Top Law Schools

I'm currently writing a memo on the merits of the Northwestern Football players' petition to the NLRB for recognition as "employees." Before beginning any research, I had a strong gut feeling that both NLRB and relevant SCOTUS precedent would all but require the NLRB to hold that the Players are not employees (the few news articles I had read about the petition quoted law profs who sounded extremely skeptical about the Players' chances of success). Now, after some pretty thorough research and having read the Regional Director's decision ("Decision and Direction of Election" - http://www.nlrb.gov/case/13-RC-121359), I really feel like the RD got it right in holding that the Players are, in fact, statutory employees. The precedent which everyone thought would preclude such a finding (particularly the NLRB's decision in Brown Univ.) is easily distinguishable from this case.

Anyone been following this issue and have an opinion about whether the RD made the right determination? Is this going to be upheld on appeal? If it is reversed, will it be because of politics and the game-changing implications the RD's holding would have on college sports?

PS - sorry if this is the wrong forum for this type of post; kind of new to this...

IN b4 UT now paying higher salaries than the NFL

also in b4 scholarships are now taxable income

and the demise of all athletics that are not basketball and football at schools with 10-figure endowments

allowing this shit would seriously the be lulziest decision of all time

NLRB seems to be one of the most politicized agencies out there. I would predict that the Northwestern decision was "correct," at least until the Republicans take control of the Board. Check out their the Board's jurisprudence on whether graduate students can form a union and whether the Board should police union campaign literature. It just zig-zags from one position to the other depending on which party controls the Board.

POTUS2044 wrote:IN b4 UT now paying higher salaries than the NFL

also in b4 scholarships are now taxable income

and the demise of all athletics that are not basketball and football at schools with 10-figure endowments

allowing this shit would seriously the be lulziest decision of all time

Why should football and basketball have to subsidize sports that do not make money?

ph14 wrote:NLRB seems to be one of the most politicized agencies out there. I would predict that the Northwestern decision was "correct," at least until the Republicans take control of the Board. Check out their the Board's jurisprudence on whether graduate students can form a union and whether the Board should police union campaign literature. It just zig-zags from one position to the other depending on which party controls the Board.

ph14 - I agree with you on this. Though I believe the RD got this one right as a matter of law/NLRB precedent, I think it will ultimately be reversed because of the enormous impact it would have on college sports. But of course the reversal will be (well) disguised in the language of Brown...

koolsk8erboi wrote:

ph14 wrote:NLRB seems to be one of the most politicized agencies out there. I would predict that the Northwestern decision was "correct," at least until the Republicans take control of the Board. Check out their the Board's jurisprudence on whether graduate students can form a union and whether the Board should police union campaign literature. It just zig-zags from one position to the other depending on which party controls the Board.

ph14 - I agree with you on this. Though I believe the RD got this one right as a matter of law/NLRB precedent, I think it will ultimately be reversed because of the enormous impact it would have on college sports. But of course the reversal will be (well) disguised in the language of Brown...

Brown itself could be overturned too. The NLRB has gone back and forth on that issue as well.

And don't get me wrong - I LOVE college football and wouldn't look forward to the implications of private schools taking on the financial burden of organized labor yet still being expected to compete with non-labor public schools, BUT the law is what it is...

ph14 wrote:

koolsk8erboi wrote:

ph14 wrote:NLRB seems to be one of the most politicized agencies out there. I would predict that the Northwestern decision was "correct," at least until the Republicans take control of the Board. Check out their the Board's jurisprudence on whether graduate students can form a union and whether the Board should police union campaign literature. It just zig-zags from one position to the other depending on which party controls the Board.

ph14 - I agree with you on this. Though I believe the RD got this one right as a matter of law/NLRB precedent, I think it will ultimately be reversed because of the enormous impact it would have on college sports. But of course the reversal will be (well) disguised in the language of Brown...

Brown itself could be overturned too. The NLRB has gone back and forth on that issue as well.

Very true. At least two members of the 2010 Board suggested revisiting Brown in an NYU order. Guess it really boils down to what you already pointed out, which is the current political composition of the Board...

koolsk8erboi wrote:

ph14 wrote:

koolsk8erboi wrote:

ph14 wrote:NLRB seems to be one of the most politicized agencies out there. I would predict that the Northwestern decision was "correct," at least until the Republicans take control of the Board. Check out their the Board's jurisprudence on whether graduate students can form a union and whether the Board should police union campaign literature. It just zig-zags from one position to the other depending on which party controls the Board.

ph14 - I agree with you on this. Though I believe the RD got this one right as a matter of law/NLRB precedent, I think it will ultimately be reversed because of the enormous impact it would have on college sports. But of course the reversal will be (well) disguised in the language of Brown...

Brown itself could be overturned too. The NLRB has gone back and forth on that issue as well.

Very true. At least two members of the 2010 Board suggested revisiting Brown in an NYU order. Guess it really boils down to what you already pointed out, which is the current political composition of the Board...

You probably don't want to write your paper on that though. The professor probably at least wants you to discuss the reasoning of Brown and couch your paper in legal analysis, which is where you were heading before I derailed you. I was just sort of thinking aloud. Though maybe it is worth noting somewhere.

ph14 wrote:

koolsk8erboi wrote:

ph14 wrote:

koolsk8erboi wrote:
ph14 - I agree with you on this. Though I believe the RD got this one right as a matter of law/NLRB precedent, I think it will ultimately be reversed because of the enormous impact it would have on college sports. But of course the reversal will be (well) disguised in the language of Brown...

Brown itself could be overturned too. The NLRB has gone back and forth on that issue as well.

Very true. At least two members of the 2010 Board suggested revisiting Brown in an NYU order. Guess it really boils down to what you already pointed out, which is the current political composition of the Board...

You probably don't want to write your paper on that though. The professor probably at least wants you to discuss the reasoning of Brown and couch your paper in legal analysis, which is where you were heading before I derailed you. I was just sort of thinking aloud. Though maybe it is worth noting somewhere.

Haha I already submitted the memo (the post was just out of curiosity), but thanks for looking out!

koolsk8erboi wrote:

ph14 wrote:

koolsk8erboi wrote:

ph14 wrote:
Brown itself could be overturned too. The NLRB has gone back and forth on that issue as well.

Very true. At least two members of the 2010 Board suggested revisiting Brown in an NYU order. Guess it really boils down to what you already pointed out, which is the current political composition of the Board...

You probably don't want to write your paper on that though. The professor probably at least wants you to discuss the reasoning of Brown and couch your paper in legal analysis, which is where you were heading before I derailed you. I was just sort of thinking aloud. Though maybe it is worth noting somewhere.

Haha I already submitted the memo (the post was just out of curiosity), but thanks for looking out!

Ah okay. Well, good luck in that case!