NLRB Claims authority over Church Schools

A regional official of the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Saint Xavier University, a Roman Catholic institution in Illinois, is not sufficiently religious to fall outside that agency's jurisdiction, and has cleared the way for the institution's roughly 240 adjunct faculty members to hold a unionization vote.

In a ruling issued last week, Joseph A. Barker, the director of the NLRB's regional office for the Chicago area, held that Saint Xavier "is not a church-operated institution" under the terms of a key 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined what characteristics make an institution religious enough that any federal oversight of its labor relations would violate the First Amendment's clauses separating church and state.
In both the Manhattan College ruling and last week's decision involving Saint Xavier University, which operates a main campus in Chicago and a satellite campus in Orland Park, Ill., the regional directors based their determinations mainly on the Supreme Court's 1979 ruling in National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that the NLRB cannot exercise jurisdiction over parochial schools that are focused on the propagation of religious faith because doing so would cause it to run afoul of the First Amendment's clauses barring the government from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise. That decision, which the NLRB applies to colleges on a case-by-case basis, opened the door for the NLRB to develop a test for determining whether educational institutions are of a "substantial religious character."

Labor Board Rejects Religious Exemption for Saint Xavier U. and Says Adjuncts Can Unionize - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Makes sense to me.

Does this then?

The schools challenged the Board's orders in petitions to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court denied enforcement of the Board's orders. 559 F.2d 1112 (1977). [Footnote 8] The court considered the Board's actions in relation to its discretion in choosing to extend its jurisdiction only to religiously affiliated schools that were not "completely religious." It concluded that the Board had not properly exercised its discretion, because the Board's distinction between "completely religious" and "merely religiously associated" failed to provide a workable guide for the exercise of discretion:

"We find the standard itself to be a simplistic black or white, purported rule containing no borderline demarcation of where 'completely religious' takes over or, on the other hand, ceases. In our opinion, the dichotomous 'completely religious -- merely religiously associated' standard provides no workable guide to the exercise of discretion. The determination that an institution is so completely a religious entity as to exclude any viable secular components obviously implicates very sensitive questions of faith and tradition. See, e.g., [ 406 U. S. ] Yoder, . . . 406 U. S. 205 [(1972)]."

Id. at 1118.

The Court of Appeals recognized that the rejection of the Board's policy as to church-operated schools meant that the Board would extend its jurisdiction to all church-operated

Page 440 U. S. 496

schools. The court therefore turned to the question of whether the Board could exercise that jurisdiction, consistent with constitutional limitations. It concluded that both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment foreclosed the Board's jurisdiction. It reasoned that, from the initial act of certifying a union as the bargaining agent for lay teachers, the Board's action would impinge upon the freedom of church authorities to shape and direct teaching in accord with the requirements of their religion. It analyzed the Board's action in this way:

"At some point, factual inquiry by courts or agencies into such matters [separating secular from religious training] would almost necessarily raise First Amendment problems. If history demonstrates, as it does, that Roman Catholics founded an alternative school system for essentially religious reasons and continued to maintain them as an 'integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church,' Lemon \[v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602], 403 U. S. 616 [(1971)], courts and agencies would be hard-pressed to take official or judicial notice that these purposes were undermined or eviscerated by the determination to offer such secular subjects as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and English literature."
 
Doesn't really matter, does it? The question is, is this a religious question, at all? I don't see it. You may have isuues with the NLRB, but that doesn't make it a religious issue, just because an institution has a religious affiliation. Just as Muslims shouldn't be allowed to have sharia law circumvent U.S. law, religiously affiliated institutions shouldn't be able to use that fact to circumvent labor laws. Got a problem with the laws, attack them on THAT basis.

You are no legal scholar that's for certain. Private schools of religious persuasion are protected under first amendment language...period. This is a direct assault on those protections. Even if you are pro organized labor and anti religious, this kind of assault on first amendment protections should bother you.

What specific labor laws have been violated?


You tell me. You seem to be convinced the NLRB is wrong! How can you make that judgement and ask that question?!?! :doubt:

The burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on the NLRB and on you, since you are claiming laws have been broken. So, again, what specific labor laws have been broken?
 
An interesting question... if voucher money is paid to private schools do they come under more federal control/scrunity?

they will be getting tax dollars after all.
And if they get tax dollars will they be allowed to teach a specific religion?
 
A regional official of the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Saint Xavier University, a Roman Catholic institution in Illinois, is not sufficiently religious to fall outside that agency's jurisdiction, and has cleared the way for the institution's roughly 240 adjunct faculty members to hold a unionization vote.

In a ruling issued last week, Joseph A. Barker, the director of the NLRB's regional office for the Chicago area, held that Saint Xavier "is not a church-operated institution" under the terms of a key 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined what characteristics make an institution religious enough that any federal oversight of its labor relations would violate the First Amendment's clauses separating church and state.
In both the Manhattan College ruling and last week's decision involving Saint Xavier University, which operates a main campus in Chicago and a satellite campus in Orland Park, Ill., the regional directors based their determinations mainly on the Supreme Court's 1979 ruling in National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that the NLRB cannot exercise jurisdiction over parochial schools that are focused on the propagation of religious faith because doing so would cause it to run afoul of the First Amendment's clauses barring the government from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise. That decision, which the NLRB applies to colleges on a case-by-case basis, opened the door for the NLRB to develop a test for determining whether educational institutions are of a "substantial religious character."

Labor Board Rejects Religious Exemption for Saint Xavier U. and Says Adjuncts Can Unionize - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Makes sense to me.

Nice Hat. ;)

It is not a Separation issue, it's about Union's moving in on Religious institutions, hey it's all Mob run, as long as there are enough horse heads to go around what is the problem? Forget about it. Obama is King. The Union's have every right to move in on the Church. The Mafia runs the Fund Raising, why shouldn't the Union's get a piece of the action, right? Who's filling those collection plates any way? A good part rank and file Union Minions, I mean Union Members. Why should they not be getting a percentage? :)
 
An interesting question... if voucher money is paid to private schools do they come under more federal control/scrunity?

they will be getting tax dollars after all.
And if they get tax dollars will they be allowed to teach a specific religion?

Wow, like this has never come up before. This USMB Think Tank mentality just blows me away. Dazzle me some more with your brilliance. You are not around the Parochial Community much, I take it.
 
How about we tax churches just like everyone else!

I'm sure that that the money wouldn't matter to all these devoted followers of Christ!
 
How about we tax churches just like everyone else!

I'm sure that that the money wouldn't matter to all these devoted followers of Christ!

How about We Tax Government Paychecks for the special privilege Government Workers receive?

How about the Government compensates Churches for they Infrastructure utilize at fair market value?

Why is it that Government subcontracts most of the real work that is done? Why are these people not compensated on the same scale as the Government workers they Pamper and Cater to? I thought so.

Government looking at everyone Else's pot with larceny in it's mind, scheming and scamming on how to gain possession and control. Got it, loud and clear. ;)
 
How about we Audit the Federal Reserve. I figure more heads will roll there than after the French Revolution. :)
 
How about we tax churches just like everyone else!

I'm sure that that the money wouldn't matter to all these devoted followers of Christ!

How about We Tax Government Paychecks for the special privilege Government Workers receive?

How about the Government compensates Churches for they Infrastructure utilize at fair market value?

Why is it that Government subcontracts most of the real work that is done? Why are these people not compensated on the same scale as the Government workers they Pamper and Cater to? I thought so.

Government looking at everyone Else's pot with larceny in it's mind, scheming and scamming on how to gain possession and control. Got it, loud and clear. ;)

1. Government workers paychecks are taxed

2. Government doesn't use any significant amount of church's infrastructure

3. Most people that work for government contractors do get paid at the same level, and recieve the same benefits as government workers - which is at best on par with private industry - and usually below. It's the owners & executives of the contracting corps that make out like bandits.

4. If you think that governement workers are pampered you have your head screwed up your ass. You seem to think that any compensation or benefits whatsoever for government workers is 'pampering'.

5. Without government, nobody but thieves and thugs would have a 'pot' in the first place.

6. You should be grateful to contribute to the society that you benefit so much from. If you don't want to contribute, then go live in some tax free third world shit hole!
 
How about we tax churches just like everyone else!

I'm sure that that the money wouldn't matter to all these devoted followers of Christ!

I am sure that you would then support all non profits to give up tax exemption filings right?
 
First of all, this isn't about the NLRB "taking control" of the school - the professors want to unionize, and the school is fighting it, and the NLRB is stepping in to help the professors (which is the point of the NLRB).

You can make this about "Church vs. State" as much as you like, but it's really about teachers wanting to collectively bargain, and a college that doesn't want to allow them to.
 
How about we tax churches just like everyone else!

I'm sure that that the money wouldn't matter to all these devoted followers of Christ!

How about We Tax Government Paychecks for the special privilege Government Workers receive?

How about the Government compensates Churches for they Infrastructure utilize at fair market value?

Why is it that Government subcontracts most of the real work that is done? Why are these people not compensated on the same scale as the Government workers they Pamper and Cater to? I thought so.

Government looking at everyone Else's pot with larceny in it's mind, scheming and scamming on how to gain possession and control. Got it, loud and clear. ;)

1. Government workers paychecks are taxed

2. Government doesn't use any significant amount of church's infrastructure

3. Most people that work for government contractors do get paid at the same level, and recieve the same benefits as government workers - which is at best on par with private industry - and usually below. It's the owners & executives of the contracting corps that make out like bandits.

4. If you think that governement workers are pampered you have your head screwed up your ass. You seem to think that any compensation or benefits whatsoever for government workers is 'pampering'.

5. Without government, nobody but thieves and thugs would have a 'pot' in the first place.

6. You should be grateful to contribute to the society that you benefit so much from. If you don't want to contribute, then go live in some tax free third world shit hole!

1. Government workers paychecks are taxed
I have to pay a Special Added Tax to NYS because I am Self Employed. How is that fair? Oh, that's right, it doesn't have to be.

2. Government doesn't use any significant amount of church's infrastructure
Not true at all, Schools occupy Church Properties all around me, so do Pantries, Soup Kitchens, Shelters, Services for the poor, even Cell phone antennas, which are Government regulated.

3. Most people that work for government contractors do get paid at the same level, and recieve the same benefits as government workers - which is at best on par with private industry - and usually below. It's the owners & executives of the contracting corps that make out like bandits.
Not the way I see it at all. I see contractors extorted by NYC Inspectors and shaken down regularly. I see Government obstructing progress, adding to the bottom line, in most industries. I'm not talking about oversight, just distinguishing between what is qualified and what is not. When Gov't wants to pay pennies on the dollar, it subcontracts. When Gov't does not want to break a sweat or get it's hands dirty, it subcontracts.

4. If you think that governement workers are pampered you have your head screwed up your ass. You seem to think that any compensation or benefits whatsoever for government workers is 'pampering'.
You have crippled the Golden Goose demanding compensation and salaries that are unrealistic. Your income is at the cost of our life styles, which you have decimated. Frankly, I don't give a shit anymore. I will try not to hold it against you. I try really really hard.

5. Without government, nobody but thieves and thugs would have a 'pot' in the first place.
Without the Right to Self Defense, Anarchy and Thuggery rule the day. Without Unalienable Rights like, Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of happiness, we would have no pot to piss in. Government needs to relearn the concept of Serving and turn away from it's parasitic nature. Your Anchor is killing us.

6. You should be grateful to contribute to the society that you benefit so much from. If you don't want to contribute, then go live in some tax free third world shit hole!
Or challenge the legitimacy of your claim. If we are so free here, why is it that you limit my options to your whims? Why don't I just question you and your motives? Why should I support you, and not you me? How about we each learn to live within our own means and not so much off of the backs of others? How about fair measure, honest scales, open and transparent taxation with full accountability? Hey? I have an Idea!!! Let's try Federalism!!! We almost tried it once. Why not give it a real shot, you know with 3 equal branches that are accountable to the People, not the other way around like it is now, with the 3 headed hydra taking turns feeding off of us while the others stand guard. :) I like that idea. Thanks so much for inspiring it. You are a Great American. :D ;)
 
First of all, this isn't about the NLRB "taking control" of the school - the professors want to unionize, and the school is fighting it, and the NLRB is stepping in to help the professors (which is the point of the NLRB).

You can make this about "Church vs. State" as much as you like, but it's really about teachers wanting to collectively bargain, and a college that doesn't want to allow them to.

At what expense? The jobs exist because of the Diocese. They are on benefit packages through the Dioceses. Insurance, Vacation, Retirement. The Union's want a cut. The Unions want control. Maybe the Union's too, need to get Audited.
 
First of all, this isn't about the NLRB "taking control" of the school - the professors want to unionize, and the school is fighting it, and the NLRB is stepping in to help the professors (which is the point of the NLRB).

You can make this about "Church vs. State" as much as you like, but it's really about teachers wanting to collectively bargain, and a college that doesn't want to allow them to.

At what expense? The jobs exist because of the Diocese. They are on benefit packages through the Dioceses. Insurance, Vacation, Retirement. The Union's want a cut. The Unions want control. Maybe the Union's too, need to get Audited.

It's not "the unions" that want control, it's the professors who want better wages, and the ability to collectively bargain. If the professors didn't want to unionize, this wouldn't be an issue.
 
How about we tax churches just like everyone else!

I'm sure that that the money wouldn't matter to all these devoted followers of Christ!

I am sure that you would then support all non profits to give up tax exemption filings right?

Yes, I would definitely support taking the tax exempt status from all 'non-profits'.

My experience with non-profits is that they are for-profits that just play accounting games to cover up their profits - usually in the form of extremely high salaries for their directors.
 
How about we tax churches just like everyone else!

I'm sure that that the money wouldn't matter to all these devoted followers of Christ!

I am sure that you would then support all non profits to give up tax exemption filings right?

Yes, I would definitely support taking the tax exempt status from all 'non-profits'.

My experience with non-profits is that they are for-profits that just play accounting games to cover up their profits - usually in the form of extremely high salaries for their directors.

That's the case in many situations - like IKEA, which is actually a non-profit. But there are plenty of non-profits that literally don't take in any money other than donations - how would those be secretly "for profit"?
 
If the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Why are there laws that recognize institutes of religion and give them tax-exempt status?
 
I am sure that you would then support all non profits to give up tax exemption filings right?

Yes, I would definitely support taking the tax exempt status from all 'non-profits'.

My experience with non-profits is that they are for-profits that just play accounting games to cover up their profits - usually in the form of extremely high salaries for their directors.

That's the case in many situations - like IKEA, which is actually a non-profit. But there are plenty of non-profits that literally don't take in any money other than donations - how would those be secretly "for profit"?

If they're books show that they break even, then they wouldn't have any profit to tax. If they pay extraodinary salaries to make the profits disappear then they should pay taxes. Since they are in the business of solicting donations, those donations cotribute to their profits and should be taxed.
 
How about we tax churches just like everyone else!

I'm sure that that the money wouldn't matter to all these devoted followers of Christ!

I am sure that you would then support all non profits to give up tax exemption filings right?

Yes, I would definitely support taking the tax exempt status from all 'non-profits'.

My experience with non-profits is that they are for-profits that just play accounting games to cover up their profits - usually in the form of extremely high salaries for their directors.

So then you would be comfortable with the thousands of non profits, both religious and non religious that do immeasurable good, stopping what they do for the poor; the environment; disaster relief; etc? What would you see filling this enormous void of good work?
 

Forum List

Back
Top