Unlike the NYU decision, which was unanimous, this decision broke along partisan lines with the 3 Republican appointees expressing the majority opinion and the 2 Democratic appointees forcefully dissenting. In its decision, the Republican majority rejected the precedent set in the NYU case and the decisions reached by multiple Regional Labor Board Directors. Instead, it invoked outdated decisions from the 1970s, ignoring the realities of academia today. The decision, which claims to rescue grad employees from “the imposition” of having a contract, argues that the relationship between TAS and RAs and the universities for which they work is not economic.

The dissenting opinion, written by the two Democratic appointees, disagreed strongly, saying, “the majority’s reasons, at bottom, amount to the claim that graduate student collective bargaining is simply incompatible with the nature and mission of the university. This revelation will surely come as a surprise on many campuses – not least, at New York University, a first rate institution where graduate students now work under a collective bargaining agreement reached in the wake of the decision that is overruled here.”

It goes on to say: “Today’s decision is woefully out of touch with contemporary academic reality… It disregards the plain language of the statute – which defines employees so broadly that graduate students who perform services for, and under the control of, their universities are easily covered – to make a policy decision that rightly belongs to Congress. The reasons offered by the majority for its decision do not stand up to scrutiny.”