<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://discoursedb.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=65.14.60.2</id>
	<title>Discourse DB - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://discoursedb.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=65.14.60.2"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoursedb.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.14.60.2"/>
	<updated>2026-08-15T02:30:00Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.45.0-alpha</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://discoursedb.org/w/index.php?title=Labor_move_could_backfire_%E2%80%94_on_workers.&amp;diff=4676</id>
		<title>Labor move could backfire — on workers.</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://discoursedb.org/w/index.php?title=Labor_move_could_backfire_%E2%80%94_on_workers.&amp;diff=4676"/>
		<updated>2007-03-09T20:35:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;65.14.60.2: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{item&lt;br /&gt;
|author=Richard Hankins&lt;br /&gt;
|source=Atlanta Journal-Constitution&lt;br /&gt;
|date=March 2, 2007&lt;br /&gt;
|url=http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2007/03/01/0302edunion.html&lt;br /&gt;
|quote=&amp;quot;[Employers] may more frequently employ the lawful, but until now rarely used, tactic of &amp;quot;offensive lockouts&amp;quot; to pressure employees and their unions to accept a contract before the issue is placed in the unpredictable hands of a disinterested arbitrator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the card check provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act might inflate union membership rolesmembership roles, the mandatory arbitration clause could devastate the very people those unions seek to represent.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{opinion|Employee Free Choice Act|Against|against}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>65.14.60.2</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>