Florida small business owner sues Biden administration over race, gender quotas in infrastructure la

Yeah, I wonder how the SCOTUS will rule on that latest "gem" to come our of California. I wouldn't hold my breath on that win.

 

It’s a the national labor board, not a Cali state judge.

I think you can make a good argument for their being employees, but it’s an awfully slippery slope.

Once an athlete is an employee, why isn’t the kid on a music or chemistry scholarship? Or a general academic scholarship? All involve compensation in the form of a valuable scholarship as consideration for the pursuit/advancement of some specialized skills.

 

Maybe due to sports being entertainment?

I guess a music major could entertain? But who would pay to go listen?

Keep changing the rules and laws and title 9 may become extinct.

 

It is a slippery slope and one that has to be fully investigated before that can be codified into national law. And I do agree with you on the eventual other complications to other students, especially the ones on scholarships, on college campus.

And that ruling will eventually make it's way to the SCOTUS. Athletes are NOT supposed to be paid by the universities. They never have been, and there will be court challenges to that agency's probable overreach.

The SCOTUS has ruled recently that agencies cannot write national laws... why do they persist.



The Supreme Court on Thursday severely restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases and fight climate change, while also setting a precedent that could severely restrict agencies’ capacity to create new regulations.

The decision also firmly established the “major questions doctrine,” setting the precedent that agencies have little leeway in setting new regulations with major economic impact or political salience that rely on powers not clearly laid out in statutory text. Applying the doctrine to this case, legal scholars and the court’s liberal minority said, will limit the powers of agencies across government and may have a chilling effect on whether to issue certain regulations at all.

Under the major questions doctrine, the majority said, agencies must point to clear authorization from Congress to justify their regulatory efforts. Applying the doctrine was necessary to prevent agencies from “asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”

The Supreme Court Deals a Major Blow to the EPA, and All Agencies

 

Even if they made a profit on ticket sales this is a bad idea. This agency is just trying to clog up the court system knowing that they cannot make/re-write national laws..

 

I think this is different than the recent EPA case, which involved how far the EPA could go in writing regulations (vs Congress writing them) pursuant to their lawfully enacted enabling legislation. This case was an interpretative issue, not an enabling one. At least not yet. And there is no national law saying scholarship athletes are not employees, at least that I’m aware of, so they aren’t technically writing law (to address your next post after the one I quoted).

To me this is somewhat like SCOTUS giving the sport of baseball a specific antitrust exemption when the exemption is nowhere to be found in the federal statutes, and hasn’t been expressly adopted for other professional sports.

 

I think you should go back and read my post #24. There is more to that ruling than just the EPA. We shall see what the SCOTUS thinks of that agency's use or missus of power. I hope it's an overreach by the Labor Board.

And also, is that ruling even in that agency's purview and power.

 

I know. It’s potentially a blow to all other agencies relative to the regulations they’ve enacted pursuant to their enabling legislation. Not relative to their interpretation of existing regulations, which is what the USC case was. The two cases are substantively different on their face.

 

The construction industry is full of so many examples I've been involved in a couple myself. Back in the early 80's I was superintending a job on the old Orlando Naval Training Center. I was informed by the Navy inspector that I did not have enough minority contractors on the job. So my painter put his business in his wife's name and qualified. Tell me that isn't BS.

 

I agree, but what about purview. The Labor Board is writing laws ... and assumes control of who is an employee on a public or private university? That is the definition of overreach... and meddling into other affairs that they are not empowered to regulate. And then they write their own laws to back it up? That make no sense to me.

The took complete control student athletes in colleges and universities as if they had to right to even invent that law to begin with?

 

I did work on the Orlando International Airport some year back and several companies did that exact same thing, one that I knew of, to comply with these regulations, he had to add another "minority" (a woman) that owned 2 percent while his wife owned 49 percent making it a majority owned company by a minority. It's a dumb law and should be un-Constitutional on it's face to force these types of quotas.

 

You keep saying “write laws”. They aren’t writing laws, they are interpreting the ones that have already been written. You may not agree with the interpretation but that’s what they are doing. And thats not what the EPA case is all about.

Congress can fix this, just like they did with gay marriage. All they have to do is pass a law that says student athletes aren’t employees under the NLRA. Done. Or that corporations aren’t people under the FEC rules via Citizens United. Done. But they don’t do anything. So courts and administrative boards have to do congress’ job on many cases.

 

What this comes down to is the Labor Board, through it's own fiat, is INVENTING new labor to regulate. They are inventing who is under their own purview by fiat. It's a crazy attempted power grab.

 

Except…..what if they’re correct?

I mean, can you honestly explain to me why if a corporation can be a person for 1St amendment protections under Citizens United (despite the constitution never mentioning the word”corporation”), why can’t a student who is compensated with an athletic scholly in exchange for express and mandatory work requirements (practice, meetings, conditioning, meals, film room, curfew, grades, travel, etc.) be considered an employee of the institution setting forth those mandatory things? Kinda sounds like a job, doesn’t it?

Something of substance, more than just “big government bad” “power grab” or “it’s always been this way”.

Like I said in my first post, it’s not that inconceivable yet a very slippery slope.

 

This will be settled in court and I doubt they end up on top.

 

People find work arounds and exploit the system. That's a reality no matter what we do. If it helps some people, I call it a win.

 

They, if like most others that put the wife down as majority owner, cooked the books if she isn't a major contributor to the operations of the business

 

What about the people it hurts? Giving preference to one is penalizing another.

 

The people it "hurts" benefit on a regular basis due to their race and gender.

 

Born into poverty. Self built but when I tried to starmy own firm in 08 it failed because we were competing for work against dbes owned by foreigners and wives. My race did not help me get into school, pay my bills, or put myself thru school. It did put me at a conpetetive disadvantage when I tried to build my own firm.