|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 21:15:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Dec 6, 2023 21:15:15 GMT -5
In speaking of collective bargaining, do football players really have the same interests as swimmers? Should they be represented by the same union? Don't know. That should be for the athletes to decide if they're allowed to organize. The truth is if athletes unionize and collectively bargain, the people who will have the power won’t be the athletes. It will be whoever is the permanent director and the staff. The athletes are 18 to 22 year olds with a massive turnover rate with extremely different revenue generating capabilities where the most talented and skillful - and therefore the ones with the biggest wage earning capabilities - are there for the shortest amount of time. Maybe student athletes being unionized leads to some kind of collegiate athletics utopia, but I’m convinced it’s going to mean the person who controls the agenda isn’t going to be the athletes themselves, but whoever is the long term leader. But who knows? I do know I think a student athlete union collectively bargaining is a horrible idea with hair all over it, but I know there are a lot of people who are big fans of it, so maybe that’s the direction we go in.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 6, 2023 21:17:43 GMT -5
What the fair share means is also athlete v athlete. For decades, football and men's basketball have been subsidizing all of the other athletes, and when you look at the demographics of FB/MBB versus the Olympic and/or "country club" sports and athletes that are receiving huge windfalls, it raises questions. In speaking of collective bargaining, do football players really have the same interests as swimmers? Should they be represented by the same union? Where I retired from, the engineers and the tech workers are both in the same union, but have two different bargaining units, each with their own contract.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 21:18:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Dec 6, 2023 21:18:56 GMT -5
Don't know. That should be for the athletes to decide if they're allowed to organize. The truth is if athletes unionize and collectively bargain, the people who will have the power won’t be the athletes. It will be whoever is the permanent director and the staff. I don't think that's necessarily true at all.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 21:23:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Dec 6, 2023 21:23:52 GMT -5
The truth is if athletes unionize and collectively bargain, the people who will have the power won’t be the athletes. It will be whoever is the permanent director and the staff. I don't think that's necessarily true at all. There’s only one way we’ll find out. But when you have an organization with the kind of inherent turnover a student athlete union would have, power inherently is centralized with the people who stay over a long period of time. I mean, it happens anyway, but in the circumstances we’re talking about it’s a real challenge for anyone else to build a power base strong enough to challenge the status quo, and the people in power end up developing a lot of mechanisms to use as leverage to stay in power. It’s difficult enough when members are there for a long time. It’s virtually impossible when you’re only there for a few short years. Especially when those years are when you’re an 18 to 22 year old.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 21:41:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Dec 6, 2023 21:41:40 GMT -5
I don't think that's necessarily true at all. There’s only one way we’ll find out. But when you have an organization with the kind of inherent turnover a student athlete union would have, power inherently is centralized with the people who stay over a long period of time. I mean, it happens anyway, but in the circumstances we’re talking about it’s a real challenge for anyone else to build a power base strong enough to challenge the status quo, and the people in power end up developing a lot of mechanisms to use as leverage to stay in power. It’s difficult enough when members are there for a long time. It’s virtually impossible when you’re only there for a few short years. Especially when those years are when you’re an 18 to 22 year old. Young people, especially ones with money, are famously deferential to people in positions of authority.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 21:46:50 GMT -5
baytree likes this
Post by n00b on Dec 6, 2023 21:46:50 GMT -5
Maybe. But if this becomes Big Ten and SEC versus the rest of the country, you might see similar partisan splits. The end result is the B1G and SEC take the ball and go there own way anyway. They have a lot of leverage here. True. But I don't actually think those schools want to pay their athletes. They want to sound like they are for it publicly so they can continue sell that they are pro-athlete, but behind closed doors they'll want to clog up the process so nothing ever gets passed.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 21:48:33 GMT -5
Post by vbnerd on Dec 6, 2023 21:48:33 GMT -5
Maybe. But if this becomes Big Ten and SEC versus the rest of the country, you might see similar partisan splits. The end result is the B1G and SEC take the ball and go there own way anyway. They have a lot of leverage here. Except for 2 problems. 1) None of the 18 teams that will be in the Big 10 currently have a losing record in men's basketball out of conference. They all get to be winners for the first chunk of the year because of those games. If they are only playing one another, half of them are going to be losers even from the jump. Losing is bad for donations, which hurts if you are counting on donors to cover a portion of your payroll. They need to play MAC and Horizon schools and those games have to matter enough that people will buy tickets and by pay per view of one form or another. 2) People always say the Big 10 and SEC would leave like the WHOLE conferences would go. USC was tired of sharing with Oregon State, but you think they are going to be ok with sharing with Iowa, Purdue and Northwestern? Texas didn't want to share with Kansas State but you think they are going to be ok with Mississippi State, South Carolina and Vanderbilt? One of these times when the table gets flipped, they aren't going to pick up ALL of the pieces, just those that they want/need. We'll see who those pieces are when it happens but depending on the financial model at the time, not everybody is going to bring something to the table.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 21:59:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Dec 6, 2023 21:59:41 GMT -5
There’s only one way we’ll find out. But when you have an organization with the kind of inherent turnover a student athlete union would have, power inherently is centralized with the people who stay over a long period of time. I mean, it happens anyway, but in the circumstances we’re talking about it’s a real challenge for anyone else to build a power base strong enough to challenge the status quo, and the people in power end up developing a lot of mechanisms to use as leverage to stay in power. It’s difficult enough when members are there for a long time. It’s virtually impossible when you’re only there for a few short years. Especially when those years are when you’re an 18 to 22 year old. Young people, especially ones with money, are famously deferential to people in positions of authority. It’s not about being deferential. It’s about being organized. A lot of angry people can be disruptive, but to actually execute on a plan you need organization. 18 to 22 year olds with money who are only there for two or three years (for the biggest wage earners) are not known for their organizational abilities.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 22:07:53 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2023 22:07:53 GMT -5
Young people, especially ones with money, are famously deferential to people in positions of authority. It’s not about being deferential. It’s about being organized. A lot of angry people can be disruptive, but to actually execute on a plan you need organization. 18 to 22 year olds with money who are only there for two or three years (for the biggest wage earners) are not known for their organizational abilities. You only need to be organized for certain periods of time, as Collective Bargaining Agreements are typically long term arrangements (3-5 years). Portions of CBA’s, such as salary issues, can be opened for renegotiation or reconsideration at set time periods, without affecting other portions. Bargaining teams are usually limited in size, so it’s unlikely there would be more than one or two athletes, if that, actually at the bargaining table.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 22:29:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Dec 6, 2023 22:29:48 GMT -5
It’s not about being deferential. It’s about being organized. A lot of angry people can be disruptive, but to actually execute on a plan you need organization. 18 to 22 year olds with money who are only there for two or three years (for the biggest wage earners) are not known for their organizational abilities. You only need to be organized for certain periods of time, as Collective Bargaining Agreements are typically long term arrangements (3-5 years). Portions of CBA’s, such as salary issues, can be opened for renegotiation or reconsideration at set time periods, without affecting other portions. Bargaining teams are usually limited in size, so it’s unlikely there would be more than one or two athletes, if that, actually at the bargaining table. I’m talking about who runs the organization. That’s not actually about bargaining periods. That’s about the voting structure, how leadership is named and who can craft a majority. To move up in an organization will require new people to toe the party line or they won’t be drafted into leadership tracks. Getting an organized group together to successfully challenge established leadership will be practically an insurmountable challenge if the leadership is competent. If it’s incompetent it will be replaced until someone competent is in charge. And by competent I’m not talking about doing the best in representing athletes. I’m talking about the best in manipulating the organization to ensure having a continuing power base. There is literally no other way for this to go down. Now, that said it doesn’t mean student athletes wouldn’t benefit from it. But they wouldn’t actually run it.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 22:37:18 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2023 22:37:18 GMT -5
You only need to be organized for certain periods of time, as Collective Bargaining Agreements are typically long term arrangements (3-5 years). Portions of CBA’s, such as salary issues, can be opened for renegotiation or reconsideration at set time periods, without affecting other portions. Bargaining teams are usually limited in size, so it’s unlikely there would be more than one or two athletes, if that, actually at the bargaining table. I’m talking about who runs the organization. That’s not actually about bargaining periods. That’s about the voting structure, how leadership is named and who can craft a majority. To move up in an organization will require new people to toe the party line or they won’t be drafted into leadership tracks. Getting an organized group together to successfully challenge established leadership will be practically an insurmountable challenge if the leadership is competent. If it’s incompetent it will be replaced until someone competent is in charge. And by competent I’m not talking about doing the best in representing athletes. I’m talking about the best in manipulating the organization to ensure having a continuing power base. There is literally no other way for this to go down. Now, that said it doesn’t mean student athletes wouldn’t benefit from it. But they wouldn’t actually run it. Most Unions have a governing board and a professional staff, who are tasked with setting the agenda and running meetings and the activities of the group. It’s not that different from how an HOA functions, including the petty politics. There are certainly pitfalls, but it’s not as Herculean a task as you portray.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 22:41:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Dec 6, 2023 22:41:13 GMT -5
I’m talking about who runs the organization. That’s not actually about bargaining periods. That’s about the voting structure, how leadership is named and who can craft a majority. To move up in an organization will require new people to toe the party line or they won’t be drafted into leadership tracks. Getting an organized group together to successfully challenge established leadership will be practically an insurmountable challenge if the leadership is competent. If it’s incompetent it will be replaced until someone competent is in charge. And by competent I’m not talking about doing the best in representing athletes. I’m talking about the best in manipulating the organization to ensure having a continuing power base. There is literally no other way for this to go down. Now, that said it doesn’t mean student athletes wouldn’t benefit from it. But they wouldn’t actually run it. Most Unions have a governing board and a professional staff, who are tasked with setting the agenda and running meetings and the activities of the group. It’s not that different from how an HOA functions, including the petty politics. There are certainly pitfalls, but it’s not as Herculean a task as you portray. I don’t understand. How did I portray it as a Herculean task? The only thing I portrayed as a Herculean task is changing the permanent leadership team once it has been established. It’s like having an HOA management group where the owners move away every 3 to 4 years. Oh, and all the owners are 18 to 22 and the amount of money involved is trending towards a billion dollars per year.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 22:50:03 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2023 22:50:03 GMT -5
Most Unions have a governing board and a professional staff, who are tasked with setting the agenda and running meetings and the activities of the group. It’s not that different from how an HOA functions, including the petty politics. There are certainly pitfalls, but it’s not as Herculean a task as you portray. I don’t understand. How did I portray it as a Herculean task? The only thing I portrayed as a Herculean task is changing the permanent leadership team once it has been established. It’s like having an HOA management group where the owners move away every 3 to 4 years. The leadership of a Union is typically chosen via election of its members. Whoever is a member at the time of the election, votes. Candidates run for their positions just like a typical political election. Candidates will have platforms, perhaps there will be slates, and the members will choose. If anything, the transitory nature of the membership will require candidates to cater to the issues of the day.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 22:58:10 GMT -5
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 6, 2023 22:58:10 GMT -5
I don’t understand. How did I portray it as a Herculean task? The only thing I portrayed as a Herculean task is changing the permanent leadership team once it has been established. It’s like having an HOA management group where the owners move away every 3 to 4 years. The leadership of a Union is typically chosen via election of its members. Whoever is a member at the time of the election, votes. Candidates run for their positions just like a typical political election. Candidates will have platforms, perhaps there will be slates, and the members will choose. If anything, the transitory nature of the membership will require candidates to cater to the issues of the day. The only union I am familiar with is the one I used to be in, and we had elected officers but also permanent hired staff.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 23:01:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Dec 6, 2023 23:01:43 GMT -5
I don’t understand. How did I portray it as a Herculean task? The only thing I portrayed as a Herculean task is changing the permanent leadership team once it has been established. It’s like having an HOA management group where the owners move away every 3 to 4 years. The leadership of a Union is typically chosen via election of its members. Whoever is a member at the time of the election, votes. Candidates run for their positions just like a typical political election. Candidates will have platforms, perhaps there will be slates, and the members will choose. If anything, the transitory nature of the membership will require candidates to cater to the issues of the day. Like I said, we’ll see what it looks like when/if a union becomes a reality. The real power will be held by the permanent structure created to administer the union, especially whoever is named the director or president or whatever the head role is called. It won’t be by the people who run for the elected offices. The transitory nature of the union and the age of the representatives will require them to lean heavily on the permanent administrative structure. Running on a platform that’s against that structure will face an insurmountable head wind if the people involved are competent at maintaining power. And if they’re not they’ll be replaced by people who are.
|
|