[CAUT] Position Announcement, SIU, Carbondale, IL (Fred Sturm)

[Fred Sturm]

On Aug 17, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Israel Stein wrote:

>
> Yes, Fred. You got it right. Employees have a right under US law to  
> organize and to bargain collectively with employers for matters  
> involving compensation and conditions of employment. The "restraint  
> of trade" legislation (under several Federal anti-trust laws) does  
> not applied to employees receiving wages, who are governed by labor  
> law - not business law. It does apply to business people who charge  
> per service. Just because we piano technicians act as business  
> people when servicing private clients on a fee-per-service basis  
> does not prevent us from engaging in collective bargaining tactics  
> when dealing with prospective employers who wish to hire us as  
> employees. Applying for - or refusing to apply for - jobs is a not  
> business activity - it is labor activity. US labor law deals with  
> employee-employer relations, not business law. Now, if the  
> university were looking for independent contractors - that would be  
> a different story... Here all that price-fixing and restraint of  
> trade legislation applies.
>
> Israel Stein


	 Kent is no doubt very prudent in advising us to tread lightly in  
terms of our interpretations of law. One thing is for certain: when it  
comes to Sherman Antitrust, what makes sense and what the law says are  
very different things.
	I'll just add a little history to the mix here: I believe Sherman  
Antitrust was used by businesses to break unions in the early days,  
very successfully and upheld on appeal. The claim was that unions were  
"restraining trade." It was only in the first half of the 20th century  
that laws were passed "guaranteeing the right to collective  
bargaining," the labor laws that specifically exempted unions from  
Sherman Antitrust, under a number of quite specific guidelines.
	In any case, although we may have the impression that we live in a  
"free country" where the "right to free speech" may not be abridged,  
there are a few exceptions, and discussing how much you may wish to  
charge for a service falls under one of those exceptions. Bizarre but  
true. Kent is correct in warning us that use of these lists for such  
discussion, lists which are associated with PTG, could cause damage to  
the organization.

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu