California is looking to go to bat for college basketball and football players and gig-economy "contractors" in two interesting bills working their way through their legislature. Whether it helps them remains to be seen.
The one that's gotten more national attention is a move to make more free-lancers like Uber and Lyft drivers officially employees and subject to issues like minimum wage law, sick leave and other legally-mandated benefits. The side effects could include lower wages for drivers, higher prices for customers and less service in outlying areas (if demand is spotty in less congested areas, it might not justify a fixed wage per hour).
Lots of folks are uneasy about work shifting away from conventional jobs with set hours and set pay to free-lance jobs with no guarantees. Cab drivers are the first casualty, but restaurant delivery drivers might be on the way out as well, as it might be more cost-effective for an in-house driver to be substituted for calls to Uber Eats or Doordash.
I worked delivering pizzas in my youth, but I could easily have seen myself doing "side hustles" (as one Uber ad actually referred to it) were that tech available in the 80s. Both variants leave the worker in the "precariat" as sociologists have christened the near-minimum-wage niche of the labor market with a precarious economic situation. The gig style gives more flexibility but less legal security.
If you lean libertarian, you're pro-gig, feeling the adults are adults and can make contracts as they see fit. If you're concerned about the least-of-these precariat, you're skeptical, as billion-dollar companies that can plow near-nine-figures into a ballot proposal to overturn the proposed law have an distinct ("unfair" if you're not charitable) advantage over Da Liddle Guy.
If you're both of those, you're having one of those angel-and-devil-on-shoulder conversations in your head; feel free to choose which is which at home.
________
Meanwhile, another bill that would alter the face of big-time college sports is weaving its way through Sacramento-
California's state senate is expected to vote on its Fair Pay to Play Act this week, which would then put it in Newsom's hands to decide whether he will sign it into law.
The proposed legislation, which would not go into effect until 2023, would make it illegal for California schools to take away an athlete's scholarship or eligibility as punishment for accepting endorsement money. The California State Assembly approved the bill with a 73-0 vote earlier this week.
If that passes, California colleges would be force to be kicked out of the NCAA, for they'd be unable to comply with NCAA rules on players making money on ads or other endorsements. The PAC 12 would be back to the PAC 8 until they decided to snag up some Mountain West schools...
...or the NCAA would be forced to allow endorsement deals nationwide. The scandals involving Adidas and Nike playing basketball players or their parents under the table would make such deals kosher (and hopefully above-board) on the college level. It would dry up some of the endorsement money schools are making, as players could have a side-hustle on with the sneaker-mongers.
Amateur status seems overrated and very prone to hypocrisy and under-the-table money. When Olympic sports are professional and big-time college sports make schools money, the California law might make the sports cleaner.
Recent Comments