Decide to Appeal

OF course Harvard has a legal right to appeal Judge Harmatz's decision, just as the union had a legal right to organize and recruit the University's pink-collar employees. Thankfully, the staff position recognizes this, but goes on to make a dubious claim that the University has no moral justification for an appeal.

The staff bases its position on the faulty reasoning that Judge Harmatz's decision was ipso facto legitimate and even-handed, and that the University's appeal would be union-busting of the most dire sort. But if one accepts that the NLRB judge has any legitimacy in the case, one must also accept that he could be fallible--especially after reading his obviously one-sided and almost hysterical decision--and his judgement worthy of appeal.

But the biggest accusation the staff throws about is that a legal appeal would be union-busting. Funny, no Pinkerton detectives have been spotted with billy-clubs attacking employees streaming out of Holyoke Center. With the vote so close--it was decided by 44 votes out of 3400--Harvard has a responsibility to pursue another election if it questions the validity of the first one. And if the union is so confident of its mandate, then it should not fear a second vote anyway.

The staff position provides no pressing moral or legal imperative that ought to prevent Harvard from appealing. Rather, the University is the one with a justification for its actions--insuring that democracy is truly served. Harvard and its union owe the hard-working employees of this University no less.