You asked, we revised
The first part of every discussion post asks for your muddiest point. Each week those answers are themed and counted, and the chapter is rewritten from the top of the list down. Older versions are kept on file, and every new version records which changes came from you and how many of you asked for them.
Chapter 1 · Week 1
v2 → v3 · 3,988 → 6,349 words62 posts read. A count is the number of students who named that gap. A dash means a classmate raised it and it was fixed, though it was not tallied.
| Votes | What was unclear | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| 12+ | Where the pluralist frame ends and the critical frame begins | A worked example now applies both frames to one workplace event, followed by a new section, “Telling Pluralist from Critical.” |
| — | NLRB, PERB, ALRB: the acronyms never get their full names | The agency table now has a full-name column, and Cal/OSHA and the Labor Commissioner get separate rows because they do different work. |
| — | “Which agency would I actually call?” | Six routing scenarios, each with the reason it goes where it goes. |
| — | The “three habits” paragraph is hard to follow | It is now a numbered list. |
Chapter 2 · Week 2
v2 → v3 · 4,460 → 7,545 words61 posts read. A count is the number of students who named that gap. A dash means a classmate raised it and it was fixed, though it was not tallied.
| Votes | What was unclear | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| 38 | Garmon versus Machinists: I know both definitions but not how to use them | A three-question preemption procedure, briefs of both cases, three worked fact patterns, SB 399 as a self-test, and a new Figure 2b, “Preemption in Three Questions.” |
| 7 | Why did the 1935 law leave out farm and domestic workers? | Four paragraphs on the exclusions moved up from Chapter 6, with sources (Perea; Katznelson). |
| 7 | Is Maria a worker or a manager? | She is now introduced plainly as the HR manager. |
| — | DART is buried at the end | DART now has its own section near the front of the chapter. |
Chapter 3 · Week 3
v3 → v4 · 6,983 → 8,972 words65 posts read. A count is the number of students who named that gap. A dash means a classmate raised it and it was fixed, though it was not tallied.
| Votes | What was unclear | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| 14 | Why did the AFL resist industrial unionism? | The chapter now lays out four competing explanations and says plainly that historians still disagree. |
| 4 | The 1875–1925 events blur together, so could there be a timeline? | New Figure 3.1, a timeline from 1869 to 1955 that carries the story through the 1955 AFL–CIO merger. |
| 4 | How did the shape-up become the hiring hall? | A new note on hiring halls after Taft-Hartley (Teamsters Local 357, 1961), pointing ahead to Chapter 7. |
| — | Why does an industrial strike stop a whole plant? | A new subsection works through one 1936 auto plant organized two ways and ends with a self-test. |
| — | How does the NLRB decide who is in the unit? | A note on Section 9(b) unit determination, pointing ahead to Chapter 5. |
Chapter 4 · Week 4
v2 → v3 · 4,585 → 7,183 words64 posts read. A count is the number of students who named that gap. A dash means a classmate raised it and it was fixed, though it was not tallied.
| Votes | What was unclear | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | How do the levels connect, and when does a problem leave the local? | The chapter now describes four levels, adds a subsection on the intermediate body, and adds Figure 4.1 on federation structure. It also explains that the federation is not a court of appeal. |
| 6 | Where is the line on fair representation: judgment call or breach? | A three-question procedure and three cases: Vaca’s own facts, a missed deadline, and a case that turns on one changed fact. Air Line Pilots v. O’Neill (1991) was added, and the chapter ends with a self-test. |
| 2 | Local autonomy, national control, and trusteeships | Trusteeship now has four numbered checks, and the chapter explains how the 18-month clock shifts the burden of proof. |
| — | Free riders: why pay dues at all? | A new passage covers representing nonmembers and fees before and after Janus (2018). |
Chapter 5 · Week 5
Revision queued62 posts read. A count is the number of students who named that gap. A dash means a classmate raised it and it was fixed, though it was not tallied.
| Votes | What was unclear | What is planned |
|---|---|---|
| 14 | Cemex: the two-week window, “serious enough to taint the vote,” Gissel, and whether it is still the law | Planned: a petition-to-election timeline figure with the Cemex clock on it, plus a dated note on its legal status. |
| 13 | How does the Board weigh community of interest when the factors do not match? | Planned: a worked unit-determination example. |
| 9 | Why 30% isn’t enough | Planned: one early sentence that separates the petition threshold from a majority of ballots cast. |
| 6 | How do cards, voluntary recognition, and elections fit together? | Planned: a short sequence that shows what a card signature authorizes and what it does not. |
| 4 | Winning the vote vs. getting a contract | Planned: a note that the law sets no deadline for a first agreement. |