(Source)   As the unionization rate in America continues to decline, union leadership has been searching for new industries, groups, and workplaces in which they might have success with unionization campaigns.  One sector of employees that unions have been exploring is graduate students.  While the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has swapped positions on allowing graduate students to organize over the last few decades, unions have continued to work towards ensuring that teaching assistants and research assistants have the opportunity for their voices to be heard through the collective bargaining process.  Graduate students face a variety of issues in the workplace.  As students struggle to grade papers, teach classes, perform research, and ensure the education of undergraduate students is fulfilling, the working conditions are rarely ideal.  Although compensated, many have argued that graduate students performing this type of work are only performing part of their academic duty, which allows them to graduate with their degrees.  Yet, graduate students are hard-working employees, who are employed by the universities that they attend to perform specific job functions. Recently, the NLRB, under the Trump administration, has sought to codify a new regulation that would recognize graduate students as students rather than actual employees; [read more]

(Source)   On Tuesday, October 29, the governing board of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) voted unanimously to begin the process of “modernizing” their bylaws to allow student-athletes the opportunity to benefit monetarily from the use of their name, image, and likeness. The decision comes after years of discussion by NCAA officials and the formation of an official “working group” to evaluate the issue in May of this year. Recent legislative pressure from numerous states likely forced the NCAA’s hand in making this decision. On September 30, California Governor Gavin Newsom passed SB 206, the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” which directly contradicts the current bylaws of NCAA by allowing college student-athletes to profit off of their name, image, and likeness. New York, Illinois, and Florida have proposed similar legislation and more than a dozen states have expressed interest in creating similar laws in recent months. This state-by-state approach not only complicates and confuses the NCAA’s application of its own rules and exceptions for member universities, it brings about concerns related to fund distribution, recruiting, and sponsorship. Additionally, some of the proposed legislation threatens to blur the line between collegiate and professional programs. The NCAA’s decision to amend its [read more]

(Source)   More than 1,300 communities in the US have totally lost local news coverage, according to a University of North Carolina School of Media and Journalism study from late 2018. This nationwide decline in local journalism hit two New York State legislators close to home when Verizon announced that it was closing the doors on Fios1, a “hyper-local” network that covers the Hudson Valley, Long Island, and New Jersey. This move by Verizon will not only leave constituents without local TV news, it will also cause 150 of the network’s employees to lose their jobs. In response to this, Senator Kevin Thomas (D-Levittown) and Assemblyman Thomas Abinanti (D-Westchester) introduced Senate Bill S6784 and Assembly Bill A8662, which would require any cable company operating in the state to carry an independently produced local news channel. The bills define “local news channel” as “a channel which is dedicated to the category of locally produced programming, including but not limited to, news, weather and public affairs programming.” Additionally, the bills specify that the channel must be independently produced, and do not allow for providers to rebroadcast another local news station. This would require providers to create new news stations if they are [read more]

(Source)   Every year, millions of people presumed innocent are held in prison awaiting trial. For some, this may mean days. For others, years. Khalief Browder, for instance, was a sixteen-year-old held on bail for three years. Two years after his release, he committed suicide. Khalief never stood trial, nor was he ever found guilty of any crime. Khalief’s story sparked an outcry in the United States for bail reform. Throughout the United States, there is broad consensus that the system of pretrial detention is unjust. Scholars agree that the system disadvantages minorities, particularly poorer communities and communities of color. Though reformers have identified these several problem areas, there have not been substantial unified efforts to change the system. Current reform efforts center on creating bail funds, eliminating cash bail on a state level, and furthering national research on the best courses of action for the future. This post outlines the current state of bail systems, their impact, and current reform efforts.   The Evolution of Bail in the United States Money bail has its roots in early Anglo-Saxon history. Bail was used as a means to peacefully settle disputes. The accused was required to find someone, called a surety, [read more]

(Source)   July marked one full year since net neutrality regulations were repealed. Net neutrality is often defined as “the idea, principle, or requirement that internet service providers should or must treat all internet data as the same regardless of its kind, source, or destination.” Internet service providers (“ISPs”) are companies that provide internet access to customers, such as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), the administrative agency charged with regulating communications by wire, radio, television, and cable, first voted to repeal net neutrality regulations in December of 2017. This decision was met with extensive backlash from state attorney generals, public interest groups, and Democratic lawmakers. Regardless of this response, the FCC pushed forward and officially repealed all net neutrality regulations in July of 2018. FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, has argued that net neutrality limits ISP innovation and compromises the agency’s independence. Widespread speculation has contested that Mr. Pai’s far right political views and favoritism of big corporations is the true motive behind this repeal. However, Mr. Pai and the FCC maintain that consumers are better off without these regulations because ISPs will be able to upgrade and expand their services faster. Public outcry from Democratic lawmakers [read more]