The Public Sector Strike Curtailment Act (Voting on Amendment)

[DemPGH]

I will not support this because I believe in a right to strike.

Also, I am pretty sure the PPT loses his authority to run the Senate after the new Senate starts until a new one is elected.

Hmm. I guess it's muddy because it's up to the VP to do certain things and there is no VP. Plus we have a court case ongoing to decide some of this!

[DemPGH]

There's something in general I want to say about strikes. Of course I oppose the bill, but what we have to keep in mind is that there is substantial risk to calling a strike - public worker or not. One is, it may not work - or you may not get enough of what you want for it to be considered a success (siege mentality can take over); it may be an empty victory, in other words. Second and most importantly, there is financial risk to a strike - I know from my own white collar union experience. If you strike, you don't earn money. So what I'm saying is, strikes are for good reason (I never begrudge union members their benefits), and are necessary to ensure a certain balance of power, and I will not curtail strikes or introduce all these disincentives.

EDIT: I also can't tell you how frustrating it is to spend hours on a proposal, only to have the company side look at it for 15 minutes, say "Nah," and then just look at you.

[DemPGH]

If this would pass I would definitely strike 1D if I did not veto it altogether.

A strike is a last resort, and it needs to have teeth. You can't force 20% of the workforce to come to work while everyone else is on strike. That's forcing people to cross a picket line, essentially.

[DemPGH]

We appear to be in a systematic process of watering down, watering down, watering down. I think this talk of public workers striking and demolishing the bank, so to speak, is just fluff, but I'll do a little research. Like I said earlier, I know a little bit about that process, and no one ever goes in with unreasonable demands. I was on a committee that logged hours on top of hours culling data, putting together charts, and everything asked for was reasonable and supportable.

This is on pace to be vetoed or pared way, way back in a rewrite.

The conditions described in section 1 are odd or already existent. What is the meaning of 1B?

[DemPGH]

We appear to be in a systematic process of watering down, watering down, watering down. I think this talk of public workers striking and demolishing the bank, so to speak, is just fluff, but I'll do a little research. Like I said earlier, I know a little bit about that process, and no one ever goes in with unreasonable demands. I was on a committee that logged hours on top of hours culling data, putting together charts, and everything asked for was reasonable and supportable.

This is on pace to be vetoed or pared way, way back in a rewrite.

The conditions described in section 1 are odd or already existent. What is the meaning of 1B?

I don't see the connection between your committee membership and public-sector unions.

The problem with public-sector unions is that they're often employed by government monopolies, and based on my understanding of the current situation it's currently completely illegal to replace striking workers under any situation, no matter what their demands are. Your really think that's going to create an environment where unions limit themselves to "reasonable" demands?

Generally, I do, because it costs money to go on strike and because believe it or not, union people really do want fair treatment.

If you guys want to establish some protocol or "hoops" as it were, which is what I think Section 1 aims to do, that's a starter. But "strike busting" is not, IMO.

And I still, for e.g., have concerns about 1B.

[DemPGH]

This ABAC is not binding, correct? Is there a timespan on that process? ABAC approval to strike, for example, would not be acceptable to me.

Also, do we have laws that prohibit management from interfering in the voting and debating process leading to a strike? This is a major RL problem. Major. At least in the USA.

[DemPGH]

Okay, with 1B modified or removed and ABAC specified as non-binding, this looks pretty reasonable. In every situation there is protocol and process before a strike can be called, and if that's what we're establishing, which is what it looks like, then this honestly isn't that big a deal. Or, if it passes I may likely tweak a few things like I mentioned, but carry on, guys.

[DemPGH]

I've been tempted a time or two to do that with the redraft process, but there hasn't yet been anything I've disapproved of enough to do it.