn a profit, and most of them, like our $28 million athletic program at the University of Delaware, lose money. Changing scholarship dollars into salary would almost certainly increase the amount schools have to spend on sports, since earnings are taxed and scholarships are not. In order just to match the value of a scholarship, the university would have to spend more.

We are among the many schools that have already had to trim varsity sports in recent years. Should costs increase, we and many other schools would face pressure to cut back further.
Without question, some big schools have lost their way. On some campuses the pursuit of athletic dominance has eroded the ideal of the student athlete. Players at these schools have every right to complain, particularly when the demands of competition effectively prevent them from being students. But the answer is not to organize and essentially turn pro. This would only further lessen the priority on learning. If scholarship athletes already find it hard to balance schoolwork with team commitments, under arrangements that obligate educational opportunity, think how much harder it would be if they were being paid to play....

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Only about 10 percent of Division I college sports programs turn a profit, and most of them, like our $28 million athletic program at the University of Delaware, lose money. Changing scholarship dollars into salary would almost certainly increase the amount schools have to spend on sports, since earnings are taxed and scholarships are not. In order just to match the value of a scholarship, the university would have to spend more.

Even if it only affects the 32 private institutions at the FCS level, it doesn't seem like an idle threat that they all may decide to drop football rather than have to pay takes on $3m-$5m on scholarship money - an number that would probably rise.

[DFW HOYA]

Even if it only affects the 32 private institutions at the FCS level, it doesn't seem like an idle threat that they all may decide to drop football rather than have to pay takes on $3m-$5m on scholarship money - an number that would probably rise.

By that same logic, why wouldn't they drop all sports, most of which also involve scholarships?

This is why I think we're getting ahead of the narrative. There will be a solution without coming to approach such decisions.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

By that same logic, why wouldn't they drop all sports, most of which also involve scholarships?

This is why I think we're getting ahead of the narrative. There will be a solution without coming to approach such decisions.

Dropping non-revenue sports, sadly, isn't news anymore. UDel dropped men's track two years ago, and Temple dropped a bunch of sports, including a men's gymnastics program that was more than a half-century old. There is already a lot of pressure on athletics, and adding millions annually to the expense budget can't help.

What I think bothers me the most, though, is the athletes claiming they don't have a voice, even though the NCAA has an athlete panel already in place and the richest programs are already trying not only to cater to the student's needs, they're pandering to them too. If student-athletes are already too lazy to take advantage of what the NCAA has already provided - and despite what you may have read, they have provided opportunities for student-athletes to have a voice in athletics - what's the likelihood that they'll take time away from study in order to attend to player union meetings, organize strikes, study the issues?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I have another serious question, perhaps someone can help.

Suppose a kid in this unionized world gets into Bucknell, he signs an NLI, and signs up for the union. He suits for a couple games for the Bison freshman year, but doesn't play.

He finds the going tough, and scrapes by academically. One teacher gives him an F. That violates the team policy of maintaining good grades, so the coach kicks him off the team.

Can the union get involved, suing the university to keep him on the team? Can they say about a coach, "you can't insist on good grades for membership on the team?"

The way things stand right now, a team (and coach) can make their own rules for membership on the team. But in a world where players are employees, suddenly labor laws come into play. Even though you're in school to learn and get good grades, it can't be a condition for "employment" - can it?

Take it another step. Suppose a student smokes dope. Right now, a student can be fired from the team for doing that. In a world when they're employees, can being drug-free be a condition for employment?

[Bill]

LFN

Being drug free can always be a condition of employment.....

[Lehigh Football Nation]

LFN

Being drug free can always be a condition of employment.....

Sort of.

http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_drugalcohol.html


2. DOES THE COMPANY HAVE TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION OVER DRUG TESTING?The answer is yes, if the Union makes the demand on the employer after the Union is notified by the employer that it wants to implement a new policy.
The General Counsel of National Labor Relations Board issued the following ruling in 1987, as Memorandum GC87-5, "Guideline Memorandum Concerning Drug or Alcohol Testing of Employees," which says in part:

In brief it is my position that:


drug testing for current employees and job applicants is a mandatory subject of bargaining under Section 8(d) of the Act;
in general, implementation of a drug testing program is a substantial change in working conditions, even where physical examinations previously have been given, and even if established work rules preclude the use or possession of drugs in the plant;
the established Board policy that a union's waiver of its bargaining rights must be clear and unmistakable is to be applied to drug testing

Many employers like to point to the management rights clause that says they have the right to run the business or the agency, and claim that this means the Union has given up it's rights to bargain over issues like drug and alcohol testing. The NLRB says that the Union gives up its rights under the management rights clause ONLY if it is clear and unmistakable, that the Union is giving up its right to bargain over an exact issue. For example here is language that is clear and unmistakable that the Union is giving up its rights to bargain over a drug and alcohol policy: "The Union agrees to allow management to implement any kind of drug and alcohol testing program that it wants to, when ever it wants to. "


This appears like would be a point of negotiation in the formation of the union. Furthermore, there are two states where dope is now legal.

[McNeese75]

Just put the ole Death Penalty on NW for starting all this crap and be done with it xcoffeex

[Bill]

LFN

Yes, but these new "employees" will certainly have to submit - even if it has to be collectively bargained for - to drug testing, just like professional athletes do. Oh wait, I guess these guys are all pro athletes now :)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

LFN

Yes, but these new "employees" will certainly have to submit - even if it has to be collectively bargained for - to drug testing, just like professional athletes do. Oh wait, I guess these guys are all pro athletes now :)

Right. They are EMPLOYEES of the university, and thus would be subject to the same drug testing policy required of its EMPLOYEES, and whatever else.

What about grades, though?

[Bill]

Possibly...but let's not forget employees can be classified. For example, Brian Cashman and Derek Jeter are both employees, but are subject to different stipulations of employment, like drug testing. Cashman isn't tested for HGH, as far as I know :)

As for grades, these too will have to be collectively bargained for. As members of this special class of employment, maintaining satisfactory grades will be one condition of employment. It's like a person who needs to maintain some sort of certification or has a job with continuing education requirements.

Oh boy, isn't this fun? I agree, a potential pandora's box has been opened up, and the saying goes "be careful what you wish for" !

[Go...gate]

If the "core four" PL schools went back to their old aid policies (I don't know if HC would, but I hope they would as well) would this issue be moot?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If the "core four" PL schools went back to their old aid policies (I don't know if HC would, but I hope they would as well) would this issue be moot?

I don't think so. The issue is that what tied an athlete to a school used to be admissions, coaching staff, and a scholarship. But if you're considered an employee of the university suddenly it's a completely different relationship. A union may have a different opinion on academic index requirements, for example, which could subvert the admissions office in terms of hiring new student "employees" in football.

If athletes end up being considered "employees", my question is: Can you have an academic index based on admissions? Bill says that would need to be collectively bargained for, but it's unlikely one would be agreed to if the same union applies to, say, USC.

But also, does considering the athletes "employees" circumvent admissions entirely?

[PAllen]

Right. They are EMPLOYEES of the university, and thus would be subject to the same drug testing policy required of its EMPLOYEES, and whatever else.

What about grades, though?

Grades? Once you are an employee, you are just that. You're job is to play football (or whatever your sport is). If you want to take classes in your free time, that's up to you. What's truly lost in all of this (and what make me sick) is the opportunity most of these kids are throwing away by heading off to football factory schools all on the hopes of making it to "The League". If they instead chose their school based on the more probable "How is this education going to benefit me after my playing days are over?", then the world would be a much different place.

[344Johnson]

If some kids don't want to play because:

A.) They get a free education at a good school
B.) Play football in front of thousands of people
C.) Have a coach is likely to instill a strong work ethic for the rest of their life

Sounds like a personal problem. If these idiots picked schools truly based on their education.....well....Notre Dame and Stanford would demolish everyone.