<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body> I am optimistically hoping that this decision will have the opposite effect of that intended; that is, to unite the workers, because its tactics are so transparent and because it ought to become increasingly obvious that workers have nothing to lose by fighting back. Joanna andie nachgeborenen wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid20061005035202.23946.qmail@web50414.mail.yahoo.com"> <pre wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:monacojerry@gmail.com"><monacojerry@gmail.com></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com"><dhenwood@panix.com></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">[this looks seriously bad, but it's gotten little </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">attention, or so it </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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 </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">which workers are </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">supervisors exempted from legal protection to join </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">unions, bringing </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">cries of protest from organized labor and sharp </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">criticism from a </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">former chairman of the National Labor Relations </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Board. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">The labor relations board ruled that nurses who </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">regularly run shifts </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">at health care facilities should be considered </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">supervisors and be </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">exempt from federal protections that cover union </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">membership. The </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">decision Tuesday potentially has major </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">implications for workers in </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">other fields. ___________________________________ </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</a> ___________________________________ <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>