<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Introducing &#8220;micro unions&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/04/introducing-micro-unions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/04/introducing-micro-unions/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:47:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Chris Hoey		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/04/introducing-micro-unions/comment-page-1/#comment-117965</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Hoey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:47:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=22299#comment-117965</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[At one point this tactic was called &quot;extent of organization,&quot; and was considered to be invalid as against the statutory scheme of Section 9 of the NLRA. It was used extensively in the early 60&#039;s by the so called Kennedy and later Johnson Board. As an example of the ridiculous extremes, at one of my clients, a garment maker, the NLRB included the fabric cutters who cut 1&quot; and over strap widths were in the unit, while those who cut 1/2&quot; were excluded, notwithstanding the fact their machines were intermingled on the production floor.
The client closed the plant before the absurdity could be tested in the courts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At one point this tactic was called &#8220;extent of organization,&#8221; and was considered to be invalid as against the statutory scheme of Section 9 of the NLRA. It was used extensively in the early 60&#8217;s by the so called Kennedy and later Johnson Board. As an example of the ridiculous extremes, at one of my clients, a garment maker, the NLRB included the fabric cutters who cut 1&#8243; and over strap widths were in the unit, while those who cut 1/2&#8243; were excluded, notwithstanding the fact their machines were intermingled on the production floor.<br />
The client closed the plant before the absurdity could be tested in the courts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
