The Potential Impact of NLRB’s Supervisor Cases: A State-by-State Analysis
By Ross Eisenbrey
September 5, 2006
September 5, 2006 | EPI Policy Memorandum #115
The Potential Impact of NLRB's Supervisor
Cases
A State-by-State Analysis
In a previous report, Supervisors in Name Only, EPI reported on the potential impact of decisions the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will issue soon to implement the U.S. Supreme Court's Kentucky River decision. The NLRB is widely expected to broaden the definition of "supervisor" under the National Labor Relations Act in a way that will exclude millions of workers from the law's protections.
Employers are asking for, and are expected to get from the NLRB, a definition so broad that a worker with no authority to hire, fire, discipline, promote, or reward other employees, who earns no more than they do, and who performs the same work could be considered a supervisor merely because he or she sometimes directs other employees in the performance of their tasks. A lead worker on a loading dock, for example, who tells other employees how to load a truck would be transformed, by the broader definition, from a union employee into a supervisor. Team leaders, group leaders, lead workers, and working foremen have traditionally not been considered supervisors, but the Kentucky River cases are expected to overturn precedent. EPI calculates that the broad definition employers want would deny labor law protection to more than 8 million employees.
The downloadable files in this document give an indication of the potential impact of the NLRB's decisions on a state-by-state basis. Looking at just 10 occupations with large numbers of affected employees, we find that thousand of workers will be affected in even the smallest states, and hundreds of thousands of employees would lose labor rights in the largest states. The occupations analyzed are RNs and LPNs, cooks and chefs, secretaries, accountants and auditors, electricians, social workers, cashiers, bookkeepers, and office clerks. More than 200 occupations are likely to be affected by the decisions, but we have analyzed only 10 of the 15 most heavily affected occupations.
The tables below for each state show: the total employed in each occupation ("group total"); the percent share of each occupation with Level 2 supervisory duties, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey; and the number of employees potentially affected by the NLRB's forthcoming decisions ("affected workers"), calculated by multiplying the group total by the percent share.
Download single file with tables for all states:
Acrobat PDF [69 kb]
Excel XLS [413 kb]
Download individual tables for each state in Acrobat PDF format:
|
AL |
|
|
AK |
|
|
AZ |
|
|
AR |
|
|
CA |
|
|
CO |
|
|
CT |
|
|
DE |
|
|
DC |
|
|
FL |
|
|
GA |
|
|
HI |
|
|
ID |
|
|
IL |
|
|
IN |
|
|
IA |
|
|
KS |
|
|
KY |
|
|
LA |
|
|
ME |
|
|
MD |
|
|
MA |
|
|
MI |
|
|
MN |
|
|
MS |
|
|
MO |
|
|
MT |
|
|
NE |
|
|
NV |
|
|
NH |
|
|
NJ |
|
|
NM |
|
|
NY |
|
|
NC |
|
|
ND |
|
|
OH |
|
|
OK |
|
|
OR |
|
|
PA |
|
|
RI |
|
|
SC |
|
|
SD |
|
|
TN |
|
|
TX |
|
|
UT |
|
|
VT |
|
|
VA |
|
|
WA |
|
|
WV |
|
|
WI |
|
|
WY |
Sign Up to Stay Informed
Search EPI.org
RELATED PUBLICATIONS
- Mishel weighs in on White House Middle Class Task Force
- Sustaining workers’ bargaining power in an age of globalization
- EARN conference showcases progressive state policy agendas
- Tracking the recovery: Big banks seen as big beneficiaries of government economic policies
- Tracking the recovery: One in four households has suffered a layoff over the past year
- The role of government in hard times
- Workers have less to celebrate this Labor Day
- Farewell to a progressive crusader
- No coercion in card check
- Unions guarantee more vacation
- See more publications about: Labor policy

