Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Neither do janitors.Of course not. They dont generate revenue.
Somehow I don't think the law would look at things the same as your odd worldview.They are needed by the business or else they wouldn't be getting paid. You can argue that cheerleaders, dance team, and the band is needed for the gameday presentation. However, here's the key difference, those students would be willing to do it for free. The secretary at Exxon isnt going to agree to work for free. Theoretically, if band members across the country boycotted and there was a risk of losing "the band," then maybe then some payment could be negotiated. But I am pretty sure they are willing to do this "work" for free.
Should all students who represent Pitt be included as employees, including cheerleaders, debate team, band members, etc.?
So your application of who gets to be an employee is inconsistent.No.
Any other dumb questions?
So your application of who gets to be an employee is inconsistent.
Got it.
My guess is that you replied to one…..There are lots of people that work for businesses that don't generate revenue.
Oh, I get what your definition of employee is (anyone who you think should be one). My guess is that those in charge would disagree with its inconsistency.Well, either that or your understanding of what an employee is, one or the other.
Oh, I get what your definition of employee is (anyone who you think should be one). My guess is that those in charge would disagree with its inconsistency.
Did they rule that volleyball player are employees? How about football players? How about women's basketball players?Obviously. Which is why there was just an NLRB ruling that people on the debate team are employees.
Did they rule that volleyball player are employees? How about football players? How about women's basketball players?
If you're hanging you hat on their ruling, your prior are so, so wrong.
Since they have yet to rule on other groups, including groups like the band, maybe you shouldn't include other groups in your assumed list. You are aware that the same NLRB turned down Northwestern football players' request to unionize, right? You also are aware that the Dartmouth ruling was based on a completely false premise that Dartmouth was compensating the basketball team, right?You understand that they can only rule on the case in front of them, right?
Anyway, it's one ruling that is going to help drive the process to football and basketball players being recognized as employees.
If you are hanging you hat on the NLRB and the courts ruling that football and basketball players are no different than debate team members then you are going to be so, so wrong. All the while having your priorities completely out of whack.
I think Dartmouth basketball only has a decision from a regional director of NLRB ... Northwestern football players also obtained a favorable decision from the regional director, but then lost when the school challenged it at the next level up within the NLRB. So it will be interesting to see if the NLRB goes in a different direction this time.You are aware that the same NLRB turned down Northwestern football players' request to unionize, right? You also are aware that the Dartmouth ruling was based on a completely false premise that Dartmouth was compensating the basketball team, right?
Neither do janitors.
There are kids willing to play college football for free. Heck, that's how it worked even at the highest level of college football for as long as the game existed up until a couple years ago. They grumbled about it being unfair, but they still did it.
How many athletes are willing to participate for free? Since when is playing a game considered work? Are 12-year olds working when they play Little League?Janitors are necessary and arent willing to work for free. Band, cheerleaders, dance team arent "working" and they are willing to do what they do for free. As I said, if too many of them decided they wouldn't do so for free anymore, then maybe you decide to pay them.
That's you, I'd watch Pitt football no matter who they were playing over any top 10 or blue blood matchup.I graduated from Gannon U as an undergrad. While I semi follow their hoops team, I have never seen a Gannon football game and if it is playing opposite say ND/USC, I am choosing the latter.
Generally no as they’re not generating any revenue. But since the little league World Series has been monitized and on tv so much yea maybe they should be paid.How many athletes are willing to participate for free? Since when is playing a game considered work? Are 12-year olds working when they play Little League?
So "generating revenue" is your qualifier for employment? You probably should think that through a little more.Generally no as they’re not generating any revenue. But since the little league World Series has been monitized and on tv so much yea maybe they should be paid.
I fully admit I don’t know all the intricacies of labor laws. I’m only speaking of what I think should be. If it’s generating money, those who are producing the content should be compensated.So "generating revenue" is your qualifier for employment? You probably should think that through a little more.
Since when is playing a game considered work? Since professional sports began.How many athletes are willing to participate for free? Since when is playing a game considered work? Are 12-year olds working when they play Little League?
Labor law pretty much just says that if someone performs duties for you, you have to compensate them for their time. There are laws that say when a person is an employee versus an independent contractor but that usually has to do with how you're using their services. Usually a contractor is for a limited and defined period but there are always caveats.I fully admit I don’t know all the intricacies of labor laws. I’m only speaking of what I think should be. If it’s generating money, those who are producing the content should be compensated.
How many athletes are willing to participate for free? Since when is playing a game considered work? Are 12-year olds working when they play Little League?
Yup, if they make the players actual employees and if they are busts at the college level, it should be ok to cut them and fire them at anytime, F'emI want to see what happens when they are employees and not living up to their expectations and get fired.
I want to see what happens when they are employees and not living up to their expectations and get fired.
I'm not disagreeing that those who generate money should be compensated. They should be. I'm not yet in the camp they should be employees yet.I fully admit I don’t know all the intricacies of labor laws. I’m only speaking of what I think should be. If it’s generating money, those who are producing the content should be compensated.
Also don’t know where independent contractors fit in. Golfers and pro wrestlers are that, they are not employees.
I’m certain I’m leaving myself wide open in a legal sense so bash away if you’d like. But again, just my opinion of what should be. Nobody should be making money off the backs of others who are performing for free.
And yea I’m sure the little league kids all think it’s cool being on tv.
"Professional" is the operative word in your post.Since when is playing a game considered work? Since professional sports began.
Can they trade players among teams?They would be given contracts. This would also prevent transfers. Sign them to a 4 year contract out of HS with buyout language if they leave early for the NFL. This wouldn't be much different than any other sport. They wouldn't be free agents every year like they are now. If a kid like Eli Holstein signs a 4 year contract with Bama but both parties agree that he isnt going to help the program at some point, they can agree to terminate the contract.
The whole thing is a mess, it's college football but will have zero to do with actual "college", they just want to use the names, colors and logs because they are already popular.Can they trade players among teams?
If that happens, I'm out. I've already said that.The whole thing is a mess, it's college football but will have zero to do with actual "college", they just want to use the names, colors and logs because they are already popular.
I never said they shouldn’t be. I don’t disagree that they add value but I also think if they went away people very few if any would stop attending (other than perhaps family). No easy answers with some of this. But I don’t think a small stipend for some pocket money is an outrageous idea.I'm not disagreeing that those who generate money should be compensated. They should be. I'm not yet in the camp they should be employees yet.
My question to you why others - who don't necessarily directly generate revenues - should also not be compensated. Cheerleaders and bands add to the entertainment value of attendees at sporting events, for example. Its part of the package of the event. They are representing the university as well and have to spend time away from studies to practice. The same is true of other representatives of the university such as the debate teams.
Can they trade players among teams?
I'm not disagreeing that those who generate money should be compensated. They should be. I'm not yet in the camp they should be employees yet.
My question to you why others - who don't necessarily directly generate revenues - should also not be compensated. Cheerleaders and bands add to the entertainment value of attendees at sporting events, for example. Its part of the package of the event. They are representing the university as well and have to spend time away from studies to practice. The same is true of other representatives of the university such as the debate teams.
I would follow the law.If you owned a business and there was a big market of people willing to provide entertainment for free, would you pay them? Lets say you owned a restaurant and there were a bunch of bands knocking down your door asking if they can perform for free. Why would you pay them?
Wouldn't title IX say the girl athletes have to get paid the same as the guy athletes?I fully admit I don’t know all the intricacies of labor laws. I’m only speaking of what I think should be. If it’s generating money, those who are producing the content should be compensated.
Then it will fail.Yes. It would be a fully professional sport.
You asked a question, I answered it. Yes, there are people who get paid to play sports, video games, and everything in between. You obviously didn't think about that when you posed your question. If college players got paid, they'd be "professional" too."Professional" is the operative word in your post.