Author Topic: NLRB: Players can unionize  (Read 25904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Johnponz

  • Guest
Re: NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2014, 04:55:04 AM »
NLRB definition prevails for unionization purposes.  IRS definition prevails for taxation purposes.  You can have both.

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2014, 08:17:46 AM »
NLRB definition prevails for unionization purposes.  IRS definition prevails for taxation purposes.  You can have both.
Which is exactly my point.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Joe Stack

  • *
  • Posts: 637
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-46
Re: NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2014, 12:17:20 AM »
Make no mistake: the unions' interest (as well as that of the FLRB as appointed by a leftist administration) is increasing union membership as its being depleted elsewhere, especially in the private sector. In many states, they can mandate dues these athletes will pay which will be used for further recruitment and to pay off politicians to enact more pro-union policies. Bringing up anything related to the business of college athletics is unfounded as all such issues are irrelevant to the union issue. There is nothing more at play here than the expansion of the rolls of labor unions.

jannugimes

  • Guest
Re: NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2014, 12:32:23 AM »
This is the end of college football. Typical Chicago.

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2014, 04:24:26 PM »
Once again I ask, why is it okay for colleges to organise themselves into conferences and the NCAA, and increase their bargaining power collectively, but it's not okay for athletes to do the same thing?

Johnponz

  • Guest
Re: NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2014, 06:00:24 PM »
Because those particular athletes should be classified as students and not as employees.  The spirit of the game is at stake.  The athletes at this level should be playing for the pride of their school not for what they can get.

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 2007
  • FAN REACTION: +45/-46
NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2014, 09:36:26 PM »
The sky is not falling chicken little and college football will continue as the large revenue producing business it's always been


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Johnponz

  • Guest
Re: NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2014, 12:10:22 PM »
The issue is not that college football will disappear because I agree it will not.  The issue is what life lessons are being taught.  One of the greatest lessons that the game teaches is to put the team needs above the needs of the individual.  If the players are classified as employees, the interest of the individual will become more important than the team interest. 

This is one of the biggest issues with society in general, everything is about "what is in it for me."  College football will become another professional league where players determine which team to play for based on how much money they can get.  Right now they get a free education where the rest of the students have to pay.  That education is worth quite a bit, and should be all the compensation that is required.  I know the current "demands" do not include compensation but with Union status and employee status, it is only a matter of time.

Chicken Little was yelling "the sky is falling" on a sunny day.  While it is not raining yet, a couple of clouds can be seen on the horizon.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:12:21 PM by Johnponz »

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2014, 04:11:56 AM »
If all players actually got a meaningful education that took priority over athletics I'd have a lot more sympathy for the colleges and for that argument, but when there's so many players doing worthless Communications degrees, being deliberately steered towards them and towards paper classes so that academic demands don't affect their practice schedule, and being obliged to attend 'voluntary' workouts on pain of losing their position, to the point where the NCAA has now decided to stop trying to enforce some of those rules and let the schools make the workouts mandatory: no, screw them, they're a bunch of hypocrites who are currently being allowed to have their cake and eat it too.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2005-07-18-summer-workouts-cover_x.htm
http://newsok.com/college-football-football-programs-can-now-make-summer-workouts-mandatory/article/4519986
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/15985/
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/09/1046687/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-11-18-majors-cover_N.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/14auburn.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 3491
  • FAN REACTION: +133/-24
Re: NLRB: Players can unionize
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2014, 10:11:40 PM »
While I certainly think the term "union" is misplaced here as is the term "employee", I see nothing wrong with CFB players banding together to try to gain a little of the megamillion dollars that big-time NCAA schools and the NCAA itself rake in basically on their backs and sweat.

Is it fair to lose your scholarship when a new coach comes to town and your skill set doesn't fit his philosophy?  Yet you try and transfer and they want you to sit out a year.

Should you lose your scholly due to an injury which occurred in the performance of your obligation for that scholarship?

Should your likeness be used to profit the NCAA and its institutions without compensation, even after you no longer attend the university?

Is it fair that because you are on scholarship, the NCAA prohibits you from working a part-time job?  If you want to go work a summer job you can't because the coach wants you to stay all summer and "work out" and bond with your teammates?

The NCAA brags on the "student-athlete" and indeed, a full scholarship is a handsome reward for obtaining an education.  But part of being the "student" part of "student-athlete" is more than books, registration, room and board and a meal ticket each semester.  There is the social interaction with the regular student body, participation in non-athletic activities.  Those things cost money too, money a poor country boy from Louisiana or the streets of LA doesn't have.

 Yet the college is building yet another bigger, badder weight room, adding a bigger, flashier Jumbotron, paying the head coach an extra $2 mil so he won't threaten to break his contract and jump to the NFL.

Sorry but this lamenting of the end of college sports as we know it is misplaced.  The NCAA and its institutions created the monster they now have before them by being stubborn, pigheaded, greedy bastards.

Screw 'em.