- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,104
- Reaction score
- 19,742
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
They aren't employees. And if they were they get education completely free. While others who contribute far more than playing games must pay ludacrisly high tuition. This is going to be an excuse to increase that burden.Why wouldn't they?
The National Labor Relations Board in Chicago has ruled that football players at Northwestern University are employees and can unionize.
Question is what do you think?
They aren't employees. And if they were they get education completely free. While others who contribute far more than playing games must pay ludacrisly high tuition. This is going to be an excuse to increase that burden.
everybody has the right to unionize, but I don't think an institution of higher learning should be occupied with children's games.Why shouldn't just anyone be allowed to unionize. I don't mean employees, but just any group of people who are in a similar situation or have similar interests?
I think that suggesting that individuals should NOT be allowed to form associations, for the purpose of collective negotiating or any other purpose, is quite un-libertarian.
Large entities have a distinct negotiating advantage that individuals don't have. So lets say that Pharma A has sole rights to produce a certain drug, and because of that they are able to charge a rediculous price for that drug. No individual uses enough of that drug to have any negotiating power, so they are just stuck with whatever price that Pharma A charges. If individuals who needed that drug unionized, they could then boycott purchases from that company, or at least use the threat to do so to gain negotiating power which is more or less equal to Pharma A.
I suspect that those who don't agree, don't have a true libertarian bone in their bodies. They just want to be able to give large entities huge amounts of negotiating power, while keeping normal individuals virtually powerless.
or just do away with them being students and they can just be pro ball players, that is all they really areYes. They aren't asking for cash, they are asking for their medical bills to be covered and for their schoolwork to be respected. How are those bad things? These schools are earning millions of the backs of these kids who are putting their bodies on the line; the least these schools could do is pay for the medical bills and make sure they have adequate time to study.
okay then they aren't students, they are pro ball players, if they don't have to study and pass then they aren't really students.Thread title is a little leading IMHO but I say yes. Student athletes bring in tens of millions to their colleges while they are forced to live in poverty. Some sports, particularly football is associated with a significant risk to both debilitating physical and neurological injuries. Under NCAA rules, they cannot even get a part-time job at McDonald's after classes, barring them from earning money outside of the school. Yes, they get a free education but its not the same as with other students. Because of travel and practice, they often cannot take advantage of the best educational opportunities available at the university. In fact, if I'm not mistaken they don't even have to pass their classes to graduation as a special student athlete curve is applied to their class requirements. To say they're getting a free education is simply not accurate. What they get is the right to SAY they're students, take classes they don't have to pass, work their butts off as athletes for free, risk debilitating injuries all for the chance at becoming pro someday, something only a minority of college athletes will accomplish.
I say pay them and stick the money in a high return investment account trust fund they can get at age 50.
Scholarships can cover that. And real students have to pay those things and accrue massive debtCollege tuition can't be used to buy a car, or food, etc. so, no, they aren't employees. More like trading partners.
I agree if we are going to call these people employees than why call them students?I don't think the ruling was appropriate. College football players are not on the payroll and are not subject to employee regulations from what I understand.
If anything, college students and football players are more like "customers" in that they select the school, pay tuition and are receiving a the service of education with hopes to earn a degree. College students still "pay" tuition, it's just offset by the athletic scholarship.
As a student for the past 6 years I don't think students should be able to unionize.
The National Labor Relations Board in Chicago has ruled that football players at Northwestern University are employees and can unionize.
Question is what do you think?
Scholarships can cover that. And real students have to pay those things and accrue massive debt
Cry me a river.
I agree non employees should be allowed to unionize. They are saying they are employees rather than customers.The real question should be: Can non-employees unionize?
Yes.
If they have to work in tandem with said organization or business in order to accomplish something then they do have rights and specific interests. Colleges pursue legislators and wage against the students by raising prices and all else - effectively barring the students from input even though it places the results of these decisions square on the student's shoulders.
Makes perfect sense to give them more representation and voice.
Universities look at students as little more than money makers which is abusive toward the whole concept. If colleges hadn't spun so out of control it would be a non-issue but it's clear they don't always hold the student's best interest.
that isn't what a scholarship is for. If they want to make money right now, they can opt not to go to college and find work.I can't put a scholarship in the bank, or invest it, etc.
They aren't employees, they are students. So it isn't scary. Colleges don't pay their students, their students, pay them.If they are employees, it sets a scary precedent for the rest of us. It means employers can dictate to employees what they must spend their "earnings" on.
it consumes far more than it creates.High school football creates a lot of revenue, too.
I think games should be just fun and recreation. But then again I am non interested spectating. They seem repetitive and boring. But I like different television shows.At what point did playing sports stop being a fun thing to do while going to school and start being a job?
The National Labor Relations Board in Chicago has ruled that football players at Northwestern University are employees and can unionize.
Question is what do you think?
I agree completelyNo they shouldn't and if they are allowed to and strike then their scholarships should be revoked.
it consumes far more than it creates.
I think games should be just fun and recreation. But then again I am non interested spectating. They seem repetitive and boring. But I like different television shows.
It's the increasing amount of money that professional game players get. And how much it sticks in peoples' craw that they can't earn that much money. Such as advertisers and sponsors. Professional game players are never payed a dime more than what they are worth. It's not their fault that others aren't skilled at playing their games and thus aren't worth all that money.
Yes. They aren't asking for cash, they are asking for their medical bills to be covered and for their schoolwork to be respected. How are those bad things? These schools are earning millions of the backs of these kids who are putting their bodies on the line; the least these schools could do is pay for the medical bills and make sure they have adequate time to study.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?