Setting schedules seems like an absurd pretext to bar someone from a union. "Supervisory duties," "shift leaders," etc. Okay, nice titles, but can these workers fire or hire anyone, or not?
Irony: Labor ferment and unrest led to the NLRB's creation (and some would say the gradual co-optation of the American labor movement); it'd be ironic if the NLRB itself began to foment the sort of unrest that led to its creation. It'd be great if workers and unions would organize regardless of this NLRB decision, but remain with the "power to hire or fire" rule internally. Setting a schedule does not a boss make.
-B.
Mark Rickling wrote:
"Though they [nurses] have little or no control over wages and workplace conditions, they still perform minor supervisory roles. Software programmers, for example, serve as team leaders; nurses have aides; and scientists rely on lab assistants. Businesses are using this ambiguity to exploit an obscure 1947 amendment to the original National Labor Relations Act. The amendment, designed to prevent factory foremen from joining unions, denied supervisors NLRB protection to organize."