The Ivy League demanded on Wednesday that the National Labor Relations Board review NLRB Regional Director Laura Sacks ‘ Feb. 5 choice to acknowledge the men’s hockey players as people and get a coalition ballot.
The Ivy League claims that hiring Dartmouth baseball players would destroy the tournament’s academic objectives and open the door for” students who play in team sports, perform in a college band, or engage in any other of the many other recreational activities at the college” to also apply for employment status.
The registration is the most recent indication of the extensive reach of a college sports team that has grown from a town in New Hampshire, where about 8, 000 people have joined the union.

The Ivy League is n’t a group to Dartmouth’s debate and needs the NLRB’s permission to publish its simple. The organization is currently deciding whether to offer Dartmouth’s demand for review. As Sportico detailed earlier this month, the Service Employees International Union, Local 560—the labour firm that represents the players—recommends the NLRB deny Dartmouth’s demand. Since the regular to obtain a review is large, there is no guarantee the company will accept the request, let alone eventually side with Dartmouth to reverse the decision.
The Ivy League and its eight member schools ( Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton and Yale ) are no stranger to legal controversy over athlete compensation. They are now defendants in the lawsuit Choh v. Brown University et al., which alleges that the Ivy League’s plan of outlawing athletic scholarships is competitive lawful.
Since Dartmouth participants work for the university in exchange for money and because the Ivy League has the right to command that labor, Sacks claims she made an error when she concluded that she was wrong. The absence of athletic scholarships did n’t dissuade Baskets since the participants receive other forms of payment, including goal admittance to an elite college, per diem bills, expensive clothing, foods, access to health facilities and other benefits not provided to their classmates.
These types of compensation, in the Ivy League’s opinion, do not create employment. ” The only form of financial help” given to Ivy League players, the convention contends, “is based solely on want” and no participation in athletics.
An Ivy League player could enroll in a member school, then leave the team, continue to receive need-based aid, and continue to study until they graduate. A player’s argument against this is that, among other things, they might have earned a better deal than a student at another school who has an athletic scholarship, which might only be guaranteed for a year and be contingent on them to play for a team.
The Ivy League also points out that the Sacks decision is unconstitutional. A school providing transportation to students in club sports or school bands might open the door for their employment recognition if they receive non-monetary support, according to the conference. On the other hand, those students might not receive the same level of benefits, including priority admissions, and they’re likely not under the same degree of institutional control as are varsity athletes.

Another objection brought up by the Ivy League is that the recognition of Dartmouth players as employees “would promote instability in labor relations.” Since they are all subject to the National Labor Relations Act, other private schools may benefit from this recognition. Because Northwestern is the only private college in the Big Ten, the NLRB declined to exercise jurisdiction in a case involving Northwestern University football players in 2015. Some state laws do not permit the hiring of college athletes as employees, and some of those laws are unfavorable. Although the Ivy League only has private schools and other unique characteristics, the conference contends that Dartmouth’s employment impact would extend to other conferences.
The Ivy League worries that member schools ‘ efforts to achieve academic excellence would be undermined by their employment status. Players may be distracted from their studies by having to” carry out their job duties” to earn money, according to the conference. The Ivy League also anticipates issues for a union of players because they wo n’t be able to bargain over student schedules or admissions requirements. These “are fundamental to academic freedom and institutions ‘ right to make academic decisions” according to Wikipedia.
” Student employment and academic excellence has never been mutually exclusive – not for students working in dining halls, libraries, or athletic facilities”, SEIU Local 560 president Chris Peck told Sportico. ” The same holds true with college athletes. Ivy League schools, no matter how they may wish to position their brands, are not exempt from antitrust and labor laws, amateurism is an invalid defense. Dartmouth is required to respect the law and recognize its basketball players as employees.
Expect the Dartmouth players to challenge the conference’s assertions. Students at Dartmouth who work in dining establishments have a union and are negotiating employment terms with the institution. It does not appear that development has impacted those students ‘ academic backgrounds or compromised fundamental tenets of academic freedom.