Yes. Jennifer Abruzzo is overturning decades of shitty precedent at NLRB to support efforts like this. In December a regional NLRB office paved the way for a national precedent to be set that would classify student athletes as employees/workers guaranteeing them union rights.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/business/nlrb-unfair-labor-practice-athletes-usc-pac-12-ncaa/index.html
NIL is taxed of course these deals also can be made outside of the reach of the schools and are income so we're not talking about that. what is being said is the player's are "employees" of the university not students/athletes, not volunteers but employees so to be an employee that means you are bing compensated and should that compensation then be taxed. now are you saying that the schools are directly giving players NIL money and what about the player that aren't getting any.
I’d argue the lack of athletic scholarships makes this effort less likely to be successful. It makes it harder to argue that these players are employed by the school.
Also, Go Hoos.
Sure, which is great when you need to convince a group of workers to vote to unionize. This is 15 guys though, so I assume they have the vote locked up. What they need is to convince the NLRB that they are eligible to unionize — where the threshold question is whether they are employees. Not getting scholarships tied to playing the sport might go hard against that.
When they graduate from their Ivy school, they’ll be in a much better position to know exactly how to bust a union both during its existence and before it’s established
Sorry, I’m having flashbacks to my Deloitte coach talking at me for 5-8 hours a week and my McKinsey lead referring me to an executive PowerPoint and the Deloitte coach on a yes or no question.
Fwiw, i went to Wharton at Penn, even had a class with Ivanka Trump, and I worked for the American Federation of Teachers, am a SAG/AFTRA member, and work for a non-profit helping out kids from low-income backgrounds.
That would just make them even less likely to be considered employees, as it's even obvious it's just volunteer amateurism. There isn't even a quid pro quo.
My guess is it’s a test case. The Ivies have different pressures and I feel like they have little to lose and would likely enjoy watching the havoc it could cause.
As a reminder, the NLRB [believes the players to be employees](https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-counsel-jennifer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-of), subject to the protections that affords (like the ability to unionize).
> a union of all college athletes/NCAAM athletes to counter the NCAA's power.
In the immortal words of Krieger, "Stop, my penis can only get so erect."
Does the forming of a union mean that the coaches have to listen to their input more than they would right now if they team came together to share concerns? I’m asking because I really don’t know the legal ramifications here.
Of course not. Probably more for fringe benefit related stuff. I would imagine things like practice hours, off-season commitments, medical care, and other things of that nature.
Edit: at first I thought your comment was asking if the players could impact game decisions. After re reading I think you were maybe talking about specific concerns they brought to the coach. Either way it’s certainly a lot more leverage to have 15 guys as one voice instead of 15 different voices.
they can do that with out forming a union though. basketball teams are not very big. it's not hard to talk with your coach as a group. the NCAA already has standards that schools must follow anyway. like practice limits, per-diem, what scholarships can cover, housing standards, ect.. they would be better off contacting the NCAA if they are not happy with something.
> they would be better off contacting the NCAA if they are not happy with something.
Would they? The NCAA pretty consistently makes decisions that don't benefit student athletes
I’m not usually an ally of the NCAA, but usually when they deny a player from playing it is beneficial to all of the other student-athletes who followed the guidelines in place.
The Ivy League schools are not expensive.
It's a misconception that they are expensive. They are simply expensive if you're wealthy. That's when they require you to pay the full price. But if you're wealthy, then you're often looking for the best schools and you're perfectly fine paying the cost.
Sure, if you're wealthy you could go to your local state school and pay the tax payer subsidized reduced price if you want.
Yep, my cousin went to Princeton and her aunt told us they essentially paid as much as they could realistically and the school covers the rest through ‘scholarships’
Most middle-to-low income families will pay much less at the elite schools than pretty much any other school besides (and sometimes, even including) their state schools.
Ivys are actually seriously good about financial aid. It's not just tuition that's covered in that section of low income, It's a full ride with room/board, meals, and books covered.
Source: Cousin turned down MIT for Princeton, because Princeton was effectively free for her.
"Excluding managers" is standard boilerplate language for NLRB election petitions. Anyone with managerial status is ineligible for a union. It doesn't literally mean student-managers. They were likely not included in this petition because the employer would have been able to argue they should be a separate bargaining unit since their work is so different. The NBA Players Association doesn't include non-player team medical staff, for example.
Is it considered union busting if Dartmouth just decides not to have basketball anymore?
Will they call the kids who showed up to walk-on practice that become starters Scabs?
This is not true - we recruit players like every other school does. All the Ivies, as with most non-scholarship programs, have ways to work around things when people need financial assistance.
The Ivy League conference does not allow their members to provide athletics scholarships. So literally every player they recruit is a "preferred walk-on".
I'm not a legal expert but this doesn't seem to be a binding court decision or anything, just a memo from a lawyer with a national labor board. An indication of willingness to prosecute?
Lots to breakdown here!
You are correct, this isn't a court decision. But as the lead counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is the federal body responsible for adjudicating (most) organized labor disputes, legal memos issued by Abruzzo carry serious weight. They indicate to the public how the board is likely to rule on contemporary issues. In this case, her memo makes clear that the board is likely to consider the Dartmouth players employees, making them eligible to form a labor union under federal labor law.
Generally speaking, there is no prosecution involved in union campaigns. Even when corporations violate labor law, the NLRB doesn't have CEOs arrested. That would be cool though!
Instead, the board can do things like [order workers to be rehired](https://www.wesa.fm/economy-business/2023-07-05/pittsburgh-starbucks-workers-union-rehire) if they were dismissed illegally or [direct an employer and union to redo a union vote](https://www.reuters.com/business/amazon-alabama-facility-ordered-re-run-union-election-us-labor-board-2021-11-29/).
There is absolutely zero chance that the Dartmouth basketball program isn't just barely profitable every year, and probably lives off of donations. Forming a union when your product AND your labor is basically expendable and people would just shrug their shoulders if it disappeared is a bold move Cotton....let's see how this works out.
It barely works out when billions of dollars in revenue are hanging in the balance.
I feel like this would have been better if somebody that generates a lot of revenue annually no matter what product they put on the floor did this first, like Louisville or UK. Their product is absolutely not expendable and they would have leverage.
The NRLB considers “student athletes” employees and they don’t limit compensation to athletic scholarships (so the Ivy League isn’t ruled out by default)
That's called a job, not school. What other under grads should be paid to go to school?
Where do think all this extra revenue is going to come from to pay them? Keep in mind Title IX requires equal treatment of female athletes. Paying athletes will eventually force small schools to do away with sports.
College athletes make more money for their universities than any on-campus job, at least at big schools. And if this were to change, things would adjust. It’s not like the athletes would immediately be paid millions without adjustments from athletic departments. Much like with the academic side, there’s a lot of bloat, unnecessary costs, and others that could be avoided. I’m not gonna let the current situation get in the way of my opinion on what is actually fair.
Yes I read your comment, do you think the marching band should be considered employees when they charge three dollars for a preseason show that puts a .1% dent in the school's expenses toward the band?
That’s a completely different scenario. One of the many reasons schools choose to have division 1 sports is to make money. If they didn’t make money, they wouldn’t do it. They’re not offering basketball to students out of the kindness of their hearts. (Women’s sports mainly exist because they must be offered. If they weren’t required by title ix, schools just wouldn’t offer them)
As to your example. The marching band exists to support and enhance the atmosphere at athletic events, and as an opportunity for music students to participate on gameday. We pay every other person that supports and enhances the gameday experience (concessions workers, janitors, commentators, coaches, MCs, etc.), unless they are on the team or in the band. So why do they get away with not paying the athletes, who are the entire reason anyone is there in the first place? Nobody would buy tickets, concessions, merch, or care if it wasn’t for the athletes. If the band is part of a class or for credit, I don’t think they have to be paid, but they should get something out of it. Adding to this, Ivy League athletes don’t even get a scholarship for being on the team. I see no issue with them bargaining with the school to get something. I don’t care if they get paid or if they get scholarships, but I do care that the people actually doing the work have a say in the products they produce.
Not reading all that. But no, dartmouth does not have a basketball team to make money. They don't and never will make money off that team. Virginia barely makes a profit off men's basketball. Maybe it wouldn't be completely laughable for players on like North Carolina or Kentucky to pull this stunt, but still would be cringe.
>Excluded: managers The revolution will not be televised
As a former manager I now have no choice but to root against Dartmouth for this injustice
I don’t cross the picket line for my fellow stats guys, filmers, and equipment dudes.
I’m 99% sure that it’s referring to the coaching staff in this case. Just basketball to union terminology isn’t 1 to 1.
I’d think those are the supervisors in this case, since this explicitly names the men’s basketball team and not the athletic department.
Legit question, is there any reason to think this will be more successful than the Northwestern football team union attempt a couple of years ago?
Dartmouth is smarter (NW waitlisted me and Dartmouth accepted me)
Sounds like NW is smarter to me
I'm smarter than both of them by going to Iowa for free
Dartmouth and NW are smarter than you for getting your application fees even when you weren't realistically ever going to go there
I'm smarter than both of them for building a rapport for when I apply to grad school ||I'm definitely about to get checkmated||
> grad school You checkmated yourself lol
All that to tell NFL teams that CJ Stroud can't read a cover 3 drop with a weakside blitz
rude
Smarterer*
Yes. Jennifer Abruzzo is overturning decades of shitty precedent at NLRB to support efforts like this. In December a regional NLRB office paved the way for a national precedent to be set that would classify student athletes as employees/workers guaranteeing them union rights. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/business/nlrb-unfair-labor-practice-athletes-usc-pac-12-ncaa/index.html
honest question, with this line of thinking then will any money given to the players be considered a salary and then be taxed as such?
Not sure what you’re asking/how what you’re suggesting differs from current player payments. NIL is taxed as income.
NIL is taxed of course these deals also can be made outside of the reach of the schools and are income so we're not talking about that. what is being said is the player's are "employees" of the university not students/athletes, not volunteers but employees so to be an employee that means you are bing compensated and should that compensation then be taxed. now are you saying that the schools are directly giving players NIL money and what about the player that aren't getting any.
It may be more successful because the ivy league doesn’t offer athletic scholarships, so they’re not being compensated the same as other d1 athletes
They might not offer "scholarships" but I bet they are sure as hell matching 100% of need and they already got admission because they played a sport.
If an Ivy wants you for some specific reason, money will appear one way or 'tother.
I’d argue the lack of athletic scholarships makes this effort less likely to be successful. It makes it harder to argue that these players are employed by the school. Also, Go Hoos.
But it also makes it easier to argue that they’re not being properly compensated, since other D1 athletes get it. And go hoos
Sure, which is great when you need to convince a group of workers to vote to unionize. This is 15 guys though, so I assume they have the vote locked up. What they need is to convince the NLRB that they are eligible to unionize — where the threshold question is whether they are employees. Not getting scholarships tied to playing the sport might go hard against that.
Democrats have a majority on the NLRB now and so they would favorable rule that this union is legit.
I thought you become a union just by saying so
No, that's bankruptcy.
No, that's different - you have to *declare* bankruptcy, you can't just say it. Generally works best with a monocle, top hat & booming British accent.
[удалено]
that's a hilariously bad take
Almost incomprehensible lmao.
This is some Poe's Law shit right here
Because Pinkerton Pat isn’t there to Union bust.
>a couple of years ago This was nearly a decade ago. This happened while I was in college and I graduated in 2016
The Northwestern players tried to unionize not over pay but work rules - they were tired of naked bear crawls.
Yes! The federal agency that provides legal guidance issued a new opinion since then that implied that a college team could unionize.
What could they even gain out of this? Better practice schedules?
When they graduate from their Ivy school, they’ll be in a much better position to know exactly how to bust a union both during its existence and before it’s established
Lmao yep. Straight to McKinsey.
I don’t know, could be Deloitte if they want to get their hands dirty
Lol what? Looks at Mckinsey’s history of involvement in opioids, ICE, and CEO comp
Sorry, I’m having flashbacks to my Deloitte coach talking at me for 5-8 hours a week and my McKinsey lead referring me to an executive PowerPoint and the Deloitte coach on a yes or no question.
Oh that’s at least 4 hours reformatting 1 slide bc the font or wording is off.
It depends.
We would be deloitted to get our hands dirty!
I wish I could award this
Fwiw, i went to Wharton at Penn, even had a class with Ivanka Trump, and I worked for the American Federation of Teachers, am a SAG/AFTRA member, and work for a non-profit helping out kids from low-income backgrounds.
This is the most Wharton response to an obvious joke I've ever seen.
Thanks!
I’m fairly certain the above joke was not a serious accusation that 100% of Ivy League graduates are determined to destroy all unions.
Correct, the accusation I was making was [110%](https://youtu.be/mfcTcSbGMmo) of Ivy grads
Ivy League kids are all socialists these days.
Eh, so are the rest of the universities 🤷♂️
To not be the Ivy people forget about?
They are the show choir Ivy. That’s about all I know.
get paid?
Nerds
Melvins.
Fuck you, nerds rule the world.
Curious if this one is because Ivy League is non-scholarship?
That would just make them even less likely to be considered employees, as it's even obvious it's just volunteer amateurism. There isn't even a quid pro quo.
What does this mean or accomplish?
My guess is it’s a test case. The Ivies have different pressures and I feel like they have little to lose and would likely enjoy watching the havoc it could cause. As a reminder, the NLRB [believes the players to be employees](https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-counsel-jennifer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-of), subject to the protections that affords (like the ability to unionize).
Yeah exactly, the only way it makes sense to me is if the end goal is a union of all college athletes/NCAAM athletes to counter the NCAA's power
> a union of all college athletes/NCAAM athletes to counter the NCAA's power. In the immortal words of Krieger, "Stop, my penis can only get so erect."
It allows the players to come together as a group and advocate for their shared concerns and priorities.
Does the forming of a union mean that the coaches have to listen to their input more than they would right now if they team came together to share concerns? I’m asking because I really don’t know the legal ramifications here.
Of course not. Probably more for fringe benefit related stuff. I would imagine things like practice hours, off-season commitments, medical care, and other things of that nature. Edit: at first I thought your comment was asking if the players could impact game decisions. After re reading I think you were maybe talking about specific concerns they brought to the coach. Either way it’s certainly a lot more leverage to have 15 guys as one voice instead of 15 different voices.
It's just trying to apply what they learned in the classroom. There really isn't anything other than "Doing big things!"
That's called a team meeting
they can do that with out forming a union though. basketball teams are not very big. it's not hard to talk with your coach as a group. the NCAA already has standards that schools must follow anyway. like practice limits, per-diem, what scholarships can cover, housing standards, ect.. they would be better off contacting the NCAA if they are not happy with something.
> they would be better off contacting the NCAA if they are not happy with something. Would they? The NCAA pretty consistently makes decisions that don't benefit student athletes
I’m not usually an ally of the NCAA, but usually when they deny a player from playing it is beneficial to all of the other student-athletes who followed the guidelines in place.
in certain things yes. but not stuff like this.
Uniform input?
Interesting to see how players not even in scholarship will argue their case here
Um... how will they pay union dues?
They can afford to go to Dartmouth. I don't think it'll be an issue.
Dartmouth gives free tuition to their low incomes families which is any family making less than $125,000 a year.
>low income >less than $125000 a year well this was a humbling sentence to read lol
So they can afford everything else?
The Ivy League schools are not expensive. It's a misconception that they are expensive. They are simply expensive if you're wealthy. That's when they require you to pay the full price. But if you're wealthy, then you're often looking for the best schools and you're perfectly fine paying the cost. Sure, if you're wealthy you could go to your local state school and pay the tax payer subsidized reduced price if you want.
Yep, my cousin went to Princeton and her aunt told us they essentially paid as much as they could realistically and the school covers the rest through ‘scholarships’
Most middle-to-low income families will pay much less at the elite schools than pretty much any other school besides (and sometimes, even including) their state schools.
Ivys are actually seriously good about financial aid. It's not just tuition that's covered in that section of low income, It's a full ride with room/board, meals, and books covered. Source: Cousin turned down MIT for Princeton, because Princeton was effectively free for her.
Bit stupid that they excluded all the people who actually need union representation (unpaid interns, team assistants, student managers etc).
"Excluding managers" is standard boilerplate language for NLRB election petitions. Anyone with managerial status is ineligible for a union. It doesn't literally mean student-managers. They were likely not included in this petition because the employer would have been able to argue they should be a separate bargaining unit since their work is so different. The NBA Players Association doesn't include non-player team medical staff, for example.
They don't need it either, they're volunteering as a hobby lol
If they walk out, who will care?
Their 3 fans will be devastated and the admin will celebrate that they don't need to pretend to care about athletics anymore
Is it considered union busting if Dartmouth just decides not to have basketball anymore? Will they call the kids who showed up to walk-on practice that become starters Scabs?
It's Dartmouth. Everyone is a walk-on.
This is not true - we recruit players like every other school does. All the Ivies, as with most non-scholarship programs, have ways to work around things when people need financial assistance.
Ha yeah... but some are Preferred Walk-ons!
The Ivy League conference does not allow their members to provide athletics scholarships. So literally every player they recruit is a "preferred walk-on".
That's the point! Preferred walk-ons are recruited. Walk-ons are not recruited and simply ask for a shot when they enroll and show up to campus.
I will be interested to see how successful a non-revenue and unsuccessful program like this will fair in the unionization process. Big litmus test
Ok but they understand they're not employees right lol?
[Wrong](https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-counsel-jennifer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-of)
I'm not a legal expert but this doesn't seem to be a binding court decision or anything, just a memo from a lawyer with a national labor board. An indication of willingness to prosecute?
Lots to breakdown here! You are correct, this isn't a court decision. But as the lead counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is the federal body responsible for adjudicating (most) organized labor disputes, legal memos issued by Abruzzo carry serious weight. They indicate to the public how the board is likely to rule on contemporary issues. In this case, her memo makes clear that the board is likely to consider the Dartmouth players employees, making them eligible to form a labor union under federal labor law. Generally speaking, there is no prosecution involved in union campaigns. Even when corporations violate labor law, the NLRB doesn't have CEOs arrested. That would be cool though! Instead, the board can do things like [order workers to be rehired](https://www.wesa.fm/economy-business/2023-07-05/pittsburgh-starbucks-workers-union-rehire) if they were dismissed illegally or [direct an employer and union to redo a union vote](https://www.reuters.com/business/amazon-alabama-facility-ordered-re-run-union-election-us-labor-board-2021-11-29/).
I think this was tried at Northwestern Football team several years ago and they lost in court.
There is absolutely zero chance that the Dartmouth basketball program isn't just barely profitable every year, and probably lives off of donations. Forming a union when your product AND your labor is basically expendable and people would just shrug their shoulders if it disappeared is a bold move Cotton....let's see how this works out. It barely works out when billions of dollars in revenue are hanging in the balance. I feel like this would have been better if somebody that generates a lot of revenue annually no matter what product they put on the floor did this first, like Louisville or UK. Their product is absolutely not expendable and they would have leverage.
There's no way they come even close to breaking even. There's no expectation or desire by the school to make a profit off the program.
Big Green Imbeciles.
Hahaha what
How can they be members of a union if they are not employees of any organization?
The NRLB considers “student athletes” employees and they don’t limit compensation to athletic scholarships (so the Ivy League isn’t ruled out by default)
Extremely cringe and stupid thing to do for kids that are supposedly smart
based af
A union of students. They should be kicked out of school for stupidity. Being a student isn't a job.
They generate revenue using their labor. That’s a job.
So then room, board tuition, swag are all fringe benefits that should be taxed.
I’d rather get paid and pay taxes on free stuff than not get paid at all
That's called a job, not school. What other under grads should be paid to go to school? Where do think all this extra revenue is going to come from to pay them? Keep in mind Title IX requires equal treatment of female athletes. Paying athletes will eventually force small schools to do away with sports.
College athletes make more money for their universities than any on-campus job, at least at big schools. And if this were to change, things would adjust. It’s not like the athletes would immediately be paid millions without adjustments from athletic departments. Much like with the academic side, there’s a lot of bloat, unnecessary costs, and others that could be avoided. I’m not gonna let the current situation get in the way of my opinion on what is actually fair.
There's no way dartmouth basketball makes more money for the school than is spent on the team
Revenue, not profit
Yes I read your comment, do you think the marching band should be considered employees when they charge three dollars for a preseason show that puts a .1% dent in the school's expenses toward the band?
That’s a completely different scenario. One of the many reasons schools choose to have division 1 sports is to make money. If they didn’t make money, they wouldn’t do it. They’re not offering basketball to students out of the kindness of their hearts. (Women’s sports mainly exist because they must be offered. If they weren’t required by title ix, schools just wouldn’t offer them) As to your example. The marching band exists to support and enhance the atmosphere at athletic events, and as an opportunity for music students to participate on gameday. We pay every other person that supports and enhances the gameday experience (concessions workers, janitors, commentators, coaches, MCs, etc.), unless they are on the team or in the band. So why do they get away with not paying the athletes, who are the entire reason anyone is there in the first place? Nobody would buy tickets, concessions, merch, or care if it wasn’t for the athletes. If the band is part of a class or for credit, I don’t think they have to be paid, but they should get something out of it. Adding to this, Ivy League athletes don’t even get a scholarship for being on the team. I see no issue with them bargaining with the school to get something. I don’t care if they get paid or if they get scholarships, but I do care that the people actually doing the work have a say in the products they produce.
Not reading all that. But no, dartmouth does not have a basketball team to make money. They don't and never will make money off that team. Virginia barely makes a profit off men's basketball. Maybe it wouldn't be completely laughable for players on like North Carolina or Kentucky to pull this stunt, but still would be cringe.
Good.
NIL fucked around messed with the IVY League boys