|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 20, 2024 10:30:44 GMT -5
If these school athletics departments were actually non-profit, none of these issues would even be existing. But even so, non-profits do quite often have employees. Certainly universities have employees, despite being "non-profit educational institutions". Why should athletes not be among those employees? If the pre-med students want to get together for pizza and the occasional social/networking meeting, those would not be activities that normally would trigger the suggestion that they are employees. However, if they have scheduled shifts to work at the campus medical center, they would be employees, right? I mean, medical students are required to work shifts at medical centers and are not employees (no pay, no labor law protections, etc.) because the shifts are part of a "class." Their “pay” is the experience they gain, which they can then use in a few years to become employed in that profession and make a lot of money. Hmm, where have we heard that sentiment before. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Jun 20, 2024 10:40:07 GMT -5
If these school athletics departments were actually non-profit, none of these issues would even be existing. But even so, non-profits do quite often have employees. Certainly universities have employees, despite being "non-profit educational institutions". Why should athletes not be among those employees? If the pre-med students want to get together for pizza and the occasional social/networking meeting, those would not be activities that normally would trigger the suggestion that they are employees. However, if they have scheduled shifts to work at the campus medical center, they would be employees, right? I mean, medical students are required to work shifts at medical centers and are not employees (no pay, no labor law protections, etc.) because the shifts are part of a "class." Such med students are essentially amateur interns, paying the school to make room for them at the medical center so they can train under school guidance and oversight as they attempt to learn how to practice medicine, while the sponsoring school and med center and its physicians take on the extra work and risk of liability of educating the students. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 20, 2024 10:54:59 GMT -5
MIT is D3, and D3 is certainly not driving these issues. However, I have no problem if D3 athletes in official school-sponsored sports end up being classed as employees. They don't get scholarships, but "unpaid interns" are still employees. There is a reason why there is already a distinction made by many schools between club sports and sponsored sports. ”Official” and “sponsored”? Why aren’t club sports those things? Performing arts? Seems a little squishy. I don’t think an unpaid intern can be an employee because employees have to make a minimum wage. That’s one of the key, very sticky points. It’s not just about organizing and bargaining power, for the sake of that, noble as that is. It's complicated. There is no one single criterion. However, it appears that you are correct and I was wrong. "If analysis of these circumstances reveals that an intern or student is actually an employee, then he or she is entitled to both minimum wage and overtime pay under the FLSA. On the other hand, if the analysis confirms that the intern or student is not an employee, then he or she is not entitled to either minimum wage or overtime pay under the FLSA." Perhaps it is better to say that "unpaid interns have been determined to have actually been employees, and therefore should have been paid". There is, however, a footnote: "The FLSA exempts certain people who volunteer to perform services for a state or local government agency or who volunteer for humanitarian purposes for non-profit food banks. WHD also recognizes an exception for individuals who volunteer their time, freely and without anticipation of compensation, for religious, charitable, civic, or humanitarian purposes to non-profit organizations. Unpaid internships for public sector and non-profit charitable organizations, where the intern volunteers without expectation of compensation, are generally permissible." |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 20, 2024 11:17:06 GMT -5
That depends, I guess. Are the baby races selling thousands of tickets and making millions every year in media rights? Nor do DIII varsity athletics. Who is talking about D3 athletes being employees of the schools? I'm not. You assume wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 20, 2024 11:43:10 GMT -5
Nor do DIII varsity athletics. Who is talking about D3 athletes being employees of the schools? I'm not. You assume wrong. Then you are now talking about it, having just signaled support for(equivalent to denying being against) Dartmouth basketball players union. Indeed that is as integral to this discussion as any other factor, certainly as much or more so than the new NCAA model referenced in the thread title. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 20, 2024 11:47:51 GMT -5
However, it appears that you are Perhaps it is better to say that "unpaid interns have been determined to have actually been employees, and therefore should have been paid" But there is the core problem for these smaller schools: they never signed up to have (“official”) intercollegiate competitive athletics teams under the terms that minimum wage was required paid to each roster athlete for all of their game and training time, as an employee. Most can’t afford or just don’t want to spend anywhere near that much. Getting into an Ivy or a premier academic DIII school simply because being an athlete got you a peg up in the admissions process, is quite a valuable thing in of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 20, 2024 12:00:18 GMT -5
Who is talking about D3 athletes being employees of the schools? I'm not. How do you separate the two? A specific revenue number? How do you want to legally differentiate those two student athletes who are largely doing the same work. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 20, 2024 12:04:27 GMT -5
However, it appears that you are Perhaps it is better to say that "unpaid interns have been determined to have actually been employees, and therefore should have been paid" But there is the core problem for these smaller schools: they never signed up to have (“official”) intercollegiate competitive athletics teams under the terms that minimum wage was required paid to each roster athlete for all of their game and training time, as an employee. Most can’t afford or just don’t want to spend anywhere near that much. Getting into an Ivy or a premier academic DIII school simply because being an athlete got you a peg up in the admissions process, is quite a valuable thing in of itself. I may be wrong, but I don't think people get into such schools "simply because of being an athlete". It can be a factor, but I'm pretty sure it's never an overriding factor. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 20, 2024 12:19:12 GMT -5
Who is talking about D3 athletes being employees of the schools? I'm not. You assume wrong. Then you are now talking about it, having just signaled support for(equivalent to denying being against) Dartmouth basketball players union. Indeed that is as integral to this discussion as any other factor, certainly as much or more so than the new NCAA model referenced in the thread title. The Ivy League isn't DIII. The Ivy League receives millions of dollars a year in NCAA units and media rights. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 20, 2024 12:24:05 GMT -5
Who is talking about D3 athletes being employees of the schools? I'm not. How do you separate the two? A specific revenue number? How do you want to legally differentiate those two student athletes who are largely doing the same work. Don't know. Maybe Division III athletes should be employees but I'm not aware of any plan to share revenue with DIII athletes. What I do know is there's a plan on the table to share revenue with division I athletes and it makes sense that people being paid for their labor would be employees of the organization paying them. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 20, 2024 13:25:48 GMT -5
Then you are now talking about it, having just signaled support for(equivalent to denying being against) Dartmouth basketball players union. Indeed that is as integral to this discussion as any other factor, certainly as much or more so than the new NCAA model referenced in the thread title. The Ivy League isn't DIII. The Ivy League receives millions of dollars a year in NCAA units and media rights. Dumb on me, sure, but it’s also still a valid point because the Ivy League operates under a DIII model. They’re one in the same, other than in name. If Dartmouth goes through, then DIII athletes at Carnegie, etc. now have a leg to stand on. Would also be interested to know the exact number that Ivy Recieves from the NCAA as opposed to say the UAA conf. It may not be the millions you’re claiming. Or if it’s a couple million, does $250k mean that much to the eight Ivy athletic depts? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 20, 2024 13:28:26 GMT -5
it’s also still a valid point because the Ivy League operates under a DIII model Not really. The Ivy League gets a cut of the Basketball Tournament money, something D3 schools don't get. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 20, 2024 13:29:08 GMT -5
How do you separate the two? A specific revenue number? How do you want to legally differentiate those two student athletes who are largely doing the same work. Don't know. Maybe Division III athletes should be employees but I'm not aware of any plan to share revenue with DIII athletes. What I do know is there's a plan on the table to share revenue with division I athletes and it makes sense that people being paid for their labor would be employees of the organization paying them. Not correct. A school purchasing an athletes NIL is not paying them for their labor and it’s not directly sharing revenue from a TV contract. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 20, 2024 13:29:51 GMT -5
it’s also still a valid point because the Ivy League operates under a DIII model Not really. The Ivy League gets a cut of the Basketball Tournament money, something D3 schools don't get. That part is true. But they don’t offer scholarships and I don’t know if they have any plans for their schools to purchase their athletes NIL. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 20, 2024 13:31:44 GMT -5
But there is the core problem for these smaller schools: they never signed up to have (“official”) intercollegiate competitive athletics teams under the terms that minimum wage was required paid to each roster athlete for all of their game and training time, as an employee. Most can’t afford or just don’t want to spend anywhere near that much. Getting into an Ivy or a premier academic DIII school simply because being an athlete got you a peg up in the admissions process, is quite a valuable thing in of itself. I may be wrong, but I don't think people get into such schools "simply because of being an athlete". It can be a factor, but I'm pretty sure it's never an overriding factor. Definitely not, in that sense. I mean that their application wouldn’t be good enough, unless they get that boost factor for being an athlete. |
|
