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 <div>On 10/4/06, Doug Henwood <<a href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> [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. </blockquote></div>