|
|
Post by crazyfan on Mar 5, 2024 17:57:15 GMT -5
This sounds a little wild to me!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Mar 5, 2024 17:59:47 GMT -5
Yes it is. I do have doubts on how this would work? It’s not a job. It’s not a requirement for you to play basketball. There is no primitive working condition. The school is not raking in millions and the players want their share. I’m curious to know what they are fighting for? Dartmouth could easily turned this around and say….”You want to unionize?…how about we shut down the program?”. Shutting the basketball is not going to damage the university in any way. It’s an academic institution first and foremost. If you are given your education for free in exchange to play basketball, yes, it is a job. Except there are no scholarships in the Ivy League. All financial aid is need-based. So, basketball isn't paying for their education. |
|
bborr
Sophomore
Posts: 231
|
Post by bborr on Mar 5, 2024 18:13:11 GMT -5
No. Ivy League schools don’t give athletic scholarships. They don’t even give out scholarships based on academic merit. All of their financial aid is need based. Which makes this case all the more unique. Ahhh ok. I mean it makes a little more sense. But still, as an athlete, practice was never optional in my head. I mean yes other things took priority like my health or school, but even then I rarely missed. And then to say they can do whatever they want before games? That’s just ridiculous that is not what voting to join the SEIU means. It could mean they get to collectively bargain on issues of practice and travel, but it doesn’t mean everything but games is optional. Also note that Dartmouth has an appeal of the decision that these players are employees entitled to unionize. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 5, 2024 18:30:33 GMT -5
LMAAAOO Practices are optional. I mean sure they are, you are not forced to go. But they also dont have to give you a schollie or play you this is ridiculous. Either you don't understand the OP or I don't. I believe he was trying to figure out what schools could do to make their athletes not "employees" and thus not eligible to unionize. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Mar 5, 2024 18:32:59 GMT -5
I believe he was trying to figure out what schools could do to make their athletes not "employees" and thus not eligible to unionize. That is my interpretation as well. |
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Mar 5, 2024 18:40:21 GMT -5
So exactly…..what are they fighting for? A say in their working conditions. What working condition? Are they being forced into slave labor? Are they being tortured? Are they being denied food? I would like to know. Don’t tell me the coaches are too tough. This is competition. Everything is tough in competition. If you don’t like it, just move on to something less stressful. |
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Mar 5, 2024 18:48:17 GMT -5
LMAAAOO Practices are optional. I mean sure they are, you are not forced to go. But they also dont have to give you a schollie or play you this is ridiculous. Either you don't understand the OP or I don't. I believe he was trying to figure out what schools could do to make their athletes not "employees" and thus not eligible to unionize. Ahhh yes I think I’m not understanding the OP. I thought that’s what Dartmouth was demanding |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Mar 5, 2024 18:56:20 GMT -5
A say in their working conditions. What working condition? Are they being forced into slave labor? Are they being tortured? Are they being denied food? I would like to know. Don’t tell me the coaches are too tough. This is competition. Everything is tough in competition. If you don’t like it, just move on to something less stressful. None of those things are required for people to want to organize their workplace. |
|
|
|
Post by Norah Sus on Mar 5, 2024 19:25:29 GMT -5
What working condition? Are they being forced into slave labor? Are they being tortured? Are they being denied food? I would like to know. Don’t tell me the coaches are too tough. This is competition. Everything is tough in competition. If you don’t like it, just move on to something less stressful. None of those things are required for people to want to organize their workplace. Not only are they not required, those things aren’t common. I’ve worked in Human Resources for thousands of unionized employees over the years and never have any of these things been a reason they unionized. People just tend to misunderstand what a union is and are led to believe they’re bad by the leaders at their companies who don’t want them to unionize because they can’t rip their employees off as badly that way. People who are being abused in the workplace without a union usually *do* leave (satisfying the “go do something less stressful” comment from brooslee.) Collective bargaining has nearly nothing to do with the things broos listed. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 5, 2024 19:36:56 GMT -5
As someone who was in a union for over 30 years, I have long since understood that most people not in unions have no idea what unions really do.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 5, 2024 20:01:58 GMT -5
As an example:
Every year we had to do "Performance Management". At the start of the year the employees and managers would agree on a plan with written job responsibilities. Mid-year there was an interim review, and at the end of the year the manager assessed how the employee had performed against the agreed plan.
Part-way through my career the company decided to change the process for this. For the non-unionized employees, they just changed it. But for the unionized employees, they needed the union's permission. The union looked over the new process and looked for things that might be unfairly used against employees or otherwise might not be in the interests of the employees. Then they agreed to the change.
A while later, the company changed processes *again*. Once again they needed the approval of the union, and this time there were certain parts of the new process that the union disagreed with. The company had to agree not to use those parts of the process before the union allowed them to switch to the new performance management tool.
When people hear about unions, they think things like money, benefits, and job protection -- all of which the unions did help with. But what they don't usually realize is that the unions also prevent management from just ramming through anything they want when it comes to the "working environment". It's not that management can't change anything, but that the union gets a say (and sometimes a veto).
|
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Mar 5, 2024 20:10:26 GMT -5
It sounds like they basically want it to be like a student-run club sport.
Can the coach be fired if the team is losing given the restrictions put on him?
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Mar 5, 2024 21:05:00 GMT -5
Either you don't understand the OP or I don't. I believe he was trying to figure out what schools could do to make their athletes not "employees" and thus not eligible to unionize. Ahhh yes I think I’m not understanding the OP. I thought that’s what Dartmouth was demanding I changed the OP to give more background and context... sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 5, 2024 21:16:43 GMT -5
So exactly…..what are they fighting for? A say in their working conditions. Copying this article from the OTN thread. www.thedartmouth.com/article/2023/09/haskins-and-myrthil-why-we-are-unionizingThey're just asking for compensation. Dartmouth men's basketball is 5-21 and averages 675 fans per game. What is the difference between these basketball players and high school athletes? Should they be considered employees too? |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Mar 5, 2024 21:22:50 GMT -5
Maybe! How many games should you win before you're considered an employee? |
|
