Search News


Browse Archives

News

Ruling Worries Academic Labor

October 5, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A ruling by the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday -- changing the definition of which workers have enough supervisory roles to be disqualified from collective bargaining -- could hurt efforts to unionize faculty members.

The ruling, which involved a series of disputes over whether nurses with some supervisory roles are eligible for unions, may have no immediate impact for professors. The board ruled that nurses who perform functions like assigning duties to others, and setting shifts, are supervisors -- even if only a minority of their time is spent actually supervising. The ruling by the board was 3 to 2 and the dissenting members said that the standard set by the majority would make it very difficult to unionize professional workers because so many of them have some supervisory roles.

Leaders of unions had urged the board not to rule as it did and immediately denounced the ruling. A court battle is possible. Leaders of academic unions said that the reason it would have relatively little impact at least in the short term is that the NLRB -- which only governs unionization of private colleges, not publics -- has already severely limited collective bargaining for faculty members. Under the NLRB's interpretation of various court rulings -- an interpretation rejected by many labor activists in academe -- it is the rare private college faculty that could unionize.

For those few private colleges that can unionize now -- or if court rulings are reversed and private college faculties are later given that right -- the new ruling could be problematic. A spokeswoman for the American Federation of Teachers said that faculty members who supervise a laboratory or junior faculty members might be excluded from bargaining units. In the dissent, two NLRB members specifically said that they feared the majority ruling would make a teacher who supervised an aide ineligible for collective bargaining.

Michael Mauer, a labor lawyer who is director of organizing and services for the American Association of University Professors, said that another fear was that the NLRB ruling could "embolden certain public sector administrations and boards." Labor law for public institutions is governed at the state level, and there is no requirement that any state follow the NLRB's lead. In many states, public colleges and universities have unionized faculty members and professors engaged in collective bargaining that the NLRB would reject. But Mauer and others also said that some state boards do pay attention to the NLRB and this ruling could give union opponents a new strategy.

Michael Simpson, assistant general counsel for the National Education Association, called the decision "horrible" and said there was one sad irony for faculty members who back unions. If the NLRB challenges faculty union members because they supervise teaching assistants, Simpson said that they could cite another NLRB ruling (also opposed by unions) that TA's are students, not employees.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Ruling Worries Academic Labor

  • Posted by Larishcman on October 5, 2006 at 11:50am EDT
  • For some reason this ruling makes me feel more opressed and less free. I thought Bush was for freedom?

  • "freedom" ?
  • Posted by Larry on October 5, 2006 at 12:46pm EDT
  • Larishcman,

    First of all, the word “freedom” is generally not a “term of art” and has little place in serious academic or legal discourse. Moreover, it is unclear what “freedom” has to do with a collective bargaining statute. As an academic, I am sure that you understand the importance of such definitions.

    Secondly, Bush did not make this decision.

    Third, This ruling is subject to appeal, and may be limited to its facts.

  • Posted by Diane on October 8, 2006 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Larry, I beg to differ with your comment that 'Bush did not make this decision.' Of course he did! He appointed the anti-union NLRB board members who voted for the ruling. They follow his marching orders. Wake up and smell the coffee! The same is true of the US Supreme Court!

  • Define Supervisor
  • Posted by Celeste , student and Food Service Manager on October 8, 2006 at 1:45pm EDT
  • The article stated that a professor who supervises a single TA would may not be elegible for union representation. I believe that this is nothing but sensationalism, and even if this were the case, all that would be required to retain union elegibility would be for the school to create a seperate department to set schedules and "supervise" TAs, thus relieving professors from this responsibility. A charge nurse is paid more for taking on supervisory duties, and is responsible for the actions of the nurses in her "charge" I feel that the ruling would have been better if they deferred to the Department of Labor definitions of supervisor duties as they apply to exempt/non exempt status to eliminate the vaugeness of the language.

    The ruling is designed to seperate management from workers. This is a good thing. When I was a corrections officer at the county jail, the only representation I had was from the FOP, and how well could I expect to be represented when my "boss" the sherif, and all of my supervisors were members of the same organization?