PAC 12 players threaten to sit unless demands met
And here we go! Finally using their leverage!
Solidarity
Speaking of, this would be an excellent time for a nationwide strike of low paid "essential" workers. I bet it wouldn't take long to get a minimum living wage passed if the grocery stores were closed for a few weeks.
August 1st, 2020 at 10:52 PM ^
With +35M people unemployed right now, I’m sure replacement stock workers could be found.
I'd stay at home and collect unemployment with the extra 600.00 bucks, then to do that type of hard work at a much lower pay rate.
Only problem is once wages are raised, the stores will just raise their price, then we are back in the same boat with workers not gaining the COLA they were seeking.
I never get this theory. Don't you believe in, like, capitalism? Someone will undercut the grocers, whose fixed costs did not increase at anywhere near the minimum wage hike.
You don't factor in inflation. The cost of everything goes up over time and, regardless of how much the minimum wage is raised, it will still not be sufficient for some. A fundamental problem is a difference in expectation by various parties of what a minimum wage should be able to support.
To be clear: this isn't advocating a position against raising the minimum wage. Just a reminder that doing so will not truly fix the problem.
Man, if QE didn't create money, I don't know what evidence you can rely on to 1.) assume that raising the minimum wage will cause inflation or 2.) that raising the minimum wage would immediately cause an inflation kick such that raising the minimum wage would be 100% offset by a rise in the cost of consumer goods?
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:56 AM ^
I'm not sure where you are going with this argument, but you might want to refamiliarize yourself with what inflation is and where it originates (it is frustratingly complex and multifaceted, which is why there is never really a good consensus on how to approach it).
My point earlier was that people need to reevaluate what a minimum wage should actually accomplish - what level of living quality/expenses should it actually support (ie just the individual, individual and x number of dependents, full family, etc.)? Does it makes sense to set a specific value at all? How should it be adjusted for various factors (such as locality, industry, demographics, etc.)?
Also, I never claimed that raising minimum wage (and how) would or would not cause inflation directly or indirectly (again, very complex response function).
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:51 AM ^
Stop it with your logic and facts.
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:15 AM ^
...just don't get it.... Having worked in retail for a number of years - this will play out just like the Seattle living wage debacle did.
Hell, force businesses to pay everyone $30/hour. Guess what - # of employees needed will be reduced and for the ones left, hours and benefits will be reduced to recoup what is being lost. On top of that you force automation and innovation further reducing the need for employees. In the end, many of those jobs were never meant as a career - they are meant to be a ladder up to something better.
I have now hiring signs all over the area I live in. Offering $15/hour and still can't get people. I've also noticed the grocery stores and other retail places installing more and more self-checkout stations.
Having the government mandate a living wage would be disastrous to employees.
- Isn't it worth noting that the employees themselves want this? Like, I feel like they are not stupid and have thought about this; I am inclined to believe them.
- Isn't it remarkable that we think it is legitimately horrifying that people will lose, like cashier jobs? Shouldn't we live in a society where we're grateful for automation so people don't have to do those jobs that frankly tend to suck? Like, something has gone very wrong when we say "fuck, man, trucks might be automated" instead of "tight, we don't need hundreds of thousands of people spending their working lives driving from LA to NY and back again."
- It's instructive to note there's another possibility: you could allocate more $$$ to employee comp and take it out of exec comp or topline profit. It's interesting what is and isn't considered conceivable.
- Re: ladder, here's a really good NYT article that got me to think about these jobs differently. Link. In short, it talks about how organizations used to be willing to promote from within, even from the mailroom or whatever, and how that doesn't happen anymore. (It compares two janitors at Kodak: one who rose to VP and started a long time ago, another who has been a contracted janitor for over a decade with no career advancement.) The ladder is not possible, let alone automatic, for many of these jobs.
- They should probably offer more than $15 an hour if they want people, then!
$15/hr is very different in downtown NYC than Wichita Falls, TX.
Highlow, to respond to your statements:
1. No - who doesn't want/think they should be compensated more?
2. A $15/hour cashier job, fulltime is $30k a year - two parents doing that is $60k? Yes, for many that would be horrifying.
3. AH. The rich vs. the poor argument. Let the market determine this.
4. Anyone, and I mean just about anyone can use a position as a ladder if they really want to - that is just an excuse - I see it happen all the time.
5. Correct - thus my argument above to pay them whatever. Pay $100/hour. In the end - prices will go up, hours will go down, benefits will go down, # of employees will go down.
They have less leverage now than ever before though
They certainly have an even stronger argument that they are taking most of the risk while others reap a large share of the rewards. I also think there is a growing legitimate argument about other health risks the covid uncertainty is causing. The normal training cycle has been significantly disrupted abd players may very well be subject to greater risk of more traditional football injuries as a result.
No disagreement. I’m just saying threatening to not play is not exactly as big a deal this year as it would be other years.
Completely irrelevant in order to fulfill their compensation demand. The vast majority of schools are going to take an absolute bath this year to the tune of losing tens of millions of dollars each. You're delusional if you think any school is going to start paying players during a time like this.
How do you figure the players have less leverage? I don't think they have ever had nearly as much as they do right now. Power 5 schools are looking at a big financial loss if there's no football this season. They're highly motivated to work with their players as long as there is any chance to play.
On the other hand, players from low major conferences might risk having their schools drop down to a lower level.
Exactly. I'm hoping he read it wrong and meant to say more instead of less. If less well then DERP.
Speaking solely on the compensation request portion of this, its simply not possible and when you present a demand that is so far beyond the realm of what is possible you have no leverage. Who's going to negotiate this compensation? The Conference Commissioner? The individual school Presidents? State Legislators that ultimately govern public institutions? And who are they going to negotiate with since there's no union or central figure representing the players? What do you do about the NCAA since they obviously aren't going to go for this? Schools will have to bring in specific outside council that specializes in Title IV issues to see if there's liability on that end of things which there most defintely will be.
This stuff is only the beginning of it. They wouldn't even be able to interview attorneys and choose their council in their requested time frame much less be able to turn a months, if not years, long process into something that could be done within the month. Its completely unrealistic. Quite frankly, its this type of low resolution thinking that worries me for these players. They're dipping their toes into the big leagues here and they're woefully unprepared for what they might run into.
I have not really followed the California Fair Pay to Play Act, but isn’t that a model that doesn’t require colleges to spend more money, but which does provide opportunities for compensation. Isn’t the NCAA dragging their feet on how to address this issue nationally? This seems a pretty legitimate area where progress could be made on compensation even in today’s environment.
Health insurance for long term health problems caused by playing is also a form of compensation. Given the uncertainties asking colleges who reap most of the profits to share in more of the long term health risk also doesn’t seem like a ridiculous demand.
so...they should wait until the time is right, and they’ve got everything all figured out, THEN try to organize?
Yes, you wait until the time is right. That’s part of planning. You have to have specific goals you’re trying to achieve and you have to implement a plan to achieve them and the grander the goals the more planning it takes. This is common sense. Their current “demands” are nothing more than an unbelievably vague wishlist.
the time for labor to protect itself is literally never “when the time is right.”
and how are any of these demands “incredibly vague,” on any level? maybe the racial justice item, but even then, there are many things a multi-billion enterprise could do to promote equality.
you can dismiss this all you want, but the train is coming.
August 1st, 2020 at 10:12 PM ^
That is no different than any other year, except this year they may not play anyway so the schools have less to lose. The players probably have more to lose this year. If they boycott a game or two, that may be all they would get before an outbreak and the end of a possibility for a season. Many of the seniors can’t afford to give up games potentially lose a chance to be drafted. I don’t think this goes well for the players right now.
There won't be a season 'cause I didn't talk to that one girl on a Friday night last fall.
Seek professional help.
Love to see this. Hope other athletes follow suit.
Pull their scholarships and give them to guys that and to play.
yes. be terrible humans. that’ll help.
They need to get over themselves. It's pretty clear we will survive without sports. If you don't want to play then don't play. I'm getting to the point that I don't care if sports are ever played again.
sounds like you need to get over yourself
you say you don’t care if sports are ever played again, but your response to this is to pull their scholarships and give them to other people so that sports can be played?
who hurt you ... why are you like this?
And yet here you are on a sports message board, spewing nonsense. You still care enough to do that. I never understand these anti player attitudes, what other group of fans has such a huge swatch that hates the participants in a sport they supposedly enjoy.
It's pretty clear we will survive without sports.
Something that I once thought was unthinkable has become very real. I've barely watched any of the pro sports that have returned.
Nihilism is an attractive trait.
Then why do you care if they have a scholarship or not lmao.
Should we pull the schollies of every 3rd string lineman that will never play a meaningful down?
August 1st, 2020 at 10:15 PM ^
Agreed. Getting worn out on this political BS and the cancel culture infiltrating sports. And despite the leanings on our board, the majority of the guys that I talk to feel the same. I’ve heard a HUGE Michigan fan swear off all sports and another 65 yr old, life long Tigers fan tell me he’s starting to not even care anymore because of all the BS. And these aren’t stereotypical redneck hillbillies. The one is a sheriff, and the other a CFO. Just normal guys who are worn thin on it. So these guys can keep up the activism, but I promise it’s going to take its toll on the fandom of all sports, and take money away. Agree or not, the end result (of the business side) is really pretty obvious.
August 2nd, 2020 at 12:01 AM ^
I’m confused. What does “student-athletes who want their health to be protected as much as possible during a global pandemic when they’re being asked to engage in high risk activity and want to financially compensated for that risk above and beyond tuition/stipend” have to do with cancel culture?
Maybe I’m drunk and interpreted your comment incorrectly
Yeah, pull their scholarships and see who you can get to replace them. Have fun recruiting the next couple of classes too.
"The group's list of demands, according to the text message, includes safe play amid the pandemic, fighting racial injustice, securing economic rights and fair compensation, protecting all sports and obtaining long-term health insurance."
Which among these demands do you feel are serious enough that scholarships should be pulled? These seem like very reasonable demands to me, and good on the players for trying to make sure that there is some kind of robust support system surrounding their health and safety and security, for they are the ones taking the risk by playing, if indeed we do play at all.
I believe the simpler solution here is that you simply refrain from being a gormless prat because some kids dared to speak out. That's the sort of thinking we simply do not need here, thank you.
They haven’t revealed what their demands are explicitly and in detail. If they ask schools to give money to BLM that is not reasonable.
That's a strawman lol
Why is it not reasonable? Because you decided its not? That's not reasonable!
Would it be more reasonable, for you, if they demanded money be thrown at Turning Point?
But the issue is so much greater than that. It's really ironic. These college players actually have, at least in the short run, greater leverage than the pros. If the pro players strike, the universe of replacements is essentially everyone--which means we get replacement games with a poor brand of football. But if a college team essentially strikes, the school can't just go grab 85 new players and give them scholarships. They could grab a team of 85 walk-ons already enrolled, or scheduled to be enrolled, at the institution. But there are incredibly complex rules around recruiting, eligibility, financial aid, scholarships.
I do feel the kids have less leverage now than in a typical season just because I don't think college football is really going to get off the ground this year. But they do have short run leverage and IF the season is cancelled the real time to use it would be the summer of 2021.
You forgot "Shut up and dribble."
My guess is this is going to be a big nothing burger. That's not to say I believe the players are wrong for asking for any of this but they couldn't have worse timing. Ensuring safety measures related to the pandemic in place is probably doable in the sense that they could implement additional safety measures but if the goal is to eliminate the risk of the virus that's basically impossible. The article doesn't mention any metrics or specific requests regarding the racial injustice stuff so that may or may not be possible depending on what they're asking for. The compensation part is basically impossible at this juncture and these players either completely underestimate how difficult that process will be or completely overestimate their ability to get something like that done in the matter of a couple days/weeks. Throw in the fact that many of these universities and athletic department's budgets are in absolute chaos right now and the only logical conclusion to this is either the players are going to cave and show up to play or the Pac 12 will not have football this fall (if anyone does).
this is likely to happen across the country
i would be surprised at this point if there is a season. i would be surprised if MLB finished the season as what happened with the Marlins is likely to happen with many teams. this makes me sad
Whatever anyone wants to say, the fact of the matter is that they are in a contract. They agreed to play sports, for scholarship, stipends, e.t.c. Violate your end of the deal, and the school can (should or should not is your belief) terminate their end of the deal. Who knows though, I've never been on scholarship, maybe the school can't terminate.
Who knows though, I've never been on scholarship
You don't say...