re: Northwestern football players win their petition to unionize

quote:

---

that's not comparable. if the athlete doesn't wish to negotiate in that manner, they do not have to. in this instance, NU must

---

sure it is. The athlete prospect cannot modify the scholarship agreement. He "must" negotiate that way. Furthermore, nothing is topping NU from using walk ons.

quote:

---

this is statutorily-constructed bargaining positions. or in other words, "government picking winners and losers". this does not make the agreement "Free" and it is terrible policy, imho. government should stay out of picking winners and losers

---

No. Bargaining positions are not statutorily constructed. They cannot be. The government is not picking a winner or a loser here as it's not negotiating a contract. They are just saying that NU's players are employees. That is the entire scope of the decision. I'm not sure what makes that a "terrible decision", saying that people who sign a contract to provide services in exhcange for compensation at the control of the employer are employees, but hey... whatever floats your boat.

And repeating the winners and losers line doesn't make it any less nonsensical. But I will point out that a court case, by its adversarial nature, must have a winner and a loser. So your first idea to invalidate all contracts in existence that resulted from unequal bargaining power is still the worst, eliminating the adversarial justice system and eliminate trials is a close second. After all, the judge, being a government employee, can't pick a winner. Even if he could, the government wouldn't be able to enforce it, as that would also be picking a loser.

quote:

---

because of the nature of forcing this particular bargaining via the will of the state.

---

The players brought the suit. So... it's via their will actually. The government didn't make them form a union. I'd be against compelling players to form a union.

quote:

---

Bargaining positions are not statutorily constructed. They cannot be.

---

the state just forced NU to bargain with a group of athletes. that's a bargaining position mandated by the state

no matter how you want to define certain words, that's not a free...exchange of ideas. it's forced

quote:

---

. They are just saying that NU's players are employees.

---

and within this grouping of laws, what does that entail?

quote:

---

saying that people who sign a contract to provide services in exhcange for compensation at the control of the employer are employees, but hey... whatever floats your boat.

---

so the designation of being an "employee" within this statutory framework has no effects within the framework?

they went to court to be labeled employees, and now that they are, nothing change?

quote:

---

But I will point out that a court case, by its adversarial nature, must have a winner and a loser.

---

i was addressing the statutory framework that gives extra-legislative rights to one group while stripping freedom from another, not the judicial ruling

quote:

---

So your first idea to invalidate all contracts in existence that resulted from unequal bargaining power is still the worst,

---

you're putting words in my mouth to attempt to make my argument sound absurd. that is a very intellectually dishonest statement. even worse, it's not even a funny example of dishonesty

quote:

---

eliminating the adversarial justice system and eliminate trials is a close second

---

ye gods

quote:

---

The players brought the suit. So... it's via their will actually.

---

they're using "bad" law to do so. but-for the bad law, they could not bring this suit within that court

quote:

---

the state just forced NU to bargain with a group of athletes. that's a bargaining position mandated by the state

no matter how you want to define certain words, that's not a free...exchange of ideas. it's forced

---

Well, I do agree that laws exist. This is an argument against laws. And no, they didn't mandate NU's position as NU wants to negotiate with these players. They want to offer them scholarships so they will play football. Otherwise, they will not offer them scholarships. Arguing that NU is being forced to negotiate with the people they actively recruited is an idea so obviously wrong, I can't believe you still want to argue it.

quote:

---

and within this grouping of laws, what does that entail?

---

That they may unionize... which goes back to my original point. You are trying to argue that unions should be illegal. Just say it and stop pretending.

Actually, nothing does change. They CAN unionize, but they haven't yet. So the status of NU's athletes is the same except that they now are recognized as what they were: employees. NU will continue to direct and control their actions. The legal effect of them being employees doesn't change the analysis. You want to claim they aren't employees yet offer no reason why other than you don't feel NU should have a weakened bargaining position. Let's say that Northwestern is ecstatic you aren't their lawyer, as that is a terrible, terrible argument.

quote:

---

i was addressing the statutory framework that gives extra-legislative rights to one group while stripping freedom from another, not the judicial ruling

---

The players tried to form a union under the .... wait for it... National Labor Relations Act. Which is legislative. NU denied they had this legislative right because they did not fall under the Act as employees. The NLRB, a statutorily constructed body, reviewed the case and determined whether they were employees under the Act.

So... where is the extra-legislative right? If anything, it was NU trying to deny the players a right created by statute. NU wasn't stripped of freedom, they were trying to deny the rights of another group. The judge ruled that the act applies and they have these rights which were.. again, wait for it.... created by statute.

quote:

---

ou're putting words in my mouth to attempt to make my argument sound absurd. that is a very intellectually dishonest statement. even worse, it's not even a funny example of dishonesty

---

your argument is absurd. Your argument that weakening NU's bargaining position means that a contract is not "freely negotiated" actually would invalidate every contract ever formed. NO CONTRACT is formed with equal bargaining position. Every contract is formed within the context of governing laws. Arguing that a contract should be invalid because it is not "freely negotiated" due to the existence of laws and unequal bargaining position is an argument to invalidate all contracts. EVERY contract would be unenforceable by your argument.

You were also the one who brought up winners and losers, and OF COURSE the government determines winners and losers in an adversarial proceeding. You made an absurd argument and I pointed out the result: the end of the judicial system. If the judge cannot declare a winner in a case, our justice system does not exist. How is this misconstruing your argument? The government determines winner and losers in an adversarial proceeding every day. That's how our system of courts work.

quote:

---

they're using "bad" law to do so. but-for the bad law, they could not bring this suit within that court

---

And we're back to you opposing the existence of unions, which is what the NLRA permits.

quote:

---

If they hold the the appointees were improper, that would render any decisions they participated in as invalid also.

---

This decision was made by one man, a regional director of the NLRB in Chicago. I thinks he's legit concerning your post.

Here is our NLRB in D.C.

quote:

---

This is an argument against laws.

---

this is an argument against this set of laws only

quote:

---

And no, they didn't mandate NU's position as NU wants to negotiate with these players. They want to offer them scholarships so they will play football.

---

not as a group, or else they would have done so and not fought the players attempting to force NU to negotiate in that manner

the choice was taken from NU and forced upon them

quote:

---

You are trying to argue that unions should be illegal.

---

i have nothing against freedom of association

i have nothing against an employer refusing to negotiate with a freely associated group, as a group

use whatever labels you wish. i have nothing against collective bargaining, as long as the other side agrees to it

quote:

---

The legal effect of them being employees doesn't change the analysis.

---

i don't care about the analysis b/c the only reason this definition matters is because it can confer extra-rights to this group now. i think the law is morally wrong. the analysis of that law is irrelevant to me (i'm not arguing from within the law itself)

quote:

---

You want to claim they aren't employees yet offer no reason why other than you don't feel NU should have a weakened bargaining position.

---

i have not made a legal reasoning analysis of this from within the provided statutory framework. again, you're creating arguments/positions that i am not advancing, and you're doing it to try and make me sound absurd.

it's completely intellectually dishonest

quote:

---

Let's say that Northwestern is ecstatic you aren't their lawyer, as that is a terrible, terrible argument.

---

and now, you're using ad hom attacks that have no relevance to what i am discussing. throw in some hitler references and you'll hit for the cycle of logical fallacies in this thread

quote:

---

The players tried to form a union under the .... wait for it... National Labor Relations Act. Which is legislative

---

and a very, very bad law

quote:

---

NU denied they had this legislative right because they did not fall under the Act as employees. The NLRB, a statutorily constructed body, reviewed the case and determined whether they were employees under the Act.

---

and this court should have never had the ability to make this ruling, b/c the law is a terrible one that should not exist

quote:

---

where is the extra-legislative right?

---

without this law, could the NU players force NU to negotiate with them as a group? no

how did they get the ability to do this? statutory law

therefore, these players have extra-legislative rights that others do not have

that's wrong

quote:

---

Your argument that weakening NU's bargaining position means that a contract is not "freely negotiated" actually would invalidate every contract ever formed.

---

no, it wouldn't

quote:

---

Every contract is formed within the context of governing laws. Arguing that a contract should be invalid because it is not "freely negotiated" due to the existence of laws and unequal bargaining position is an argument to invalidate all contracts

---

no, it's not

contracts are, at their heart, man-made law. 2 people agree to bind themselves to an agreement. they engage in the discussion freely, and agree to the terms of the agreement freely. no body or person forces them to engage in negotiations or accept terms.

one of the very few functions that government should perform is enforcing these contracts. i don't disagree with that

but what we have in this instance is a statutory law invalidating basic freedom to contract, by forcing one side to negotiate in a manner deemed proper by the state. that side is not free to negotiate how they have chosen to negotiate.

quote:

---

You were also the one who brought up winners and losers, and OF COURSE the government determines winners and losers in an adversarial proceeding.

---

and that discussion was about awarding one side of a dispute rights and powers that the other side does not have. i was not discussing the adjudication of a dispute arising from a contract (as that's not an issue in this case).

quote:

---

You made an absurd argument and I pointed out the result: the end of the judicial system.

---

you pointed out absurd results...from an argument that i never made. that is why it is intellectually dishonest

if i'm free to assume you are arguing things that you're not, i can make your argument say anything

quote:

---

And we're back to you opposing the existence of unions, which is what the NLRA permits.

---

again

i have nothing against groups of people attempting to join as a single group in negotiations (unions). i have nothing against the "other side" choosing to negotiate in this manner (which is actually a terrible side of many "right to work" laws). but i only believe this should occur if everyone agrees freely to negotiate in this manner.

nm

quote:

---

So what does a party with a grievance do in a situation like this?

---

what do you do when you want to negotiate a contract with a person who doesn't want to negotiate?

quote:

---

what do you do when you want to negotiate a contract with a person who doesn't want to negotiate?

---

Not so sure this is the same thing.

But I am way out of my depth here.

Like I said, way out of my depth so excuse my ignorance

I think people are jumping the gun on this case being about pay for play. That certainly can come down the line, but that's the OBannon and Kessler cases to me.

The primary goal of this, from what I've read and understood, is more for protection (health, hrs. We can argue the sincerity of that just as we can argue the sincerity of the NCAA claims that changing the system will kill college sports). It seems like NU has no desire to address those concerns and needs a push to do so.

I suppose there is some merit to players walking out of playing and the scholarship in protest. It certainly sounds good in a vacuum, but it doesn't seem terribly realistic or impactful to me.