|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 23:01:59 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2023 23:01:59 GMT -5
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. As I indicated, that is the most common model. Do you remember/know what the typical duration of your CBA was?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 6, 2023 23:03:48 GMT -5
Do you remember/know what the typical duration of your CBA was? Varied from negotiation to negotiation. 4-5 years usually.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 23:10:10 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2023 23:10:10 GMT -5
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. The most influential thing is going to be the structure and nature of the Agreement itself (which must be ratified by a full vote of the membership). The actual work-place for the athletes is going to be spread out at the individual campuses, so the Union itself is not going to have the typical ability to influence, interact (or manipulate, in your view). On the other hand, I do not think that it is likely that student-athletes will become employees within the existing NCAA structure anyway, so it's kind of a moot point for me.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 23:14:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Dec 6, 2023 23:14:54 GMT -5
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. The most influential thing is going to be the structure and nature of the Agreement itself (which must be ratified by a full vote of the membership). The actual work-place for the athletes is going to be spread out at the individual campuses, so the Union itself is not going to have the typical ability to influence, interact (or manipulate, in your view). On the other hand, I do not think that it is likely that student-athletes will become employees within the existing NCAA structure anyway, so it's kind of a moot point for me. I honestly have no idea what’s going to happen. My assumption is that the biggest threat/opportunity to student athletes being named employees comes from the National Labor Review Board. To me there are clear issues to be resolved. I don’t understand how they ultimately get resolved without (drum roll, please) Comgressional action. And to further beat that dead horse, I have no idea when that would be forthcoming.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 23:18:37 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2023 23:18:37 GMT -5
The most influential thing is going to be the structure and nature of the Agreement itself (which must be ratified by a full vote of the membership). The actual work-place for the athletes is going to be spread out at the individual campuses, so the Union itself is not going to have the typical ability to influence, interact (or manipulate, in your view). On the other hand, I do not think that it is likely that student-athletes will become employees within the existing NCAA structure anyway, so it's kind of a moot point for me. I honestly have no idea what’s going to happen. My assumption is that the biggest threat/opportunity to student athletes being named employees comes from the National Labor Review Board. To me there are clear issues to be resolved. I don’t understand how they ultimately get resolved without (drum roll, please) Comgressional action. And to further beat that dead horse, I have no idea when that would be forthcoming. That was virture signalling from the NLRB, nothing more and nothing less imo. And they aren't the ultimate decision maker in that regard anyway. It would wind up in the federal court system.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 23:24:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Dec 6, 2023 23:24:53 GMT -5
I honestly have no idea what’s going to happen. My assumption is that the biggest threat/opportunity to student athletes being named employees comes from the National Labor Review Board. To me there are clear issues to be resolved. I don’t understand how they ultimately get resolved without (drum roll, please) Comgressional action. And to further beat that dead horse, I have no idea when that would be forthcoming. That was virture signalling from the NLRB, nothing more and nothing less imo. And they aren't the ultimate decision maker in that regard anyway. It would wind up in the federal court system. Well, if you know how the federal court system would decide the issue if no legislation is passed you’re a true Nostradamus. I have no idea.
|
|
|
NIL
Dec 6, 2023 23:30:21 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2023 23:30:21 GMT -5
That was virture signalling from the NLRB, nothing more and nothing less imo. And they aren't the ultimate decision maker in that regard anyway. It would wind up in the federal court system. Well, if you know how the federal court system would decide the issue if no legislation is passed you’re a true Nostradamus. I have no idea. The determination of whether student-athletes are employees will be based on existing case law. I think it would be an uphill battle to win that case.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,788
|
NIL
Dec 7, 2023 8:06:26 GMT -5
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 7, 2023 8:06:26 GMT -5
This isn't likely to have the same partisan problems like most things that cripple Washington. I think it would be an excellent resolution if D1 athletes became unionized employees who collectively bargain for their share of the profits being made by their athletic departments, but I bet that is not the resolution of the issue that bluepenquin supports. I don't think this would be the best option, but I am not completely opposed to this. The interests of the SA will have to be represented. This case is especially hard given the short-term time of the SA and the number of people with dramatically different set of goals and priorities. Not to mention whether a SA is actually an employee or not? Nothing is going to get done (or stick) w/o congress and probably the courts. Nothing is going to get passed in congress that doesn't have huge congressional representation of SA rights. This isn't going to pass with just what the coaches and athletic departments want - or ESPN and donors. But this is also a very unique situation - coaches (who probably have great power in this) are much more on the players (labor) side than the typical owner/labor situation. AD's aren't your typical (owner) that is used in collective bargaining situations. Since we are mostly dealing with public universities - this would be closer to public unions (which I am very much opposed to - while supporting unions in private stuff). Unionizing MLB and NFL are good things - they are dealing with private companies. Unionizing police or school teachers is a bad thing (I am sure we don't agree on this - even FDR thought public unions was a horrible idea - and the unionization of SA would fit something similar to police unions or military unions). I see there being plenty of 'pro' SA congress people that will be needed to get something passed. AD's and Universities aren't likely to be all that hostile to SA 'rights'. AD's and Universities are going to have a much harder time being organized between the haves and have nots - with the big money haves wanting to greatly increase SA 'rights'. And I believe this is where the NCAA becomes a key player in all of this - mostly be deferring a ton of power they presently have tried to claim, but being a key broker in getting a workable (competitive structure) solution to the wild west that this train is running down. The plan put forth by the NCAA is going to have the buy in of the AD's and Universities - and it is going to have to have the buy in of the SA interests represented by key votes in congress. And this is where I think the 'right' deal could occur absent a unionized collective bargaining agreement.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,788
|
NIL
Dec 7, 2023 10:04:14 GMT -5
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 7, 2023 10:04:14 GMT -5
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. I don't think this is case (but I certainly could be wrong). I think they view the current system to be unstainable. The coaches hate it - and it is going to be bad for the sport (college football). They want something done - and they don't seem to be opposed to some massive increases in money/benefits given to players. I believe there is a lot of incentive to get something done before everything goes to heck. The comments from Yormark yesterday supporting the direction of this makes me think the B12 is on board with this - as it seems the SEC is also. If something from the NCAA has the support from 70+ p4 Universities - then that is significant and makes me think there is interest in getting something done - not just giving lip service.
|
|
|
NIL
Feb 23, 2024 18:44:24 GMT -5
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 23, 2024 18:44:24 GMT -5
Well this is going to be wild.
It's not like NCAA enforcement had much teeth left, but now NIL could be used to circumvent pretty much any plausible enforcement action.
|
|
|
NIL
Feb 23, 2024 18:52:54 GMT -5
Post by ay2013 on Feb 23, 2024 18:52:54 GMT -5
We should just call a spade a spade. The point of the NCAA was the create a set of rules and regulations for collegiate sports to foster as much equity and fair competition as possible. Amateurism was a central part of that goal and it's now fundamentally dead. College athletes are pay to play and it just is what it is.
|
|
|
NIL
Feb 23, 2024 19:23:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by slxpress on Feb 23, 2024 19:23:13 GMT -5
Well this is going to be wild. It's not like NCAA enforcement had much teeth left, but now NIL could be used to circumvent pretty much any plausible enforcement action. I’ve been saying for a couple of years that the only thing that’s going to save college sports as we know it is federal legislation. And who knows when that will get passed or what it will look like. College football in particular is unsustainable. This idea that the NCAA has any chance to enforce NIL or get their hands around it in any way without federal legislation is laughable. It’s the Wild Wild West, with no possibility of consistent enforcement. Especially in states with attorney generals, governors, and legislators willing to go to the mat for the instate collegiate programs. In the meantime if an athletic program doesn’t have a robust NIL program, or they don’t have a realistic plan to build one, they’re simply no longer competing on the same playing field, and that’s all there is to it.
|
|
|
NIL
Feb 23, 2024 19:40:22 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Feb 23, 2024 19:40:22 GMT -5
Well this is going to be wild. It's not like NCAA enforcement had much teeth left, but now NIL could be used to circumvent pretty much any plausible enforcement action. I’ve been saying for a couple of years that the only thing that’s going to save college sports as we know it is federal legislation. And who knows when that will get passed or what it will look like. College football in particular is unsustainable. This idea that the NCAA has any chance to enforce NIL or get their hands around it in any way without federal legislation is laughable. It’s the Wild Wild West, with no possibility of consistent enforcement. Especially in states with attorney generals, governors, and legislators willing to go to the mat for the instate collegiate programs. In the meantime if an athletic program doesn’t have a robust NIL program, or they don’t have a realistic plan to build one, they’re simply no longer competing on the same playing field, and that’s all there is to it. This decision by a Tennessee judge is really no different from the recent Alabama Supreme Court imo--it isn't really tethered to the SCOTUS decision in Alford regarding NIL, which didn't restrict the NCAA's ability to regulate its members (in fact, it was just the opposite). The really interesting thing will be how and whether the NCAA appeals to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a somewhat conservative court. Judging from the NCAA statement in response to the injunction, they may in fact be contemplating just giving up on enforcing NIL.
|
|
|
NIL
Feb 23, 2024 19:48:44 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 23, 2024 19:48:44 GMT -5
I’ve been saying for a couple of years that the only thing that’s going to save college sports as we know it is federal legislation. And who knows when that will get passed or what it will look like. College football in particular is unsustainable. This idea that the NCAA has any chance to enforce NIL or get their hands around it in any way without federal legislation is laughable. It’s the Wild Wild West, with no possibility of consistent enforcement. Especially in states with attorney generals, governors, and legislators willing to go to the mat for the instate collegiate programs. In the meantime if an athletic program doesn’t have a robust NIL program, or they don’t have a realistic plan to build one, they’re simply no longer competing on the same playing field, and that’s all there is to it. This decision by a Tennessee judge is really no different from the recent Alabama Supreme Court imo--it isn't really tethered to the SCOTUS decision in Alford regarding NIL, which didn't restrict the NCAA's ability to regulate its members (in fact, it was just the opposite). The really interesting thing will be how and whether the NCAA appeals to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a somewhat conservative court. Judging from the NCAA statement in response to the injunction, they may in fact be contemplating just giving up on enforcing NIL. If they can't enforce NIL rules they can't enforce anything.
|
|
|
NIL
Feb 23, 2024 20:02:33 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Feb 23, 2024 20:02:33 GMT -5
This decision by a Tennessee judge is really no different from the recent Alabama Supreme Court imo--it isn't really tethered to the SCOTUS decision in Alford regarding NIL, which didn't restrict the NCAA's ability to regulate its members (in fact, it was just the opposite). The really interesting thing will be how and whether the NCAA appeals to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a somewhat conservative court. Judging from the NCAA statement in response to the injunction, they may in fact be contemplating just giving up on enforcing NIL. If they can't enforce NIL rules they can't enforce anything. It's a little more complicated than that. The SCOTUS decision affirms a certain level of monopoly power to the NCAA (in part because the plaintiffs did not appeal that part of the lower court decision). The issue of NIL has to do with the ability of student-athletes to participate in the (general) labor market, which the SCOTUS decision determined the NCAA could not inhibit because it constituted an unfair restraint of trade. The crux of the issue is whether a particular institution that is a member of the NCAA, and is therefore a part of the monopoly (or technically, monopsony) can act independently of the monopoly/monopsony (the SCOTUS decision excluded CONFERENCES from the monopsony).
|
|