The Faulty Logic Of The NLRB College Student Unionization Ruling

The Faulty Logic Of The NLRB College Student Unionization Ruling

Home Forums Interactive Discussions The Faulty Logic Of The NLRB College Student Unionization Ruling

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  luffy 1 year, 1 month ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #924

    luffy
    Participant

    That did not stop the United Auto Workers (UAW) from winning the right to unionize student assistants at Columbia University in a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case decided on Tuesday. The ruling, known as Columbia, clears the way for students at private colleges who perform any sort of paid service for their institution—such as course instruction, grading, research assistance, or other roles—to form a union. Though media outlets have portrayed the ruling as applying to graduate student employees only, the ruling is broader and also allows undergraduate student assistants to unionize.

    The ruling, which overturns decades of NLRB precedent, applies only to private colleges. Unionization of students at public universities is governed under state law, rather than by the federal NLRB. According to researchers at the City University of New York, around 64,000 graduate harga mobil datsun student assistants were members of collective-bargaining arrangements in 2006 (latest data available). This represented around a quarter of the public university graduate assistant workforce at the time.

    The Columbia majority cited a 2013 study by researchers at Rutgers University on graduate student unions at public universities to make the case that unions were beneficial. The study found that unionized graduate student employees have higher pay and better relationships with professors and the university. But the study relied on a small, nonrandom sample of schools, and used a survey to assess the effects of unions rather than objective measures of outcomes. Only harga kulkas sharp 22% of those surveyed actually responded in full—and for obvious reasons, the subset of individuals who perceive a greater benefit from unionization are more likely to respond to a survey about the benefits of unionization.

    On the contrary, there are several reasons to imagine that student workers will see little benefit from unionization. First harga motor honda , students would have to pay dues. A cut of what little money student workers have would go to support a union hierarchy with dubious returns.

    Second, students graduate. Within a few years after the initial vote to form a union, none of the students represented by the union will have even voted for it. As my Manhattan Institute colleague Diana Furchtgott-Roth harga mobil chevrolet explained last week, it is much more difficult to get rid of a union than it is to certify one. Entire generations of student workers may become stuck paying dues to a union they do not need or want.

    Moreover, there is the danger that bringing a union into the mix could interfere with the primary purpose of the student’s relationship with the school: education. As dissenting NLRB member Philip Miscimarra writes harga mesin cuci employers subject to NLRB jurisdiction may be required to disclose details of sexual harassment investigations to the union. Universities may also be required to tolerate “outrageous conduct” by students, in their roles as unionized employees, which would otherwise violate the schools’ community standards. While the Columbia ruling seeks to keep harga ac sharp the education and employment relationships separate, in reality an individual’s capacities as both student and employee of a university are hopelessly intertwined.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.