---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Union thugs.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Richard Griffin is a notorious union hack who realizes unions are dead as dead can be. He is General Counsel for the NLRB, which is a 5 member board, which currently only has 3 members. Of those 3 members, 2 are Donkeys and 1 is a Republican. There are 2 vacancies. That means Trump does not have to wait until the terms of the current board are over. Instead, he can, and will, appoint 2 Republicans to the 2 vacant seats which will swing the Board back GOP.

Union membership in the private sector is at 6% of the workforce and dropping rapidly. Today, it was announced the Gov Walker (R-WI) is being consulted about implementing a federal version of Act 10 - which stripped power from WI state unions.

In the past 4 years, the Donkey-led, 3 person Board has reversed decades of established precedent and expanded the role of the Board to obscene levels. The party's over and Union Hack Griffin knows it. So, he wants to go out in a blaze of glory.

Here's the bottom line - the Donkey-led Board had the ability to declare college athletes as employee at private colleges in the Northwestern case. Not even those Donkeys had the balls to do so (likely knowing the court would destroy them). So, Union Hack Griffin is spouting off, trying to find some justification for continuation of his role with the Board.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Donkeys are quickly becoming an endangered species.

...who ar very dangerous when cornered.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I agree with JSA's comments re Griffin. Personally, he's a good guy, but I've never seen a more ideologically and agenda driven GC.

Under the NLRA, being considered an "employee" essentially means two things. First, you can group together with other employees and become recognized for collective bargaining purposes. If a majority of the employees choose to become organized as a union, the employer then must collectively bargain in good faith with that union. Second, an "employee" is protected from certain types of discrimination -- discrimination based on concerted, protected activities.

The Northwestern case dealt with a petition for representation, an attempt by football players to form a union, the first right mentioned above. Griffin pushed this (it was issued out of the Region, but Griffin was behind it). When it got to the Board, the Board backed off without deciding whether NCAA football players at a private school were employees under the NLRA.

The latest GC memo from Griffin deals with the other aspect, whether NCAA football players at a private school are employees who enjoy the NLRA's anti-discrimination protections, even though they may not be able to organize. He's claiming that even though the Board has ruled that they cannot organize, they still can be protected from discrimination. That said, whether they are employees is still a case by case, or school by school, issue.

It's entirely likely that the issue is moot, or will soon become moot. Trump will fill the two vacancies with Republicans, leaving a Republican majority. And Griffin's term ends in October or November, and he will be replaced by a Republican.

So why would this be restricted to just athletes who play football, why not other/all sports controlled by the NCAA.

Don't you know that schools profit off football and players along with their unions should get some of that action. The other sports except for maybe basketball are cost centers that solely exist for prestige and scholarships.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

All businesses have profit and cost centers, but still have to pay employees who are part of those cost centers, if an NCAA athlete is an employee of the school it should extend to all athletes that are subjected to the NCAA and schools control.

I was somewhat being snarky. But the debate is ridiculous. The purpose of NCAA athletics was to provide scholarships to college for students who might not be able to afford it or make grades that would get them an opportunity in certain schools. It naturally evolved into a R&D league for future prose and became a revenue generator itself. Now some argue that the engine of this revenue are the players and they are entitled to compensation because the efforts they put in create fruits that far exceed simple tuition and room and board.

As for other lesser revenue generating sports, the tuition, room and board are often a greater benefit to the players than the effort they put in. And the revenue generated if shared among players wouldn't even cover their tuition room and board in a given year.

So that is why these unions proponents aren't targeting lesser sports. I don't know what the average women's softball player practices a week, though I should since I banged a softball player for a while. But it was certainly not a full time job. Foot ball players are on the field for at least four hours a day, lifting and mandatory tutoring are also essential duties. This can all add up to easily 40 hours a week during the offseason and even more on during the season.

I still think the argument is bull, since to me it is the effort they put in for the hope of making millions as a pro. How is that any different than I who used to work a regular job, and study 4 hours a day, maybe up to 8-10 hours the night before an exam in the hopes I would graduate and get a good job? I don't see a difference. The only difference I see is that they got an opportunity to go to a school their academic chops wouldn't have allowed, they train and develop on the schools dime for a chance to make millions. No different than any other student pursuing college as a path to a career. The diffence is the school profits off them, and all I can say is so what.

Scholarships are a good thing, creating college professional athletes is a bad idea. And an indication of how our society is devolving.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

It's not necessarily so restricted. But there's a difference with athletes who play football and the scholarships they receive, as well as the benefit the provide the college, and other athletes who don't necessarily provide a tangible benefit to the college.

It's the same reason why, intuitively, people recognize that college football and basketball is big money, whereas water polo isn't.

Edit to add: let me go back and reread the GC memo. If I remember correctly, whether an athlete is an employee doesn't depend solely on whether they receive scholarship money. It depends on other common law employee factors. It's also my understanding that the original NRB analysis dealt in part with the benefit provided to the college by the relationship.