SC and NCAA joint employers?
Going for NCAA deep pockets. Absolutely no basis in law for making them "joint."
(05-18-2023 06:49 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]SC and NCAA joint employers?
Going for NCAA deep pockets. Absolutely no basis in law for making them "joint."
Since when has basis in law mattered in CA? They also have to go through the 9th Circus Court to get SCOTUS to hear it.
(05-18-2023 06:49 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]SC and NCAA joint employers?
Going for NCAA deep pockets. Absolutely no basis in law for making them "joint."
Part of the complaint is that USC, Pac 12 and NCAA are conspiring to limit the athlete's rights under the NLRB. I dunno, man, I just see stuff on twitter
What about San Francisco State, Occidental, or Pomona? Or is this selective enforcement?
(05-18-2023 06:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 06:49 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]SC and NCAA joint employers?
Going for NCAA deep pockets. Absolutely no basis in law for making them "joint."
Part of the complaint is that USC, Pac 12 and NCAA are conspiring to limit the athlete's rights under the NLRB. I dunno, man, I just see stuff on twitter
Another source said all 3 were called joint employers.
Conspiring doesn't make them a joint employer. Might make them liable.
(05-18-2023 06:57 PM)clunk Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 06:49 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]SC and NCAA joint employers?
Going for NCAA deep pockets. Absolutely no basis in law for making them "joint."
Since when has basis in law mattered in CA? They also have to go through the 9th Circus Court to get SCOTUS to hear it.
It matters in California greatly. Probably moreso there than most states.
Doesn't matter.
Even if courts interpret the current relationship as the athletes are employees then the colleges change policies going forward so they aren't, and they maybe settle past claims for some notational amount.
Aka the Uber/Lyft contractor dispute resolution path.
Also if college athletes are employees, what’s the reason high school athletes aren’t.
(05-18-2023 09:44 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote: [ -> ]Also if college athletes are employees, what’s the reason high school athletes aren’t.
Why in this the most perfect of all possible worlds, child labor laws!
(05-18-2023 07:04 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 06:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 06:49 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]SC and NCAA joint employers?
Going for NCAA deep pockets. Absolutely no basis in law for making them "joint."
Part of the complaint is that USC, Pac 12 and NCAA are conspiring to limit the athlete's rights under the NLRB. I dunno, man, I just see stuff on twitter
Another source said all 3 were called joint employers.
Conspiring doesn't make them a joint employer. Might make them liable.
USC is an odd choice b/c they're in the Pac, not much money to wring out of that turnip. Get in line behind Comcast. Or would the lawsuit seek to add the B1G in 2024? As the NLRB is running this show, not the State of California, it seems odd that they chose USC, a private school in a teetering conference, rather than someone like tOSU.
edit:
The decision by Abruzzo's staff to pursue all three groups as joint employers creates the possibility that all college athletes could be granted the right to unionize as a result of this case. The NLRB doesn't have jurisdiction over public universities, so the courts would need to determine that conferences and the NCAA act as an employer in order for their decision to apply to all schools competing in college sports.
Ah, they had to sue a private school since the NLRB has no jurisdiction over State institutions. And they had to include the NCAA and a Conference to try to stealthily expand the case to include public schools. Seems like extraordinary overreach, though Congress might be just fine letting the courts make this decision as they've made so many others that should have been made by Congress over the past few decades.
(05-18-2023 06:49 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]SC and NCAA joint employers?
Going for NCAA deep pockets. Absolutely no basis in law for making them "joint."
According to the NLRB counsel, an employee is someone who performs services, and the employer controls significant aspects of their lives.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and NLRB are primarily concerned with the ability of workers to organize and collectively bargain. The counsel said that they were going over the USC player handbook, and cited one provision that restricted use of social media, which would block player-employees from communicating with another and organizing collectively.
The NLRA only covers private employers such as USC (there may be state laws that permit collective bargaining with at least some public employees, and there may be state laws that bar such collectively bargaining).
The PAC-12 and NCAA are private entities. The complaint argues that USC is enforcing PAC-12 and NCAA rules and are therefore joint employers. This could open up public universities to organizing. I don't know whether the conferences could kick out private universities.
Were the USC player-employees organized now or last summer could they have blocked the move to the B1G?
The complaint only covers football-employees and basketball-employees. What services do water-polo-employees provide?
Once football-players and basketball-players are deemed employees it opens up all kinds of laws such as minimum wage, EEOC, OSHA, etc.
The ruling by an administrative judge is likely by the end of the year, this can be appealed to the full NLRB board, and then to the 9th Circuit, and conceivably to the SCOTUS.
(05-18-2023 09:44 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote: [ -> ]Also if college athletes are employees, what’s the reason high school athletes aren’t.
The NLRB counsel said that under the NLRA that employees perform a service, and their employer exercises significant control over them.
Football revenues at USC are in the $10s of millions. They sell tickets to games, and sell media rights to the games. The games are in essence performances. Were there no football players (performers/entertainers) there would be no games, and USC would not receive any revenue which they siphon off to pay coaches and ADs. Only a tiny percentage of students at USC play football, it can hardly be considered part of the educational process.
High school athletics don't make $millions of dollars. Athletes (and other competitors in academic and music contests) are a significant share of students. Coaches are often teachers (this may be a requirement in some states). Athletes may be earning P.E. credits, and practice during class time.
(05-19-2023 07:45 AM)jimrtex Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 09:44 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote: [ -> ]Also if college athletes are employees, what’s the reason high school athletes aren’t.
The NLRB counsel said that under the NLRA that employees perform a service, and their employer exercises significant control over them.
Football revenues at USC are in the $10s of millions. They sell tickets to games, and sell media rights to the games. The games are in essence performances. Were there no football players (performers/entertainers) there would be no games, and USC would not receive any revenue which they siphon off to pay coaches and ADs. Only a tiny percentage of students at USC play football, it can hardly be considered part of the educational process.
High school athletics don't make $millions of dollars. Athletes (and other competitors in academic and music contests) are a significant share of students. Coaches are often teachers (this may be a requirement in some states). Athletes may be earning P.E. credits, and practice during class time.
You make a good argument but how much revenue an organization makes does not, to the best of my knowledge, affect a person's employment status. They either are employees or not.
The question then becomes "should they be paid for their services", which is an entirely different issue. If they should be paid, then in this case and others like it it it must be determined by whom they will be paid, which is another issue as well; will they be state employees if at a public institution or will they be private employees if at a private institution? I don't think that they would be determined to be conference employees but if they are, it could be the end of the PAC at the very least as I am sure that it would force many schools to leave the conference with the exception of the ones in CA.
This brings me to another question and it's one that should at least be considered: if the ruling winds up finding in favor of athletes playing sports at USC (and possibly UCLA), what decision does the B10 make when it comes to realignment? Do they somehow revoke membership to USC and UCLA and then choose to focus their attention in the east or just hold fast at 14 members?
Everything will be decided by the courts and politicians at the end of the day... but it will take years to resolve. In the meantime, I wonder how much conferences and schools will mitigate their risk exposures in preparation of any worst case scenarios?
(05-19-2023 07:45 AM)jimrtex Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 09:44 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote: [ -> ]Also if college athletes are employees, what’s the reason high school athletes aren’t.
The NLRB counsel said that under the NLRA that employees perform a service, and their employer exercises significant control over them.
Football revenues at USC are in the $10s of millions. They sell tickets to games, and sell media rights to the games. The games are in essence performances. Were there no football players (performers/entertainers) there would be no games, and USC would not receive any revenue which they siphon off to pay coaches and ADs. Only a tiny percentage of students at USC play football, it can hardly be considered part of the educational process.
High school athletics don't make $millions of dollars. Athletes (and other competitors in academic and music contests) are a significant share of students. Coaches are often teachers (this may be a requirement in some states). Athletes may be earning P.E. credits, and practice during class time.
This is my rub with the whole "athletes are employees" argument. It almost always points to revenue and the significant amount being generated by the top levels of college athletics. The ultimate question is one of control, there is no more or less control for football players than there are for basketball players, baseball players, tennis players, soccer players, etc. The labor involved and control at the D1 level is the same as the D2 and D3 levels.
Revenue is irrelevant when discussing employment status but even the NLRB. Employees receive a wage regardless of whether their employers realizes a profit or a loss on their labor. It doesn't matter that USC football makes millions while the water polo team loses thousands. They both have the same expectations and terms for their service, they are both employees.
Bringing revenue into the conversation is a means of trying to distinguish the highest level of college athletics and treat it differently from every other group that this classification would obviously apply to. If you think the football players are employees, then by the same arguments so is every other athlete at the university. Maybe even beyond when considering the demands of marching band or travelling mock trial teams, and other groups that the university provides a scholarship for but also exercises significant control over.
Overreacting to a complaint.
This NLRB complaint is the equivalent to giving a 1 star review to a restaurant on Yelp.
(05-19-2023 03:13 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 07:04 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 06:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 06:49 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]SC and NCAA joint employers?
Going for NCAA deep pockets. Absolutely no basis in law for making them "joint."
Part of the complaint is that USC, Pac 12 and NCAA are conspiring to limit the athlete's rights under the NLRB. I dunno, man, I just see stuff on twitter
Another source said all 3 were called joint employers.
Conspiring doesn't make them a joint employer. Might make them liable.
USC is an odd choice b/c they're in the Pac, not much money to wring out of that turnip. Get in line behind Comcast. Or would the lawsuit seek to add the B1G in 2024? As the NLRB is running this show, not the State of California, it seems odd that they chose USC, a private school in a teetering conference, rather than someone like tOSU.
edit:
The decision by Abruzzo's staff to pursue all three groups as joint employers creates the possibility that all college athletes could be granted the right to unionize as a result of this case. The NLRB doesn't have jurisdiction over public universities, so the courts would need to determine that conferences and the NCAA act as an employer in order for their decision to apply to all schools competing in college sports.
Ah, they had to sue a private school since the NLRB has no jurisdiction over State institutions. And they had to include the NCAA and a Conference to try to stealthily expand the case to include public schools. Seems like extraordinary overreach, though Congress might be just fine letting the courts make this decision as they've made so many others that should have been made by Congress over the past few decades.
Serious overreach. And yes, Congress doesn't seem to like to actually solve problems. Just punt to the next Congress.
(05-19-2023 07:45 AM)jimrtex Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2023 09:44 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote: [ -> ]Also if college athletes are employees, what’s the reason high school athletes aren’t.
The NLRB counsel said that under the NLRA that employees perform a service, and their employer exercises significant control over them.
Football revenues at USC are in the $10s of millions. They sell tickets to games, and sell media rights to the games. The games are in essence performances. Were there no football players (performers/entertainers) there would be no games, and USC would not receive any revenue which they siphon off to pay coaches and ADs. Only a tiny percentage of students at USC play football, it can hardly be considered part of the educational process.
High school athletics don't make $millions of dollars. Athletes (and other competitors in academic and music contests) are a significant share of students. Coaches are often teachers (this may be a requirement in some states). Athletes may be earning P.E. credits, and practice during class time.
How much money it makes is totally irrelevant to whether they are employees are not.
Has everything to do with whether attorneys care enough to sue over it. There is no difference between the various sports in Division I. If football is an employee-employer relationship, so is water polo, so is women's equestrian.
(05-19-2023 09:24 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]Overreacting to a complaint.
This NLRB complaint is the equivalent to giving a 1 star review to a restaurant on Yelp.
They announced in December they would refer it to the LA office. I think its pretty clear they intend to proclaim them employees. The question becomes if the courts support their rulings.
Its pretty significant.