NLRB says student-athletes are employees (thus are protected by NLR Act of 1935)

[MplsGopher]

https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/...fer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-of

Today, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum to all Field offices providing updated guidance regarding her position that certain Players at Academic Institutions (sometimes referred to as student athletes), are employees under the National Labor Relations Act, and, as such, are afforded all statutory protections.

The memo further advises that, where appropriate, she will allege that misclassifying such employees as mere “student-athletes” and leading them to believe that they are not entitled to the Act’s protection has a chilling effect on Section 7 activity and is an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

“Players at Academic Institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control. Thus, the broad language of Section 2(3) of the Act, the policies underlying the NLRA, Board law, and the common law fully support the conclusion that certain Players at Academic Institutions are statutory employees, who have the right to act collectively to improve their terms and conditions of employment,” said General Counsel Abruzzo. “My intent in issuing this memo is to help educate the public, especially Players at Academic Institutions, colleges and universities, athletic conferences, and the NCAA, about the legal position that I will be taking regarding employee status and misclassification in appropriate cases.”

 

[MplsGopher]

Basically means, student-athletes have the federally protected legal right to form unions, if they choose to do so.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Basically means, student-athletes have the federally protected legal right to form unions, if they choose to do so.

I presume that it also means that the compensation that they receive--tuition, room and board, books, tutoring, etc. are all to be considered taxable income. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it is huge can of worms that could be opened.

 

[MplsGopher]

I presume that it also means that the compensation that they receive--tuition, room and board, books, tutoring, etc. are all to be considered taxable income. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it is huge can of worms that could be opened.

I don't know any other employees that willingly work only for this kind of compensation?

On one hand, I guess it could be considered like in-kind? Which I'm sure our current tax code covers.


And I feel like side-deal NIL incomes should absolutely be taxed like regular income.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

I don't know any other employees that willingly work only for this kind of compensation?

I can't think of any either, but that doesn't mean the income of the employees isn't taxable. Right now you have SAs doing essentially the same "job" (playing a sport and going to school) with vastly different "income" if income is defined as the value of the benefits they receive. A full ride women's tennis player at the U and a full ride football player at Northwestern receive vastly different "compensation" if judged by the dollar value of what they get, but they have been treated as equal by the government so far.

On one hand, I guess it could be considered like in-kind? Which I'm sure our current tax code covers.

It does, generally it supposed to be taxable for employees.

And I feel like side-deal NIL incomes should absolutely be taxed like regular income.

It is, or at least it is supposed to be.

 

[MplsGopher]

I can't think of any either, but that doesn't mean the income of the employees isn't taxable. Right now you have SAs doing essentially the same "job" (playing a sport and going to school) with vastly different "income" if income is defined as the value of the benefits they receive. A full ride women's tennis player at the U and a full ride football player at Northwestern receive vastly different "compensation" if judged by the dollar value of what they get, but they have been treated as equal by the government so far.


It does, generally it supposed to be taxable for employees.


It is, or at least it is supposed to be.

First paragraph, certainly you are correct.

But if an employee at Target HQ, for random example, goes into the office and they're having a free masseuse that day ..... that's technically in-kind compensation they're receiving, right? No one is going to claim that and no one is going to do anything about that.

So largely the stuff you're referring to, will fall under like that. All the access to coaching, training staff, S&C staff, travel, etc. Indirect benefits that an average joe like us would have to pay for, that they get for free.

 

[PMWinSTP]

I presume that it also means that the compensation that they receive--tuition, room and board, books, tutoring, etc. are all to be considered taxable income. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it is huge can of worms that could be opened.

Yep, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. I assume it's all considered taxable as income and the player would be responsible for paying it unless the school did a gross up and covered the player's taxes, I believe. Can't see many, if any, schools doing that.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

But if an employee at Target HQ, for random example, goes into the office and they're having a free masseuse that day ..... that's technically in-kind compensation they're receiving, right? No one is going to claim that and no one is going to do anything about that.

So largely the stuff you're referring to, will fall under like that. All the access to coaching, training staff, S&C staff, travel, etc. Indirect benefits that an average joe like us would have to pay for, that they get for free.

You're right, for the Target employee that would likely be considered de minimis (too small to merit consideration) and no one would report it or be concerned about it. But if the Target employee was only or primarily getting paid in massages, a rent free apartment, all the food he could eat and an education and training that others pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for, you can bet that the IRS would be interested.

Agree that the medical support, S & C, and travel would not likely be taxed, but that's only a fraction of what a SA on scholarship receives. A lot of the rest would be fair game for taxation absent some special rules created for SAs as employees.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Yep, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. I assume it's all considered taxable as income and the player would be responsible for paying it unless the school did a gross up and covered the player's taxes, I believe. Can't see many, if any, schools doing that.

Yeah, it might be worth it for some schools where football and men's basketball can generate the income to justify the expense, but hard to see that elsewhere.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Yeah, it might be worth it for some schools where football and men's basketball can generate the income to justify the expense, but hard to see that elsewhere.

How would this affect what that BYU booster did for the walk-ons, if at all?

 

[Ignatius L Hoops]

The ruling impacts players at private colleges and universities.

 

[MplsGopher]

But if the Target employee was only or primarily

Will be true for most S-A, but some small number of them at the top of football and men's basketball, this won't be true relative to NIL.

a rent free apartment

This would be an interesting one. If they were actually living in school dorms, might be tougher. But I think most S-A get something like "the equivalent amount" in a check to pay for rent at off-campus, private rentals. Could be wrong, but I'm guessing that's the usual thing.

all the food he could eat

Here, they're getting all that free food at school owned dining halls. Might be a tough argument. But not saying they won't try.

an education

Tough for me to see them taxing this part, any more than students who get Pell Grants are taxed.

and training that others pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars

Right, this would be an interesting one too.

What about the NFL. Are players "taxed" for the fact that they don't have to pay out of their own pockets for the coaches salaries, and are essentially "gifted" the value of the coaching by the team owners? Guessing not. But then again they have their own primary salaries that are taxed.

Agree that the medical support, S & C, and travel would not likely be taxed, but that's only a fraction of what a SA on scholarship receives.

I guess it depends relative to what ... but a lot of that stuff is not cheap either.

 

[MplsGopher]

The ruling impacts players at private colleges and universities.

Link?

Reason I ask is: back some years ago when there was a vote at Northwestern for the players to form a union, at that time I do believe there was some clarification that it was only valid at private schools.

I don't see anything in there this time that it can't affect public school students.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

How would this affect what that BYU booster did for the walk-ons, if at all?

I think that was a NIL deal and, if that is correct, I don't think this would affect that at all, it was already taxable income.

 

[PMWinSTP]

I think that was a NIL deal and, if that is correct, I don't think this would affect that at all, it was already taxable income.

So those players will have a tax bill.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

The ruling impacts players at private colleges and universities.

I haven't read the memo, and it's true that the initial challenges arose from Northwestern and other private colleges and universities, but it's hard to see how the same logic wouldn't apply to public schools as well. Are you aware of something in the memorandum that distinguishes them?

 

[MplsGopher]

The memo is not long. It's in the OP link.

It references only "Academic Institutions".

 

[Ignatius L Hoops]

College athletes at private schools are employees who can unionize, NLRB general counsel says

The NLRB's top attorney will also defend misclassifications of athletes' employment statuses

www.cbssports.com

College athletes at private institutions should be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act, opening the door for athletes to unionize with protections from the National Labor Relations Board, the organization's general counsel said Wednesday in a memo.

The position taken by top NLRB attorney Jennifer Abruzzo could dramatically change the relationship between college athletes at private institutions and their universities as athletes will be subject to labor protections even if they do not form a collective bargaining unit.

"In short, GC 17-01 concludes, and this memo reiterates, that the scholarship football players at issue in Northwestern University clearly satisfy the broad Section 2(3) definition of employee and the common-law test. Therefore, those football players, and other similarly situated Players at Academic Institutions, should be protected by Section 7 when they act concertedly to speak out about their terms and conditions of employment, or to self-organize, regardless of whether the Board ultimately certifies a bargaining unit."
The NLRB guidance replaces a decision handed down in 2015 when a group of Northwestern football players attempted to unionize. At that time, the board decided not to rule on whether players at large were allowed to organize, choosing not to offer guidance on whether athletes should be classified as "employees".

"As explained in GC 17-01, although the Board in Northwestern University declined to exercise jurisdiction over scholarship football players at that university, nothing in that decision precludes the finding that scholarship football players at private colleges and universities, or other similarly situated Players at Academic Institutions, are employees under the Act. [...] The definition of "employee" in Section 2(3) of the NLRA is broadly defined to include "any employee," subject to only a few, enumerated exceptions. Those exceptions do not include university employees, football players."
Not only will such athletes be considered employees, Abruzzo says the NLRB will consider pursuing "misclassification violations" when universities attempt to cast them in another light, such as by using the term "student-athlete" to not provide proper protections.

 

[MplsGopher]

College athletes at private schools are employees who can unionize, NLRB general counsel says

The NLRB's top attorney will also defend misclassifications of athletes' employment statuses

www.cbssports.com

Nothing in there limits anything to private schools only.

Again, "Therefore, those football players, and other similarly situated Players at Academic Institutions,"

CBS title gets it factually wrong. I'm sure they won't bother to correct it, and acknowledge their mistake.

 

[Ignatius L Hoops]

Nothing in there limits anything to private schools only.

Again, "Therefore, those football players, and other similarly situated Players at Academic Institutions,"

CBS title gets it factually wrong. I'm sure they won't bother to correct it, and acknowledge their mistake.

You are correct. Today's ruling expanded the definition.

As explained in GC 17-01, although the Board in Northwestern University declined to exercise jurisdiction over scholarship football players at that university, nothing in that decision precludes the finding that scholarship football players at private colleges and universities, or other similarly situated Players at Academic Institutions, are employees under the Act.3 And more importantly, the conclusion that such Players at Academic Institutions are employees is supported by the statutory language and policies of the NLRA, as well as the Board’s interpretation of the same in Boston Medical Center Corp., 4 and Columbia University5 . The definition of “employee” in Section 2(3) of the NLRA is broadly defined to include “any employee,” subject to only a few, enumerated exceptions. Those exceptions do not include university employees, football players, 2 362 NLRB 1350, 1356 (2015).

 

[Taji34]

It will be interesting to see the effects of this. I think we've certainly seen the last of "X sports program is being cut at the end of the season" type decisions, as players will now have more power to resist such changes.

 

[MplsGopher]

I certainly can see a Big Ten players union.

They could bargain for hard limits on number of hours practicing during the season, for example. But I don't think they can take it to "we request the university to pay us".

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/...fer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-of

Today, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum to all Field offices providing updated guidance regarding her position that certain Players at Academic Institutions (sometimes referred to as student athletes), are employees under the National Labor Relations Act, and, as such, are afforded all statutory protections.

The memo further advises that, where appropriate, she will allege that misclassifying such employees as mere “student-athletes” and leading them to believe that they are not entitled to the Act’s protection has a chilling effect on Section 7 activity and is an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

“Players at Academic Institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control. Thus, the broad language of Section 2(3) of the Act, the policies underlying the NLRA, Board law, and the common law fully support the conclusion that certain Players at Academic Institutions are statutory employees, who have the right to act collectively to improve their terms and conditions of employment,” said General Counsel Abruzzo. “My intent in issuing this memo is to help educate the public, especially Players at Academic Institutions, colleges and universities, athletic conferences, and the NCAA, about the legal position that I will be taking regarding employee status and misclassification in appropriate cases.”

This is getting worse and worse - next they'll go on strike for higher wages. Greed led to this crazy libertarianism and breakdown of institutional self-government, a pattern the feds like - crush local government, then take over and allow anarchy (while keeping your own thumb on the scale).

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

It will be interesting to see the effects of this. I think we've certainly seen the last of "X sports program is being cut at the end of the season" type decisions, as players will now have more power to resist such changes.

Interesting take, my initial thought was just the opposite. Would the Gopher football team refuse to take the field (and therefore risk their tuition, room, board, etc.) because Coyle wanted to eliminate the men's tennis team? Will be interesting to watch.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

This is getting worse and worse - next they'll go on strike for higher wages. Greed led to this crazy libertarianism and breakdown of institutional self-government, a pattern the feds like - crush local government, then take over and allow anarchy (while keeping your own thumb on the scale).

I have a feeling I may regret responding to this, but I don't think this is "crazy libertarianism." The University has something like 700 SAs. Less than 20% of them participate in a sport that makes money or roughly breaks even. What leverage do the multitude of track athletes, softball players, golfers, etc. have to demand anything? If the are employees, will they be protected from the simple economic decision making process to evaluate them and their sports purely based on their performance in competition or the profit or loss their endeavors produce? Will this alter how, or even if, Title IX is construed to apply if we are dealing with university employee-athletes vs. student-athletes? Like I said cans of worms, lots of them.

 

[noamfromm]

Tough for me to see them taxing this part, any more than students who get Pell Grants are taxed.

I could see a scenario where the students are just given the money to pay for the tuition. i.e. they incur the expense and then are reimbursed and thus its taxable income

 

[noamfromm]

Interesting take, my initial thought was just the opposite. Would the Gopher football team refuse to take the field (and therefore risk their tuition, room, board, etc.) because Coyle wanted to eliminate the men's tennis team? Will be interesting to watch.

I doubt it -- my gut says that as they become employees Title IX will need to reworked. Why do we need a women's rowing team if they are only there so we can have enough women to play football / other mens sports.

 

[forever a gopher]

Interesting take, my initial thought was just the opposite. Would the Gopher football team refuse to take the field (and therefore risk their tuition, room, board, etc.) because Coyle wanted to eliminate the men's tennis team? Will be interesting to watch.

I mean, they could theoretically do this now. Even though they don't have a union, they can band together and refuse services if they think they have enough leverage. Maybe the university caves, or maybe the university sues the players for unrendered services (seeing as they've essentially pre-paid them for their services). But even with a union, if they strike and refuse to "work", they're forgoing their compensation for the time they aren't "working". Because everything is paid for them via tuition, room & board, etc. if they went this route, presumably the university could hit them with a bill for the cost of those items during the time they weren't "working". Interesting indeed.

 

[MplsGopher]

I could see a scenario where the students are just given the money to pay for the tuition. i.e. they incur the expense and then are reimbursed and thus its taxable income

Why would the University (athletic dept) want to do it that way? They seem to have the system perfectly well setup to just transfer the money to the school financial office to cover the student bill of each athlete.

 

[forever a gopher]

I doubt it -- my gut says that as they become employees Title IX will need to reworked. Why do we need a women's rowing team if they are only there so we can have enough women to play football / other mens sports.

This is also a very interesting point. If they are employees, does Title IX have the same protections? I don't believe there is a Title IX mandate that a commensurate percentage of student dining hall workers (for example) are mimicking the gender ratios on campus. So if they're just regular employees, do they lose those protections?