“Bahr said he hopes it fosters discussion between the Legislature and university leadership.”
Silly me. I’m not a lawyer, but to me this would seem to have a chilling effect on speech.
1 Like
small government at its best …
Crybabies???
You realize, don’t you, that what they were protesting was administrators who lacked the courage to do their jobs.
And you realize, don’t you, that forbidding student protest would be in violation of the 1st Amendment. Granted, Missouri legislators would like to totally rewrite the Constitution because it allows those pesky students and non-right-wingers to express their opinions and run for office and do stuff they don’t approve of, like marry someone of the same gender.
1 Like
So true. Missouri is one of those states that happily takes more from Uncle Sam than it contributes.
1 Like
Refusing to do your job is not protected speech. Even the government can fire you if you refuse to do your job. And make no mistake about it, student athletes get their scholarships in exchange for performance. Ergo, it is a job. The only way a work-stoppage is protected is if you are unionized, and something tells me that Missouri athletes aren’t paying any union dues. I don’t normally agree with Rs on pretty much anything, but I agree with them on this. The football team was way out of line.
2 Likes
Really? If it’s a job how are they being paid below minimum wage?
Really convenient. It’s a job when it comes to restrictions, but they’re “student-athletes” when it comes to benefits.
Good, maybe these crybabies will be a little more selective about what they whine about, which professors they target, and what they think is worth a protest.
Yeah, the nerve of those blacks to complain about death threats and racial slurs being yelled at them from passing pickup trucks.
You should contact the Sanders campaign about your excellent qualifications to be a liaison to the African American community. I’m sure Bernie would appreciate your help and great insight.
1 Like
Yeah, they should just shut up and accept racial slurs and never stand up for anyone else. Cause they’re just dumb jocks, anyway, who obviously don’t know their place.
That about it?
1 Like
And look at what they were demanding. It was ridiculous. Even if their allegations were true, and all evidence points to it not being so, the university president isn’t the scalp you need. This was them whining and making noise with no actual sense of what was needed to fix the problem as they saw it. They should have lost their scholarships.
This isn’t forbidding student protest. If the football players want to go lie down in the union with signs, or participate in a rally they are more than welcome to do that. This is forbidding a work-stoppage of non-unionized employees. Which has a long history of being ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Players don’t like it? Fine, unionize, and pay your dues.
2 Likes
They are paid below minimum wage? Has minimum wage gone up recently? The tuition for Mizzou for an out of state student is $25k a semester. That is $50k a year. That they get for their work. They play 12 games. 12! For which they are paid $50k. Even if you argue that they have to train in and out of season, $50k is not below minimum wage for anyone. I won’t disagree with you that student athletes should get health and other benefits. But don’t for a second make it out like they get nothing out of this.
They should unionize. I don’t disagree with that statement in the slightest. Because they are indeed employees and subject to everything that comes with that.
2 Likes
This is not correct. If you, say, work for parks and rec, and you decide that you won’t go to work until the buy a new truck, and you are protesting the state of the old one, guess what happens to you. You get fired. How about you work for DPS and you walk up to your boss and cuss them out for being the wrong political party. You get fired. The government can absolutely fire you for your speech just like any other employer.
What the government can not do is deprive you of your liberty or possessions because your speech. You can not be arrested for your speech. You cannot be fined for your speech. But the government can absolutely fire you.
2 Likes
I’m pretty sure this concept is being litigated right now. I can’t remember where it’s at in the process, but the argument is they don’t get things like social disability if they get hurt and other issues like that make it so they aren’t considered employees.
This legislator hasn’t thought it through. If they get termed employees, the university has to provide them all the benefits therein. That includes things like paying taxes on ‘salaries’, benefits, etc. It’s a slippery slope.
I think what started it was some football team that discussed unionizing. I’m fuzzy here about all of it.
JimCrowing at the college level…
I don’t dispute that the state can do this, I’m just very skeptical that they will want to do it - once it sinks in that they will also be killing recruiting.
If nobody cared about college football - if it was only a club sport - then this would never have come up. People do care, however, and that gives the players a lot of potential power.
I am not so sure on that one. Let’s say you are part of a union, and the union goes on strike specifically related to the dept not providing safe equipment. such as trucks. That varies on a state to state level, but I believe still in most places, firing the striking employees would run afoul of 1st Amendment rights as well as collective bargaining rights (which is why what Walker did was so striking in Wisconsin, and other republican governors tried to follow suit, in varying degrees). So its going to depend on where you are and the rest of the situation.
One person refusing to work because he wants the dept to buy a new truck is probably not going to rise to the level of protected political speech. Similarly, cussing out your boss because you disagree with his political affiliation is probably going to involve violating some other codes/laws. Being fired for stating your political beliefs that differ from your bosses however, would probably be a 1st Amendment violation…if you worked for a government agency. Not so if you worked for a private entity.
I may be amiss is typing out a quick response implying absolutism, because there are always exceptions and nuances. But, a government or a company working under the color of law, has its abilities to restrict speech seriously curtailed because they ARE government agents.
Nope, not being litigated. Earlier this year, Northwestern football players tried to unionize, and it was thrown out. There are no unions for college football players, and none will be allowed. These morons, if they strike, will lose their scholarships, lose opportunities to go to professional teams, and will be forced to pay for college. No other schools will want them, since they are obviously troublemakers, and no pro teams will support stupid crap either.
1 Like
They are not part of a union, which seems to have escaped you. They will not be part, since the NLRB has not allowed unions for college players (specifically earlier this year). These are clearly typical athletes, who have a hugely inflated idea of their own importance. They could be replaced very quickly, as many high school kids do not get college scholarships.
What we have here is “bluff power”. They have power, until the bluff is called. Once they start getting dumped from the team, and the new coach (Pinkel has retired) starts calling other kids who did not get scholarships and offering scholarships to them, the entire idiotic thing will collapse.
1 Like
Well then that’s precisely the point. You can’t treat them as employees unless you treat them as employees. The answer is not legislation and government control, the answer is to put it in their contracts. There is a reason the University has not done this yet.
EDIT: And the wording is not if they strike, they need to be specific. Must play unless injured, family emergency…whatever. This is very misplaced legislation.
EDIT: I also just read the state only controls 12% of scholarships. The rest are privately funded, so that’s not going to work out well.
1 Like
Only because of the hope that they will lead to an NFL position.
The college athletics scam is utterly disgusting. The teams make big money for the universities and the kids get nothing. The so-called ‘scholarship’ is simply a four year unpaid internship with very little education value. The sports teams are expected to be training 40 hours a week. There is really no time for academic work.
What the masser fears is that them blacks might get all uppity and start demanding fair treatment and then next thing you know they might end up runnin’ things one day. Next thing you know, they’ll be allowed to drink at the same water fountain. Might even be a black President!
This is a very peculiar labor market in that the schools are not permitted to pay. Though anyone watching the court cases knows that is very likely to change very suddenly and the resulting damages claims for decades of unpaid wages are going to be vast and highly amusing.
Attempts to tip the balance even further towards the exploiters are not going to amuse the courts. The right to strike is guaranteed by federal labor law.
1 Like
Yes! Because it would hurt the profits that would be made. Isn’t that what college sports, played by “amateur” players is ALL about?