Apologies for the cryptic nature of the post immediately preceding this one.  As you may have surmised from following the link, the NLRB has remanded our filing from last May back to the regional office, which means we are going to have hearings, and probably, at some point, an election.  So that's interesting.  I'm pretty skeptical of the NLRB election process, but it worked for NYU the last time around, so I'm not ruling anything out.  Of course, back then, the president was a drunkard, now we have an evangellically neoliberal megalomaniac who has publicly vowed to destroy us.  I suspect it will be a much more difficult process to gain recognition a second time around.

Quick thoughts on the decision: who are the "15 people" excluded from the post far-4 restructuring?  We know that the picture the employer presents is wrong on a bunch of levels which I won't get into here because I don't think it's strategic to preview arguments the lawyers might take up later on a random blog that John Beckman might be reading (if you are reading this, please quit, and by quit i mean your job.)  But I have no idea who they're talking about and I have read their initial filing, which, yes, claims that an election to recertify GSOC would interfere with the adjunct unit.  Unbelievable.  Anyway I am wondering if these are the same 15 people who Sexton claimed before the UN were the only people in the world who cared about grad employee labor, or if they're the same 15 people whom Josh Taylor claimed were the only people still on strike in spring '06.  (Our numbers then were, I still believe, significantly higher than that by an order of magnitude at least.)  It must be nice to be so rich you can pull numbers out of your tukhes at random.

Two - in Hayes' dissent, who are these people supposedly excluded under the NYU decision?  Is he talking about the hard science RAs?  As always GSOC UAW has nothing to do with and no control over or culpability in this blog.  More later.

edited to clean up rushed grammar.