[oldalum]

free NY Times article
implications?
(I apologize if I missed earlier thread on this topic)

[oldalum]

free NY Times article
implications?
(I apologize if I missed earlier thread on this topic)

[Giants]

1785164167[/url]']
free NY Times article
implications?
(I apologize if I missed earlier thread on this topic)

The first step in a very long journey.  Maybe someday we will look back and think of them as the “Curt Flood” of college football.  I hope I live long enough to see it happen….

[Giants]

1785164167[/url]']
free NY Times article
implications?
(I apologize if I missed earlier thread on this topic)

The first step in a very long journey.  Maybe someday we will look back and think of them as the “Curt Flood” of college football.  I hope I live long enough to see it happen….

[Hurlburt88]

I think Northwestern did something similar about 4 years ago, and I think it did not really go anywhere.   I may look up later.

[Hurlburt88]

I think Northwestern did something similar about 4 years ago, and I think it did not really go anywhere.   I may look up later.

[82lsju]

I think Northwestern did something similar about 4 years ago, and I think it did not really go anywhere.   I may look up later.

from Aug 2015

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has ruled in a unanimous decision that it is dismissing the petition filed by the College Athlete Players Association for an election declaring Northwestern University football team members who receive grant-in-aid scholarships are “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  The Board explained that it had concluded that “asserting jurisdiction in this case would not promote stability in labor relations.”  The Board made clear however that it might well assert jurisdiction in a future case involving grant-in-aid scholarship players.


The Players Association’s Petition
It has been over a year (March 26, 2014) since the Regional Director of the Chicago Region of the NLRB found that football players at Northwestern University who receive grant-in-aid scholarships were “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) and therefore could be represented by a union. Northwestern argued that these players were student athletes and were therefore not eligible to vote. The Regional Director directed an election which took place last year.  The ballots were impounded pending the outcome of an appeal to the Board.

In a surprising Decision (pdf), the five member panel of the Board unanimously held that it would not take jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the union’s Petition.  As a result, the ballots will be destroyed since the decision is not appealable.

https://www.managementmemo.com/nlrb-sack...real-issue

[82lsju]

I think Northwestern did something similar about 4 years ago, and I think it did not really go anywhere.   I may look up later.

from Aug 2015

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has ruled in a unanimous decision that it is dismissing the petition filed by the College Athlete Players Association for an election declaring Northwestern University football team members who receive grant-in-aid scholarships are “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  The Board explained that it had concluded that “asserting jurisdiction in this case would not promote stability in labor relations.”  The Board made clear however that it might well assert jurisdiction in a future case involving grant-in-aid scholarship players.


The Players Association’s Petition
It has been over a year (March 26, 2014) since the Regional Director of the Chicago Region of the NLRB found that football players at Northwestern University who receive grant-in-aid scholarships were “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) and therefore could be represented by a union. Northwestern argued that these players were student athletes and were therefore not eligible to vote. The Regional Director directed an election which took place last year.  The ballots were impounded pending the outcome of an appeal to the Board.

In a surprising Decision (pdf), the five member panel of the Board unanimously held that it would not take jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the union’s Petition.  As a result, the ballots will be destroyed since the decision is not appealable.

https://www.managementmemo.com/nlrb-sack...real-issue

[Maple Leaf]

Article from the Athletic on this issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7472097...ing-cfbpa/

[Maple Leaf]

Article from the Athletic on this issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7472097...ing-cfbpa/

[martyup]

I sure wish the Stanford players would put their energy and focus on achieving excellence on the field.  Otherwise, they are going to get the snot kicked out of them come fall.

[martyup]

I sure wish the Stanford players would put their energy and focus on achieving excellence on the field.  Otherwise, they are going to get the snot kicked out of them come fall.

[TonyLima]

I sure wish the Stanford players would put their energy and focus on achieving excellence on the field.  Otherwise, they are going to get the snot kicked out of them come fall.

That’s probably why they want a union.

[TonyLima]

I sure wish the Stanford players would put their energy and focus on achieving excellence on the field.  Otherwise, they are going to get the snot kicked out of them come fall.

That’s probably why they want a union.

[BostonCard]

One of the reasons that the NLRB did not intervene in the Northwestern case is that even though it could have because Northwestern is a private employer, none of the rest of the teams in its conference were (post expansion, USC has joined it), and it didn’t want to create a situation where players in only one team in the conference are unionized.  The ACC has 7 private universities (plus Notre Dame), and eight public ones so it is a somewhat different scenario, but it would still create a situation where the NLRB only has jurisdiction over some of the universities in the conference.

ADD: Without getting political, it is probably fair to say that the NLRB in the current administration is likely to be less sympathetic to the petition, and there is a good chance that the players will wait until there is a more pro-labor administration in place.

BC

[BostonCard]

One of the reasons that the NLRB did not intervene in the Northwestern case is that even though it could have because Northwestern is a private employer, none of the rest of the teams in its conference were (post expansion, USC has joined it), and it didn’t want to create a situation where players in only one team in the conference are unionized.  The ACC has 7 private universities (plus Notre Dame), and eight public ones so it is a somewhat different scenario, but it would still create a situation where the NLRB only has jurisdiction over some of the universities in the conference.

ADD: Without getting political, it is probably fair to say that the NLRB in the current administration is likely to be less sympathetic to the petition, and there is a good chance that the players will wait until there is a more pro-labor administration in place.

BC

[martyup]

I can see it now.  QB1 files a complaint with the union when he gets benched after throwing 3 consecutive interceptions.  Or, a coach is blocked from moving his left tackle to the right guard position by the players union.  Or, practices are too hard . . . food is too bland . . . no cushions on the bench . . . yada yada yada.  

[martyup]

I can see it now.  QB1 files a complaint with the union when he gets benched after throwing 3 consecutive interceptions.  Or, a coach is blocked from moving his left tackle to the right guard position by the players union.  Or, practices are too hard . . . food is too bland . . . no cushions on the bench . . . yada yada yada.  

[BostonCard]

I can see it now.  QB1 files a complaint with the union when he gets benched after throwing 3 consecutive interceptions.  Or, a coach is blocked from moving his left tackle to the right guard position by the players union.  Or, practices are too hard . . . food is too bland . . . no cushions on the bench . . . yada yada yada.  

I'm agnostic about whether or not players should have unions, but I feel like unions in professional sports focus mostly on protecting free agency, fighting against salary caps, and disciplinary procedures.  I don't think any of the stuff you are bringing up is litigated by, say, the NFLPA, but I admittedly have not read the entire CBA.

BC

[BostonCard]

I can see it now.  QB1 files a complaint with the union when he gets benched after throwing 3 consecutive interceptions.  Or, a coach is blocked from moving his left tackle to the right guard position by the players union.  Or, practices are too hard . . . food is too bland . . . no cushions on the bench . . . yada yada yada.  

I'm agnostic about whether or not players should have unions, but I feel like unions in professional sports focus mostly on protecting free agency, fighting against salary caps, and disciplinary procedures.  I don't think any of the stuff you are bringing up is litigated by, say, the NFLPA, but I admittedly have not read the entire CBA.

BC

[2006alum]

I can see it now.  QB1 files a complaint with the union when he gets benched after throwing 3 consecutive interceptions.  Or, a coach is blocked from moving his left tackle to the right guard position by the players union.  Or, practices are too hard . . . food is too bland . . . no cushions on the bench . . . yada yada yada.  

I'm agnostic about whether or not players should have unions, but I feel like unions in professional sports focus mostly on protecting free agency, fighting against salary caps, and disciplinary procedures.  I don't think any of the stuff you are bringing up is litigated by, say, the NFLPA, but I admittedly have not read the entire CBA.

BC

You're correct. I'm more familiar with basketball but short of strictly disciplinary issues, for all other staffing issues, including playing time, roster decisions, trade decisions, etc., are fully in the purview of management. Which to me is the virtue of why I hope student athletes in sports like football unionize - right now with NIL everything Marty is dreading could happen already is happening, with athletes threatening to transfer the minute they don't like how much time they're getting, how they're being used, etc. Or threatening to do so to get more NIL money, etc.

[2006alum]

I can see it now.  QB1 files a complaint with the union when he gets benched after throwing 3 consecutive interceptions.  Or, a coach is blocked from moving his left tackle to the right guard position by the players union.  Or, practices are too hard . . . food is too bland . . . no cushions on the bench . . . yada yada yada.  

I'm agnostic about whether or not players should have unions, but I feel like unions in professional sports focus mostly on protecting free agency, fighting against salary caps, and disciplinary procedures.  I don't think any of the stuff you are bringing up is litigated by, say, the NFLPA, but I admittedly have not read the entire CBA.

BC

You're correct. I'm more familiar with basketball but short of strictly disciplinary issues, for all other staffing issues, including playing time, roster decisions, trade decisions, etc., are fully in the purview of management. Which to me is the virtue of why I hope student athletes in sports like football unionize - right now with NIL everything Marty is dreading could happen already is happening, with athletes threatening to transfer the minute they don't like how much time they're getting, how they're being used, etc. Or threatening to do so to get more NIL money, etc.