NLRB Denies Northwestern Player Request to Unionize

[FDNY99]

Self Explanatory:
http://espn.go.com/college-football...lrb-says-northwestern-players-cannot-unionize

 

[upstater]

I was spot on in my analysis.

I knew the NLRB guy that approved this had his analysis totally wrong. And I wrote that a while back.

For decades now, we've seen grad students and other apprentice workers treated in one way by the NLRB. This case (and the decision by one man) turned back many years of NLRB decisions.

I am not surprised by this ruing at all. The first ruling was so inconsistent and contradictory, it was hard to fathom.

 

[NYUConn]

As someone that does a lot of work with unions the way I read the decision - and the way many others have - is that basically the NLRB is punting to the individual states:

"By statute the Board does not have jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities, which constitute 108 of the roughly 125 FBS teams.

"In addition, every school in the Big Ten, except Northwestern, is a state-run institution. As the NCAA and conference maintain substantial control over individual teams, the Board held that asserting jurisdiction over a single team would not promote stability in labor relations across the league.

"This decision is narrowly focused to apply only to the players in this case and does not preclude reconsideration of this issue in the future."
​

Bolding emphasis is mine.

Basically the NLRB is saying from a national level they can't decide this case. They have left the door wide open however for state legislatures and other colleges to take action. So if the die-hards at Northwestern decide to continue this push, their next step is to go through the Democratic state legislature in Illinois.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Right. Basically said the NLRB doesn't have legal authority over all the groups in the claim and doing so would create havoc.

Punted on case over jurisdiction without ruling on merits. In other words the merit won't ever be tried because the plaintiffs are too broad.

 

[NYUConn]

What is interesting is whether a state like Illinois would consider this kind of legislation and what the fallout would be.

For instance if they passed some sort of broad sweeping legislation that would allow athletes to unionize, it would be a boon to big state Universities like Illinois who could pay athletes like employees and now would have a huge recruiting edge when battling other B1G schools, but a death knell to smaller ones like Northern Illinois who don't have the athletic budget to do so.

Additionally, smaller schools like Northwestern would probably be forced to drop B1G sports because of it.

Not that I think this is likely to happen mind you, but it's fun to speculate.

 

[upstater]

As someone that does a lot of work with unions the way I read the decision - and the way many others have - is that basically the NLRB is punting to the individual states:

"By statute the Board does not have jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities, which constitute 108 of the roughly 125 FBS teams.

"In addition, every school in the Big Ten, except Northwestern, is a state-run institution. As the NCAA and conference maintain substantial control over individual teams, the Board held that asserting jurisdiction over a single team would not promote stability in labor relations across the league.

"This decision is narrowly focused to apply only to the players in this case and does not preclude reconsideration of this issue in the future."
​

Bolding emphasis is mine.

Basically the NLRB is saying from a national level they can't decide this case. They have left the door wide open however for state legislatures and other colleges to take action. So if the die-hards at Northwestern decide to continue this push, their next step is to go through the Democratic state legislature in Illinois.

But you have to expand the context of this much much wider.

When it comes to other labor classes on campus, specifically those cited in the initial decision, the courts have already ruled against unionization at state institutions. So the initial mediator cited the Brown U. decision to side in favor of the NU athlete lawsuit. If the NLRB then says we punt BECAUSE you can't separate the private from the public in this case, well then the ruling is already fait accompli since the prior rulings cited even by the initial mediator cited cases in which private schools (like Brown) were separated from public schools.

In other words, this really is a dead end.

 

[NYUConn]

But you have to expand the context of this much much wider.

When it comes to other labor classes on campus, specifically those cited in the initial decision, the courts have already ruled against unionization at state institutions. So the initial mediator cited the Brown U. decision to side in favor of the NU athlete lawsuit. If the NLRB then says we punt BECAUSE you can't separate the private from the public in this case, well then the ruling is already fait accompli since the prior rulings cited even by the initial mediator cited cases in which private schools (like Brown) were separated from public schools.

In other words, this really is a dead end.

Yeah, very true. But you could overcome the court decision with a legislative fix, right?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yeah, very true. But you could overcome the court decision with a legislative fix, right?

Of course, if you can find enough legislators who want to see themselves burned in effigy on their lawns, and who are willing to lose the next election in a landslide. The ruling to unionize would end college sports. Ergo, it will not be popular anywhere.

 

[NYUConn]

Of course, if you can find enough legislators who want to see themselves burned in effigy on their lawns, and who are willing to lose the next election in a landslide. The ruling to unionize would end college sports. Ergo, it will not be popular anywhere.

State like Nebraska where the Huskers are the only game in town. With a one chamber state legislature. In a ruling that would give them a recruiting edge throughout the B1G.

You don't think that would be possible?

 

[billybud]

Naw....won't happen.

GOR will stop it.

GOR is the all purpose "keep things as they are" miracle elixir.

 

[Sportsman5]

What is interesting is whether a state like Illinois would consider this kind of legislation and what the fallout would be.

For instance if they passed some sort of broad sweeping legislation that would allow athletes to unionize, it would be a boon to big state Universities like Illinois who could pay athletes like employees and now would have a huge recruiting edge when battling other B1G schools, but a death knell to smaller ones like Northern Illinois who don't have the athletic budget to do so.

Additionally, smaller schools like Northwestern would probably be forced to drop B1G sports because of it.

Not that I think this is likely to happen mind you, but it's fun to speculate.

I do agree with you that a school like northwestern could drop out of big time athletics because of paying players. However, northwestern has a $10 billion endowment, so cost would not be the factor. Top academic schools may drop down in competition to create a league or two on par with the ivy league in order to maintain a university mission focused on education.

 

[uconntailgater]

Unionization would destroy college athletics. I'm glad the courts ruled the way they did. Just think of the cost that unions would inflict on the universities that play football.