Joanna
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>Dou's uncertainty about whether it iw more like that
>we stop the assault on the New Deal or return to the
>19th centuty is pretty optimistic. In the 19th century
>militant labor used thser strike as a powerful weapon,
>and some unions like the Railway Woekers were headed
>by reds like Debs. So, I think we'd be lucky to get
>back to the 19th century.
>
>Jerry, the NLRB's decisions are appealed first to
>federal Appeals Court -- the SCt doesn't have
>jurisdiction till the Circuit Ct is through, and is
>unlikely to hear the case (any case). The Board has
>been lowering the bar for who counts as a supervisor
>for some time. Most notoriously a decade or so ago, in
>a case that did go to the S.Ct, Yeshiva, it was held
>that private university faculty are supervisors, and
>so cannot be represented, despite the peon status of
>jumior faculty, because they have some say in hiring
>and firing.
>
>When I worked at the UAW Legal Dept the General
>Counsel would sometimes say that he wished that
>Congress would just repeal the NLRA (not
>Noris-LaGuardia, limiting the federal labore
>injunction) and let the unions fight it out with the
>bosses on the state level.
>
>jks
>
>--- Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>If I remember correctly, this is actually an old
>>decision by one of the
>>regional Boards. I mentioned the decision in a
>>previous thread. Now the
>>decision has been appealed to the national Board.
>>Thus administrative review
>>has been exhausted. It can now be considered by the
>>Sup Ct if they grant
>>cert. Sorry to mention the disposition of the case
>>but I thought someone
>>might be curious.
>>
>>There is another thread somewhere on this list where
>>I mention the origins
>>of some of these decisions during and directly after
>>World War II. But the
>>difference between then and now is this: The NLRB
>>for the most part
>>interpreted the Wagner Act in such a way that as
>>many people (some who would
>>now be called supervisors or independent
>>contractors) as possible had a
>>legal right to form a bargaining unit. At that time
>>it was the _U.S. Sup
>>Ct._ not the NLRB, that narrowed the interpretation
>>of who could join a
>>union. Remember these were historically the most
>>"liberal" courts in U.S.
>>history. And yet they were constantly narrowing the
>>application of the
>>Wagner Act. It is ironic now that a highly
>>conservative and pro-business
>>NLRB may only be checked by a right-wing and
>>pro-business Supreme Court. I
>>think though that the only hope on this one is if
>>Scalia is actually serious
>>about strict interpretation of the statute. He is
>>not.
>>
>>Other similar decisions recently is widening the
>>interpretation of who is an
>>independent contractor -- thus newsboys are
>>independent contractors and no
>>longer have a legally guaranteed right to form a
>>union. (Remember the movie
>>_Newsies_ anybody? The only pro-union Disney movie
>>I no of.) A similar
>>analysis went into the Supreme Court decision that
>>took away the right of
>>professors to bargain collectively.
>>
>>One of my H.S. friends is president of a Hollywood
>>union and if this
>>decision were applied to them many of the people in
>>his union would probably
>>not have a right to organize. The only solution is
>>to find a way to
>>maneuver around these NLRB rulings.
>>
>>What must be recognized here is that this does not
>>stop such people from
>>forming unions. It does take away legally enforced
>>rights to collective
>>bargaining. Practically, in the current social
>>situation, this means the
>>same thing. But with a high level of solidarity
>>between workers - in the
>>hospital situation, doctors, janitors, teamsters,
>>orderlies, receptions,
>>etc. -- who would simply refuse to work as long as
>>the nurses did not have
>>their own union the employer might consider
>>bargaining. It might seem like
>>pie in the sky, at the moment, but not impossible.
>>What the NLRB decisions
>>are doing is constricting collective bargaining
>>rights. It is part of the
>>long assault on the New Deal and it will not end
>>until we make it end. The
>>effect of these NLRB decisions is to make it so that
>>the only alternative
>>for workers who want to organize is outside of the
>>legal system, and with
>>whatever economic brute force workers can muster.
>>That was the situation
>>which the original Wagner act was designed to solve.
>>
>>Jerry Monaco
>>
>>On 10/4/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[this looks seriously bad, but it's gotten little
>>>
>>>
>>attention, or so it
>>
>>
>>>seems]
>>>
>>>NLRB Redefines Union Eligibility
>>>
>>>By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>>Published: October 4, 2006
>>>Filed at 11:07 a.m. ET
>>>
>>>WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal panel has redefined
>>>
>>>
>>which workers are
>>
>>
>>>supervisors exempted from legal protection to join
>>>
>>>
>>unions, bringing
>>
>>
>>>cries of protest from organized labor and sharp
>>>
>>>
>>criticism from a
>>
>>
>>>former chairman of the National Labor Relations
>>>
>>>
>>Board.
>>
>>
>>>The labor relations board ruled that nurses who
>>>
>>>
>>regularly run shifts
>>
>>
>>>at health care facilities should be considered
>>>
>>>
>>supervisors and be
>>
>>
>>>exempt from federal protections that cover union
>>>
>>>
>>membership. The
>>
>>
>>>decision Tuesday potentially has major
>>>
>>>
>>implications for workers in
>>
>>
>>>other fields.
>>>
>>>
>>>___________________________________
>>>
>>>
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20061004/e0ccc149/attachment.htm>