CNN has published a round-up of reactions ahead of tomorrow’s vote of Northwestern football players. What’s telling is how little negative reaction is about the players, and how much it is about retaining power and revenue. Almost everyone agrees that athletes could be better served. And yet, in opponents arguments against unionization, they suggest that there must be some other avenue for reform. What mechanism do they provide for helping the players? The answer, my friend, is tumbleweeds in the wind. [Reactions below the fold]
Some fairly strong reporting out of the New York Times on Northwestern University’s campaign against their football players trying to unionize. Apparently, Northwestern is leaving no stone unturned, and administrators and others have used age-old threats, most or all of them specious. The reason seems clear: this isn’t about what little the athletes will gain. It’s about something that Northwestern finds much more scary: sharing even just a smidgen of power with the athletes it exploits. For more, read below the fold.
From the Department of Willful Truth Avoidance:
University of Texas athletic director Steve Patterson professes wonderment that college athletes could possibly want anything that universities aren’t already giving them. It can’t be that the players want anything, so, reasons Patterson, it must all be the fault of the lawyers:
If our athletes get hurt, we pay all their medical bills. If they want to come back and graduate, we pay for them to come back and graduate. We do everything that they say they wanted… the whole thing smells of guys in the legal profession looking for a fee.
Does the University of Texas, or any other university, pay for an athletes athletic-related medical expenses if that athlete is cut from the team, even because of injury? Does the University of Texas, or any other university, pay more medical costs for athletic-related injuries after a student has graduated or has aged out of athletic eligibility? Is the University of Texas, or any other university, or the NCAA, actually pro-active in preventing injuries, especially concussions?
This is yet another manifestation of management’s assumption that employees, who of course are happy because managers are so benevolent, must not be smart enough to unionize for themselves, but rather, unionization must, simply must come from outsiders wanting something.
This comes from an athletic director who knows all about employees’ demands being met, or at least, his: he’s raking in $1.4 million a year, with another $200K in possible annual bonuses. That’s very good money for someone so lacking in compassion or imagination.
This week, as long as we’re on the topic of NCAA athletes possibly unionizing:
As the NY Times reports, there’s continuing resistance to Northwestern football players’ proposed unionization. And it’s more of the same old, same old combination of, on the one hand, dividing workers, and on the other, suggesting that management is nice and has the employees’ best interests at heart.