Global Governance of Global Networks: A Survey of Transborder Data Flow in Transition

This Article\u27s examination of the development of the international system of information exchange limits its inquiry to transnational transport of computer generated and machine readable digital data via electronic transmission. This definition includes voice,image, characters, and other symbols transported by satellite, microwave, cable, or conventional radio in a converged digital bitstreams that does not discriminate between types of communications services. These delivery systems now are called integrated services digital networks (ISDNs) The last part of the Article examines the legal environment in which these networks currently are developing

Tribute to James E. Beaver

Tribute to Professor James E. Beaver 1930-199

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE PROCESS OF SUPERORDINATION IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE WRITERS

Using analyses of speak aloud writing protocols, this study describes the cognitive processes of community college writers as they use a series of drafts to derive superordinating statements about their experiences. During the 1985-1986 school year, ten students from Northern Essex Community College volunteered to give a protocol as they completed a writing task. Five of the writers were from a Basic Writing course, and five were from advanced writing courses. The task asked them to generate details for and then draft narratives of three related personal experiences. Then the writers combined the three narratives into one draft, which ideally should have superordinated the narratives. Throughout the extended process protocols were taken. Four primary conclusions came out of the study: (1) We do not need two models of the superordinating process--one for Basic Writers and one for advanced writers. (2) More sophisticated superordinations require keeping track of more data, and more data fosters more sophisticated superordinations. (3) The momentum provided by syntax helps generate details and conceptual names. (4) Discovery of new meaning after drafting is an exceedingly complex skill, more advanced than previously thought

Labor, Loyalty, and the Corporate Campaign

This article critically assesses the disloyalty test, offering badly needed guidance in this murky and risky area of labor law. Part I provides an overview of the relevant portions of the Act and the problems facing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) and the courts as these decision makers interpret section 7 law. It reviews the early section 7 exceptions, the creation of the disloyalty test, and the aftermath of this new exception, and it introduces a number of problems left as Jefferson Standard\u27s legacy. Part II discusses the analytical inconsistency applied in disloyalty doctrine analysis and proposes a coherent framework for analyzing section 7 cases. Moving from problems of analysis to problems of application, Part III shows that no uniform definition of disloyalty has emerged, and that Board members and judges have confused the term with other section 7 exceptions. The disloyalty test has proven unworkable because the cases do not, in fact, turn on disloyalty, and because not all disloyal employees lose protection. Part III examines the unpredictable differences among the individual decision makers that shape the way they apply the facts to the disloyalty test: their individual adoption of an adversary or a harmony labor relations philosophical paradigm, their disagreement over whether disloyalty is an objective or subjective term, their differing emotions and personal ethics, and their reluctance to accord deference to the NLRB. An examination of the different factors often considered by these decision makers shows that consistency in the application of the test is impossible. Part IV discusses the important philosophical and policy problems generated by a disloyalty exception. Fundamentally, all exercise of section 7 rights is disloyal. The disloyalty test lacks a solid foundation in labor law or common law, and it is at odds with the structure and policies of the Act. Its abandonment will have no adverse practical or legal ramifications. This article concludes that the exception should be abandoned as unworkable, unnecessary, unjustified, and inconsistent with the Act

Tribute to James E. Beaver

Tribute to Professor James E. Beaver 1930-199

Labor, Loyalty, and the Corporate Campaign

This article critically assesses the disloyalty test, offering badly needed guidance in this murky and risky area of labor law. Part I provides an overview of the relevant portions of the Act and the problems facing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) and the courts as these decision makers interpret section 7 law. It reviews the early section 7 exceptions, the creation of the disloyalty test, and the aftermath of this new exception, and it introduces a number of problems left as Jefferson Standard\u27s legacy. Part II discusses the analytical inconsistency applied in disloyalty doctrine analysis and proposes a coherent framework for analyzing section 7 cases. Moving from problems of analysis to problems of application, Part III shows that no uniform definition of disloyalty has emerged, and that Board members and judges have confused the term with other section 7 exceptions. The disloyalty test has proven unworkable because the cases do not, in fact, turn on disloyalty, and because not all disloyal employees lose protection. Part III examines the unpredictable differences among the individual decision makers that shape the way they apply the facts to the disloyalty test: their individual adoption of an adversary or a harmony labor relations philosophical paradigm, their disagreement over whether disloyalty is an objective or subjective term, their differing emotions and personal ethics, and their reluctance to accord deference to the NLRB. An examination of the different factors often considered by these decision makers shows that consistency in the application of the test is impossible. Part IV discusses the important philosophical and policy problems generated by a disloyalty exception. Fundamentally, all exercise of section 7 rights is disloyal. The disloyalty test lacks a solid foundation in labor law or common law, and it is at odds with the structure and policies of the Act. Its abandonment will have no adverse practical or legal ramifications. This article concludes that the exception should be abandoned as unworkable, unnecessary, unjustified, and inconsistent with the Act