Your absolutely correct (of course) and I have no idea why this mind slip took place because I have gone over this stuff a hundred times.....
Stupid.....
Jerry
>
> 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
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/