MI passes bill banning college athletes from unionizing
December 16th, 2014 at 8:06 PM ^
Fuck the government. That is all.
December 16th, 2014 at 8:48 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 16th, 2014 at 9:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 16th, 2014 at 8:11 PM ^
A political issue on the board with Brian himself commenting even. This is a test in tolerating political type comments in anticipation of a Regent run.
December 16th, 2014 at 8:55 PM ^
I just want us to win more than 5 football games a season.
December 16th, 2014 at 9:13 PM ^
This is an area (I like to think) that I know about.
This is a state law issue. The NLRA does not apply to public sector employees, however defined. Some states allow no, or limited, rights for public sector employees to unionize. Michigan can define an "public employee" to exlcude college athletes if it wants.
The only equal protection argument that comes to mind is that other public employees in Michigan can unionize. However, given the history and uniqueness of the situation, my non-researched and gut-level prediction is that any equal protection suit would not be successful. Michigan law already allows different groups of employees to be treated differently. For example, police and fire fighters have access to binding interest arbitration under Act 312 of 1969, and were exempted from the "Right to Work" legislation.
This isn't any kind of political statement, nor a judgement of the wisdom or fairness of the law. I am just trying to clarify things a bit.
December 16th, 2014 at 9:35 PM ^
That's good. Last winter, I had to spend nearly $1K fixing up damage done while driving over college-athletes-thinking-that-at-some-future-point-they-might-consider-collective-bargaining-rights. I'm glad they got right to that pressing issue.
December 16th, 2014 at 9:44 PM ^
So, I'm a UM law student avoiding studying for my labor final. For what it's worth, unionization doesn't necessarily--or even likely--lead to paying money to players. It merely provides the framework for forcing management to the bargaining table. It seems like players want more autonomy to pursue athletics and to have more of a say with their own safety. Seems like a good idea to me, considering Morris-gate 2014.
December 16th, 2014 at 9:59 PM ^
Who is your prof? I had St. Antoine "back in the day." Does he still teach?
The best summary of the law school exam process I ever heard was from Yale Kamisar. He said that it would be malpractice to give an opinion on any situation as complex as a law school exam question in just three hours. However, they needed to give out grades and this was the best way they had found. So, we had to go through it.
December 16th, 2014 at 10:01 PM ^
I have a new professor who is great. St. Antoine is the man. He came in and taught a section of the class even though he's ancient now. He definitely still has it.
Exams as a 3L are the worst.
December 16th, 2014 at 10:14 PM ^
Second semester of 3L is waaaay harder to get motivated for.
In way of preview - If you think 3L exams suck, wait for the bar exam!
Seriously, best of luck to you.
December 17th, 2014 at 12:31 AM ^
December 17th, 2014 at 2:28 AM ^
December 16th, 2014 at 9:56 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 16th, 2014 at 10:42 PM ^
.........
December 19th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
Meanwhile, exploitation never goes outta style.
December 16th, 2014 at 11:14 PM ^
cost of attendance scholarships, there will be problems down the road for the NCAA. It will happen sooner or later, with or without an edict from the politburo nc2a.
December 17th, 2014 at 3:18 AM ^
December 17th, 2014 at 4:21 AM ^
Doesn't matter this law wouldn't hold up in a court of law. You can't tell people they can't form a union.
December 17th, 2014 at 7:51 AM ^
December 17th, 2014 at 6:17 AM ^
Did anyone here actually read what the bill said????
An individual serving as a graduate student research assistant or in an equivalent position, and A STUDENT PARTICIPATING IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS ON BEHALF OF A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY IN THIS STATE, OR any individual whose position does not have sufficient indicia of an employer-employee relationship using the 20-factor test announced by the internal revenue service of the United States department of treasury in revenue ruling 87-41, 1987-1 C.B. 296 is not a public employee entitled to representation or collective bargaining rights under this act.
I read it and besides this one idiotic addition (which is a very very small part). This bill had nothing to do with players forming a union and is being spun like thats was what our legislators were voting on. Yes, it was part of it, but there was much much more involved. Because I know this is a no politics zone, Ill leave it here. Someone else could just as easily have said (person who voted no here) votes no against law that would penalize union intimidation and strong arming against public employees.
December 17th, 2014 at 8:56 AM ^
change the calculus of the amount or length Michigan is willing to pay Harbaugh?
I say definitely no to the amount, and a less strong no to the length of the contract.
Say players averaged $100K. That would amount to an $8.5 million additional expense. Which would certainly subtract from the annual $60 million profit that the football team generates.
However, the focal point of the CC: has to be that the current Michigan team is not an elite program and has not been since at least 2007. (Being generous here.) Nonetheless, Michigan Football is still an elite Top 5 revenue generator, which provides a path back to becoming an elite program. (Go spend a few extra million per year to hire an elite coach who will make the program elite again.)
That $8.5 million amount would surely squeeze the subsidy amount available to the negative profit sports, however.
December 17th, 2014 at 9:46 AM ^
Meh, did they also pass a bill banning the Easter Bunny from driving on Wednesdays? Because both were about as likely to happen.
P.S., Easter Bunny bill would be unconstitutional as a bill of attainder
/lawnerd
December 17th, 2014 at 2:02 PM ^
Thanks FannMann, Oregon, TruBlu and others for making this informative rather than political. Do you think paying players for use of their names and images changes the legal status quo? I'd think payments exceeding the full cost of attendance would be reportable as (private) self-employment or contract income.