<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.nrtw.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Washington Post</title>
 <link>http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/washington-post</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Even Big Labor Apologists Can&#039;t Stomach Mandating Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining by Federal Fiat</title>
 <link>http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/even-big-labor-apologists-cant-06172010</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
Many &lt;i&gt;Freedom@Work&lt;/i&gt; readers are already following the latest Big Labor offensive on Capitol Hill. Under the guise of protecting our first responders, pro-forced unionism politicians are attempting to ram home the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrtwc.org/facts-issues/police-fire-monopoly-bargaining-act/&quot;&gt;Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This legislation would force states to adopt monopoly union bargaining for all police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. Not only would this bill push unwilling public safety employees into Big Labor&#039;s forced dues-paying ranks, it would also usurp the right of state and local governments to determine if their employees unionize.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/even-big-labor-apologists-cant-06172010&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/even-big-labor-apologists-cant-06172010#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:29:50 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Will Collins</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3787 at http://www.nrtw.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Correcting the Record</title>
 <link>http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/correcting-record</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;National Right to Work Foundation Staff Attorney Glenn Taubman had a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301518_pf.html&quot;&gt;letter to the editor&lt;/a&gt; in the Washington Post over the weekend concerning &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112001647.html&quot;&gt;whining&lt;/a&gt; about the recent Dana/Metaldyne &lt;a href=&quot;/blog/right-work-wins-new-rights-employees-against-card-check-abuse&quot;&gt;victory&lt;/a&gt;. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;	These cases were brought by workers to protect their right to freely 	choose or reject unionization. In both cases, employees were pressured 	to sign cards that were counted as &amp;quot;votes&amp;quot; for unionization. In both 	cases, the unions and the employers signed private deals apparently 	intended to result in unionization regardless of employee sentiment. 	&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That said, it comes as no surprise that the NLRB majority in the case cited that the coercive &amp;quot;card check&amp;quot; union organizing scheme is &amp;quot;admittedly inferior&amp;quot; in protecting employee free choice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/correcting-record&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/correcting-record#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:58:45 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Justin Hakes</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">153 at http://www.nrtw.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

