Worker Advocate Asks Federal Labor Board to Uphold Precedent Disallowing Forced Unionization of Grad Students
Foundation files brief supporting university teaching assistants' First Amendment freedom of association
Washington, DC (July 29, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the Board to uphold its long-standing precedent to disallow union officials to corral university graduate students working as teaching assistants into unwanted union affiliation.
Foundation attorneys filed the brief with the NLRB in a case involving United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers’ attempt to forcibly unionize graduate students at New York University (NYU) in New York City and ultimately to force them to pay union dues to maintain their status.
Seven years ago, Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in a similar case involving the UAW union attempting to forcibly unionize teaching assistants at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. In that case, the NLRB voted to return to its long-standing position of more than 50 years that teaching assistants have an academic, rather than economic, relationship with universities, and that teaching assistants are not “employees” as defined by federal labor law who can be subjected to union monopoly bargaining.
In their latest brief, Foundation attorneys argue that UAW union lawyers are using the NYU case as a means to overturn the Brown University case, even though the facts are different.
Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys undercut the union lawyers' arguments for new precedent that establishes teaching assistants as employees of the university, because grades are the central form of compensation for graduate students who are paid to teach, research, or perform temporary work.
Comments
The 1st Amendment denies Congress power
Can you define a political campaign? According to Wikipedia: “A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making process within a specific group. In democracies, political campaigns often refer to electoral campaigns, wherein representatives are chosen or referendums are decided.”
The 1st Amendment is my definition of a political campaign: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Many people believe the 1st Amendment guarantees their freedom of speech, press and assembly; but that is not the case. Carefully parse the words and you will find the 1st Amendment only denies Congress the authority to write laws abridging those freedoms. The Constitutions of the original 13 States guaranteed the freedom of speech, press and assembly for their citizens. It was fear of an overpowering Federal Government that led the Constitutional Congress to demand the inclusion of a 1st Amendment. State Constitutions, not the 1st Amendment, guarantee our rights.
The States and not the Federal government have the responsibility and authority to regulate political campaigns. There are no Federal elections; only elections for Federal offices held in the States.
Only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment and it did when it passed the Federal Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. These laws abridge freedoms of speech, press by limiting how much money individual citizens and citizens groups can donate to their candidates and issues, and they abridge freedom of assembly by declaring it a crime for candidates, political parties and grass roots organizations to coordinate their advertising campaigns.
Campaign laws do not level the playing field; they give advantage to one group or another.
Federal Campaign Law establishes a State approved commercial press: 2 USC 431 (9) (B) The term "expenditure" does not include - (i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
This law divides participation in America’s political process into two categories: The regulated majority, every living U.S. Citizen, candidate for office, political party and political organization and the unregulated commercial media.
This leaves the unrestricted institutional press in a unique position to decide what issues and candidates are important enough to discuss. Candidates and citizens groups are limited how much they can accept in donations and thereby how much they can communicate. While corporate media can spill ink by the barrel, candidates, citizens groups and political parties must buy ink by the bottle and account for each drop.
Somehow we are to believe editorials in the commercial media have no political value; despite the fact candidates and citizens groups must pay to place their ads.
Campaign laws are supposed to protect us from special interests and the appearance of corruption. In fact they have institutionalized it. Media corporations are special interests and dependent on the advertising dollars of other special interests. Members of the boards of media giants sit on the boards of other corporate giants and this insures spiked stories and political spin (freedom of assembly).
To restore equal protection under law, the language of 2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i) must be modified to restore the rights of flesh and blood citizens. I suggest the following changes: “The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any citizen, citizens group, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”
Special interests have indeed robbed Americans of fair elections by convincing Uncle Sam only their voice, the corporate media, should exercise unrestricted freedom of speech, press and assembly.
When soft money is restricted incumbents win. When soft money is unrestricted challengers are more likely to win.
ACgVgfrysJLI
ac4S0w ojyrpcydrhss
QewESLuvPKJv
Stay ifnomatrive, San Diego, yeah boy!