A regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled that full-scholarship players may be considered employees of a college or university. The decision by the regional NLRB will be considered by the five-member NLRB in Washington and could be litigated in the highest courts of the land.
The media is talking about fairness. An AP article referred to the decision as an “exploding movement to form unions and bargain.”
While the NLRB considers the merits, one thing is certain: the decision regarding collective bargaining by college football players is not about fairness or equitable pay, it’s about money; income for the unions. The top five priorities of unions are: Increased pay, Increased benefits (insurance, health, retirement), Work rules, Dues income and Remuneration for perceived political patronage. Equitable treatment for members is not on their list. Intractable union work rules keep dues-paying members employed.
These 18 to 25-year-old young athletes may be easily led into schemes that will be represented by union leaders, some of whom are called “business agents.” These football players will now be able to file grievances, strike and picket. As with other organized groups, they can stage a sit-down strike or a sickout. If they don’t get their way, they can threaten to delay or postpone an upcoming game.
It is possible that the big shots of the union will demand verification of where uniforms, helmets and shoes are made, that they are made with union labor and that they are shipped, received and handled only by union workers. Injuries will be diagnosed and treated as usual and in some cases litigated along union guidelines. Union bosses will control the amount of time in practice and scrimmage games. Overtime play when scores are tied will almost certainly call for overtime pay. Work rules could protect players regarding playing time, classroom grades, social interactions (fighting, gambling, alcohol consumption) and traffic violations.
When control is gained by an impregnable union contract, it is possible that the agreement would eventually rule out allowing the players and their team to play a non-union school. The objective is to apply pressure on other high-profile teams to organize a union local at their college.
Realizing that meaningful control of their lucrative football program has vanished, there are several alternatives school officials can pursue: Increase tuition. Reduce faculty and staff. Revise player scholarships downward although this possibility will almost certainly be blocked by the union contract. The university can raise ticket prices for games. There is a high probability that the union will have also covered this eventuality by increasing the contractual share of ticket sales revenue available to unionized players.
One option would be to discontinue the sport. The basketball team is surely on the list of priorities for collecting dues from young athletes who are candidates for membership. If both these sports are in the hands of union bosses, the college has become simply a revenue stream to enrich the unions and their political candidates and parties.
Unions secure member loyalty by depicting all levels of management as opportunists that have no interest in the member’s well being. Both university and NCAA authority would be diminished to nominal roles. Union agents and other officials at regular meetings and individual contacts could remind the members of the union’s success in providing higher pay, greater benefits and favorable work rules. The union could morph into the position of emancipator and the college would be the fount of remuneration, much of it enriching the union coffers.
If the football team at Northwestern is organized, the union could become the ultimate source of divisiveness between students, players, coaches, university officials, the NCAA and the alumnae. Players, university administrators, and even the courts should pause to consider how the substantive management of many corporations and government agencies have lost their roles of leadership and decision-making to imperious union contracts, abusive work rules and (mis)direction. If college athletes are being exploited, unionization is simply shifting the exploitation to a different martinet.
– Dick Baynton
