🏈 Black players @ Mizzou strike (UPDATE: Bill proposed in legislature, "you strike, you're out.")

[bama alum]

I get the sentiment behind this bill, but it'll never fly because it's unconstitutional at its core.

 

[Tidestalker]

Makes sense to me

 

[Che Boludo]

I get the sentiment behind this bill, but it'll never fly because it's unconstitutional at its core.

I'd disagree from a rudimentary understanding of the situation and the law, which i openly admit may not be 100 percent spoton.

However, the NLRB denied players' rights to unionize, as such, they are not afforded protections for performing lawful strikes. The legislature is not attempting to prevent their ability to execute the right of free speech. However, it is stating plainly that it won't allow the school and/or local economies to be held hostage either. The players can be discharged or replaced.

Further, even if they were a recognized group of workers. The Missouri players strike would be an unlawful strike under Section 8(b)(4) of the national labor relations act as it attempts to compel the employer to change an activity that had not directly affected the Athletic organization to which they belonged. They'd have a hard time riding the student and the athlete sides to extend activities affecting student affairs to their athletic organization as well, which by itself had not been discriminatory or otherwise given cause for unfair labor or economic strikes that would be lawful.

The problem that i have with the legislation is that the state shouldn't have a say in athletic scholarships as it is my understanding that the state contributes no money to the scholarship.

That said, if a player strikes for the most altruistic reasons unrelated to his specific athletic dept conditions, he should do so understanding the risk is permanent replacement or discharge. No one should deny his right, but the player must determine if the cause supercedes the risk.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

I get the sentiment behind this bill, but it'll never fly because it's unconstitutional at its core.

An athletic grant-in-aid is contingent on participation in the sport. If the student opts to not participate, their award is at risk. Actions have consequences, and the legislature is looking to lock in at least one consequence.

 

[bama alum]

I'd disagree from a rudimentary understanding of the situation and the law, which i openly admit may not be 100 percent spoton.

However, the NLRB denied players' rights to unionize, as such, they are not afforded protections for performing lawful strikes. The legislature is not attempting to prevent their ability to execute the right of free speech. However, it is stating plainly that it won't allow the school and/or local economies to be held hostage either. The players can be discharged or replaced.

Further, even if they were a recognized group of workers. The Missouri players strike would be an unlawful strike under Section 8(b)(4) of the national labor relations act as it attempts to compel the employer to change an activity that had not directly affected the Athletic organization to which they belonged. They'd have a hard time riding the student and the athlete sides to extend activities affecting student affairs to their athletic organization as well, which by itself had not been discriminatory or otherwise given cause for unfair labor or economic strikes that would be lawful.

The problem that i have with the legislation is that the state shouldn't have a say in athletic scholarships as it is my understanding that the state contributes no money to the scholarship.

That said, if a player strikes for the most altruistic reasons unrelated to his specific athletic dept conditions, he should do so understanding the risk is permanent replacement or discharge. No one should deny his right, but the player must determine if the cause supercedes the risk.

Those are great points, but I don't know how that's going to work out. Hell, I've been wrong before...Today already...but IF they are considered workers, then the court (because my cynical sides says this will be there in a couple of years) is going to open that whole athletic stipend door. That'll be a slippery slope... And you are right, the athletic department, not the state, pays for their schollies, so when the state says one cannot do this, especially when the monetary situation is as this, then who are they to limit the first amendment freedoms of the players? It seems silly the way I am wording this (I am beyond tired and stressed out), but that's the root of the problem of the law that will get it tossed.

Now if a good lawyer can get the courts to agree with what @It Takes Eleven posted...Then it will get really interesting.

 

[rueben]

NAACP = NOBLE
NAAWP = RACIST

Equal Rights For All, Special Privileges for None.