More on the athlete lawsuits before the courts, NLRB

[OldJacketFan]

I'm no lawyer certainly. And I have not read the relevant laws that would be used in court to define / determine what constitutes an employee in this matter. So I should probably do so to gain better insight. I'm just not sure I have the necessary curiosity to conduct that research.

But I feel fairly comfortable discussing reasonableness. And reasonableness, along with written law, and established case law, is what courts consider when deciding a case. And I think most reasonable people would have a hard time saying student athletes are employees or should be considered such. Being a student is not a job. It's something most people, at the college level, have to pay for. Participating in organized college sports is also a privilege, not a right. And I think most reasonable people would agree with that also. Student athletes that are "awarded" scholarships get the best of both worlds. They get the privilege of playing and have the school / degree paid for through the scholarship to boot.

Yes they work very hard in sports while also attending class. That is a free choice they can walk away from anytime.

Those who argue the opposite position usually make an entitlement related argument or argue based upon a socialist type reason, i.e. "The schools / TV make sooooo much money...it's not fair the athletes don't get a cut. That kind of reasoning should not hold up in a court. I have admittedly been surprised by more than one court decision however.

All this also brings me back to Congress. Who has the power to rewrite the laws governing all of this. They can't even balance the budget though so who knows?

When I read the original ruling it goes into great detail as to what, under the law, constitutes an employee. I knew a lot of what was cited (I've handled employer liability claims as an insurance litigation specialist) and I could little fault with the legitimacy of of the hearing officer opinion in the matter and the subsequent ruling. Case law is well settled in this area and while their are some specific distinctions that favor NW in this case it would not surprise to see the Board rule in favor of the athletes. Not because of politics( good, bad or indifferent) but because of many, multiple jurisdictions rulings beforehand.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@OldJacketFan
Very interesting. Thanks for that insight. Saves me the trouble of researching it

 

[Boomergump]

Employees? I guess the minimum wage would have to be enforced, right?

 

[OldJacketFan]

Employees? I guess the minimum wage would have to be enforced, right?

Actually Boomer that's already been admitted by NW is the value of the scholarships. The players do receive compensation, the central crux from the players standpoint is they are employees and, as such, under the current status of Labor law in the U.S. they have the right to collective bargain and other rights as defined. It's going to come down to whether, under U.S. law, or not the players are employees. That as I noted above will be decided on existing statute and case law. Interestingly enough, compensation alone is not enough under the law to establish if someone is an employee.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Here the US Supreme Court case that defines employment relationship for those who want to see what factors are at play in the NW NRLB case.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992)

 

[Skeptic]

.... Interestingly enough, compensation alone is not enough under the law to establish if someone is an employee.

A neighbor across the street is a former now retired newspaper editor. After what seemed to be an explosion of strange bylines and credits in our local paper I asked him about it. They are stringers or correspondents, he said, and outlined several criteria for the newspaper to use them like employees but not legally make them employees though as he phrased it, "It's a distinction without a functional difference." Thus no bennies and no minimum wage requirements even. Sounded to me an awful lot like colleges and athletes. The eventual ruling is going to be interesting, though my bet is the colleges will win. Those guys, and/or women at the NLRB like college sports, too.

 

[OldJacketFan]

A neighbor across the street is a former now retired newspaper editor. After what seemed to be an explosion of strange bylines and credits in our local paper I asked him about it. They are stringers or correspondents, he said, and outlined several criteria for the newspaper to use them like employees but not legally make them employees though as he phrased it, "It's a distinction without a functional difference." Thus no bennies and no minimum wage requirements even. Sounded to me an awful lot like colleges and athletes. The eventual ruling is going to be interesting, though my bet is the colleges will win. Those guys, and/or women at the NLRB like college sports, too.

That's why I posted the supreme court case. I suspect the SAs are going prevail but it'll be interesting whichever way it goes. You might find it interesting to go ahead and google the case, the Darden decision shows what factors can go into the establish an employer-employee relationship.

 

[Skeptic]

That's why I posted the supreme court case. I suspect the SAs are going prevail but it'll be interesting whichever way it goes. You might find it interesting to go ahead and google the case, the Darden decision shows what factors can go into the establish an employer-employee relationship.

I intend to read it. We might be entering a brave new world here, and somewhere out there is a generation of football coaches who can and will take advantage.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Here's great write up that not only discusses Darden it also addresses a number of other employment law cases related. This from a case before the MN Supreme Court but you'll see the federal cases on point.

http://mnbenchbar.com/2010/09/independent-contractor-or-employee/

 

[AE 87]

So, they'll have to pay taxes on the value of scholarships etc if they win?

 

[OldJacketFan]

Generally speaking here are the criteria that factor in per the EEOC

• The employer has the right to control when, where, and how the worker performs the job.
• The work does not require a high level of skill or expertise.
• The employer furnishes the tools, materials, and equipment.
• The work is performed on the employer’s premises.
• There is a continuing relationship between the worker and the employer.
• The employer has the right to assign additional projects to the worker.
• The employer sets the hours of work and the duration of the job.
• The worker is paid by the hour, week, or month rather than the agreed cost of performing a particular job.
• The worker does not hire and pay assistants.
• The work performed by the worker is part of the regular business of the employer.
• The employer is in business.
• The worker is not engaged in his/her own distinct occupation or business.
• The employer provides the worker with benefits such as insurance, leave, or workers’ compensation.
• The worker is considered an employee of the employer for tax purposes (i.e., the employer withholds federal, state, and Social Security taxes).
• The employer can discharge the worker.
• The worker and the employer believe that they are creating an employer-employee relationship

 

[OldJacketFan]

So, they'll have to pay taxes on the value of scholarships etc if they win?

Possibly

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I could see this backfiring on the players big time when athletic schollies are abolished.

 

[OldJacketFan]

I could see this backfiring on the players big time when athletic schollies are abolished.

If they win, that's a very distinct possibility imo. Or it could be defining cost to attend the point of contract status allowing colleges to contract for services. So many possibilities and so few answers beyond the issue of employer-employee relationship that I would even begin to speculate what might happens. One thing is pretty certain whichever side prevails will have the opportunity to tie up this case for years!

 

[AE 87]

Yeah, I don't see how this doesn't backfire big time. If athletic scholarships are ruled as income (which the decision requires), then it applies across the board and it's taxable.

States can go after past players for back taxes. Hutson Mason? You threw the pick.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Yeah, I don't see how this doesn't backfire big time. If athletic scholarships are ruled as income (which the decision requires), then it applies across the board and it's taxable.

States can go after past players for back taxes. Hutson Mason? You threw the pick.

No it won't have a retroactive effect. So no issue with back taxes.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Generally speaking here are the criteria that factor in per the EEOC

• The employer has the right to control when, where, and how the worker performs the job.
• The work does not require a high level of skill or expertise.
• The employer furnishes the tools, materials, and equipment.
• The work is performed on the employer’s premises.
• There is a continuing relationship between the worker and the employer.
• The employer has the right to assign additional projects to the worker.
• The employer sets the hours of work and the duration of the job.
• The worker is paid by the hour, week, or month rather than the agreed cost of performing a particular job.
• The worker does not hire and pay assistants.
• The work performed by the worker is part of the regular business of the employer.
• The employer is in business.
• The worker is not engaged in his/her own distinct occupation or business.
• The employer provides the worker with benefits such as insurance, leave, or workers’ compensation.
• The worker is considered an employee of the employer for tax purposes (i.e., the employer withholds federal, state, and Social Security taxes).
• The employer can discharge the worker.
• The worker and the employer believe that they are creating an employer-employee relationship

Seems to me the bullets in bold do not apply for the SA I think the insurance / workers comp also does not apply 99% of the time. Seems like elite players sometimes get insurance but I'm not certain if that is furnished by the schools. The vast majority never get insurance though.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Seems to me the bullets in bold do not apply for the SA I think the insurance / workers comp also does not apply 99% of the time. Seems like elite players sometimes get insurance but I'm not certain if that is furnished by the schools. The vast majority never get insurance though.

These are not absolutes, they are criteria. And a person does not have to meet ALL of them to be classified as an employee.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Yeah I get that. I think those are still hurdles for them to overcome however.

 

[CrackerJacket]

Rick Telander (former Northwestern football player, ironically) had an interesting solution in his book The Hundred Yard Lie: age group pro football. Players would 'age out' of the league at 25 or thereabouts, so an extraordinary 18-year old athlete could simply begin his pro career without the pretense of education involved if that's what he wants. A university, business firm, or individual could own a team. (Maybe we could play Coca-Cola as well as Clemson!) In Telander's scheme, what we know as college football would revert to more of an Ivy League model.

Don't see an age group pro league coming to pass, but the shamateur model of sports is outmoded. It's gone away in other sports, and its days are numbered in college football, too.