They just formed a union to get an 0bamaCare exemption.
(hat tip to the Dennis Miller show)
They’re also “assuming” that fans will consider continuing to pay inflated ticket prices to football and other sports. I definitely WILL NOT pay $40-50 for a baseball ticket that goes for $10 today. Maybe the NCAA should allow a stipend and call it a day before opening Pandora’s box too far.
Did you think three moves when you posted? I was a a D1 football player at a perennial top 30( at times in the teens) ranked football school. Can you fathom the actual amount of time and sacrifice to get on the gridirion, nevermind maintain, the least a 3.0? I busted my ass not only to maintain my grades, but to achieve at the highest level fir a billion dollar athletic department. My tuition was artificaiily inflated because of pell grants and other social engineering.
I wasn’t allowed to have certain employment.
I imagine you could work and create income fir yourself. I was prohibited.
one a worker, there all workers...
and workers can have "sick days" and strikes....
workers pay taxes.....and the tax on a $60000 scholarship plus wages is going to be big....infact, if they get pay, then there should be no scholarships at all...
This is just another nail in the coffin of college sports, thanks to the Liberal agenda. All of academia is on the decline in fact.
The following post is from a related thread.
-------------
Fx News's "The Five" were talking about this NLRB-related issue the other day. But since they overlooked some very important constitutional problems with it for some non-obvious reason, I will fill in the void.
When patriots hear about vague federal laws and regulations, the example of this thread concerning unionization, they need check the constitutional validity of what they hear using a few key sections of the Constitution.
The first thing that patriots need to do when they hear about some questionable federal law is the following. They need to look in Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to find a clause which would reasonably justify such a law in the context that the law is being applied to. And without even bothering to look at these clauses, there's only 18 of them so I have a good idea by now, there is no clause that would reasonably address non-federal government employment, non-military schools or labor unions.
In fact, an examination of Section 8 shows that the Founding States had granted Congress exclusive legislative control only over those entities indicated in Clauses 17 & 18 as examples, the Founding States also making the 10th Amendment to clarify that the states essentially have unique legislative control over intrastate issues which is what this situation is imo.
Next, even if states had delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to address the issues of this thread, patriots also have to consider who is calling the shots concerning a federal regulation. This is because the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide it from many citizens, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected government bureaucrats in the constitutionally undefined NLRB. And by establishing such agences Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of the previously indicated clauses.
Sadly, the reason that many low-information patriots relucatant ask, "How high?" when constitutionally toothless federal agencies like the NLRB shout "JUMP!," is because parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
Again, patriots need to run a Section 8 checklist and also consider who is calling the shots every time they hear about a strange federal law or regulation.
They are going to be in for a nasty surprise when the IRS decides their scholarship and support as “ employees” is income.
When I was an intern at Los Angeles County hospital , the residents tried to organize. The court case was hysterical. The court ruled that for union purposes the residents were “students” and could not organize. However for TAX purposes their stipend was a salary and taxable income. Lose lose.
The ruling if upheld would be applicable to nearly everyone who currently works for a college or university in exchange for tuition, fees, or a stipend. Football players are nothing special in this regard. Graduate students are doing world-class research and the ones who speak English are usually better teachers than the teaching faculty they aide or displace at a fraction of the cost of Professors. For every football player there are hundreds of grad students and teaching seniors, all working double-duty at least as onerous as any student athlete.
If my memory is correct this happened at Fordham Univ during the 1930’s
The schools response was to cancel the foot all program
Maybe Northwestern needs to do the same for five years or so
it may be time to eliminate football on campuses where players try to organize.
The decision said that rendering exclusive services in exchange for pay is “employment” and you can’t make it not employment by calling the pay “scholarships.” It’s a non-ideological decision and if Congress doesn’t like it they can either explicitly define scholarships as non-employment no matter what the services conditions they impose, or they can simply provide that student-employees of private universities have no collective bargaining rights.