Post by vbnerd on Mar 5, 2024 15:45:16 GMT -5
Due to some confusion I'm going to change the OP...
As I understand it, one of the Dartmouth basketball players has a job as a student worker in the cafeteria, which not that long ago voted to unionize with SEIU and they negotiated a $21 minimum wage for student workers in the cafeteria. Apparently this spurred an idea to unionize the Dartmouth basketball team. Two players, working with a professor got the ball rolling. The Universities main argument was that the basketball team doesn't make money - only to find out that paying student workers $21/hr, neither does the cafeteria which they already agreed to. The NLRB rep up there authorized it, saying that they were compensated in training, gear, meals, etc. so they were in fact employees. It went to a vote and today the the Dartmouth men's basketball team voted 13-2 to form a Union. Dartmouth has already said they are going to appeal.
There are a lot of angles to this but I'm particularly interested in what they are saying about what non-employment college athletics would look like.
Kristi Dosh is an attorney who advises athletes and schools on NIL (among other things) and brands herself @sportsbizmiss on twitter and her podcasts, newsletters, etc. She posted this today (sorry I cannot do pictures on here).
Kristi Dosh
@sportsbizmiss
The big question: is Dartmouth prepared to vastly change their control over these athletes to avoid having athlete employees? From the amount of time spent in practices and meetings, to dictating their schedules both on campus and on the road, to rules governing how they conduct themselves, all that would have to drastically change.
Then replied to another poster with this
Kristi Dosh
@sportsbizmiss
There's a really good discussion of it in the Dartmouth decision: apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583c5ebe4. Basically, less mandatory hours (and optional practices/meetings that aren't really optional), not controlling their schedule on a road, not telling them they can't take classes in certain time slots, etc. Or, you can keep controlling those things and pay them as employees.
I did not read the Dartmouth decision but I am believing the lawyer that these are the steps that would be necessary to avoid counting athletes as employees, in light of this decision, assuming it is upheld.
So now I'm curious what a program looks like if the players are offered optional practices/meetings? What does a road trip look like if schools have to allow athletes to go off on their own on when away from home? If you have to worry about players going to frat parties on road trips, I assume we'll see much shorter trips. But from a liability standpoint can a team go to a tournament for a couple days and not know where the students are? But now if they do keep track of them that may be a line in the sand on the way to employment? This is going to get interesting.
The NLRB doesn't govern public universities which does limit this a bit, but the idea that profit is not a factor in determining if they are employees could mean that this potential applies to every sport at every private school.
Some coaches and schools will just say "pay them" instead of changing but if D1 decided to change to meet the expected how would volleyball change in a strictly non-employment model?
Shorter seasons or longer more spread out seasons?
Smaller rosters or larger rosters to account for athletes no going to a voluntary practice?
Are scholarships and non-employment mutually exclusive going forward?
How do international students get a student visa and a work visa?
Can you limit non-employees to two portal windows?
How many schools drop to D3 or club across the board?
If this is upheld, I'm not sure where the changes would end. In concert with other developments and decisions, this could be significant.
As I understand it, one of the Dartmouth basketball players has a job as a student worker in the cafeteria, which not that long ago voted to unionize with SEIU and they negotiated a $21 minimum wage for student workers in the cafeteria. Apparently this spurred an idea to unionize the Dartmouth basketball team. Two players, working with a professor got the ball rolling. The Universities main argument was that the basketball team doesn't make money - only to find out that paying student workers $21/hr, neither does the cafeteria which they already agreed to. The NLRB rep up there authorized it, saying that they were compensated in training, gear, meals, etc. so they were in fact employees. It went to a vote and today the the Dartmouth men's basketball team voted 13-2 to form a Union. Dartmouth has already said they are going to appeal.
There are a lot of angles to this but I'm particularly interested in what they are saying about what non-employment college athletics would look like.
Kristi Dosh is an attorney who advises athletes and schools on NIL (among other things) and brands herself @sportsbizmiss on twitter and her podcasts, newsletters, etc. She posted this today (sorry I cannot do pictures on here).
Kristi Dosh
@sportsbizmiss
The big question: is Dartmouth prepared to vastly change their control over these athletes to avoid having athlete employees? From the amount of time spent in practices and meetings, to dictating their schedules both on campus and on the road, to rules governing how they conduct themselves, all that would have to drastically change.
Then replied to another poster with this
Kristi Dosh
@sportsbizmiss
There's a really good discussion of it in the Dartmouth decision: apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583c5ebe4. Basically, less mandatory hours (and optional practices/meetings that aren't really optional), not controlling their schedule on a road, not telling them they can't take classes in certain time slots, etc. Or, you can keep controlling those things and pay them as employees.
I did not read the Dartmouth decision but I am believing the lawyer that these are the steps that would be necessary to avoid counting athletes as employees, in light of this decision, assuming it is upheld.
So now I'm curious what a program looks like if the players are offered optional practices/meetings? What does a road trip look like if schools have to allow athletes to go off on their own on when away from home? If you have to worry about players going to frat parties on road trips, I assume we'll see much shorter trips. But from a liability standpoint can a team go to a tournament for a couple days and not know where the students are? But now if they do keep track of them that may be a line in the sand on the way to employment? This is going to get interesting.
The NLRB doesn't govern public universities which does limit this a bit, but the idea that profit is not a factor in determining if they are employees could mean that this potential applies to every sport at every private school.
Some coaches and schools will just say "pay them" instead of changing but if D1 decided to change to meet the expected how would volleyball change in a strictly non-employment model?
Shorter seasons or longer more spread out seasons?
Smaller rosters or larger rosters to account for athletes no going to a voluntary practice?
Are scholarships and non-employment mutually exclusive going forward?
How do international students get a student visa and a work visa?
Can you limit non-employees to two portal windows?
How many schools drop to D3 or club across the board?
If this is upheld, I'm not sure where the changes would end. In concert with other developments and decisions, this could be significant.