MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[California8429]

Aye
Aye

[California8429]

Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union

Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I’m not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?

Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

[California8429]

Voting is closed, both amendments have passed.

Section D
Aye-5
Nay-0
Abstain-0

Section E
Aye-5
Nay-0
Abstan-0

It's been awhile since we've had every member vote

[California8429]

Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union

Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I’m not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?

Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 

Yes, but not the modern day connotation of the word

[California8429]

With no further objections, I will bring this bill to a final vote.

[California8429]

Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union

Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I’m not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?

Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 

Yes, but not the modern day connotation of the word

What does that even mean?

As already explained, today's unions tend to be huge organizations that require fees that they use, often on themselves or for political purposes. I would like to return to the unions we once had, and the intention of why they were created. This gives us and employees that option. It protects their right for collective bargaining without actually having to join some large union organization that can exploit them and their salaries and offer much less in return. This also doesn't force employees into this system, they can still join large unions if they'd like, it's just another option on the table for collective bargaining and I'm sure you all support that.

[California8429]

Voting is now open on the final version of the bill. Voting will last for 48 hours or until every Assemblymember has voted. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[California8429]

Aye

[California8429]

Aye

You'll need to vote again since voting was not officially open at the time of this posting, sorry

[California8429]

Afleitch raises some good points.  Modern day "connotations" of the word don't affect what the legislation actually is.  I think we need to stop the vote and go back to discussion.

Modern day connotation doesn't change the meaning of the text. It still gives the ability and freedom for employees to form their own unions not connected to another union. Why is there reason to vote against that? I am using the modern day connotations as the debate portion. Even subtracting "non-unions" wouldn't change the intent since it still gives the right for employees to decide if they'd like to form nonregular independent collective bargaining groups.

[California8429]

Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union

Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I’m not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?

Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 

Yes, but not the modern day connotation of the word

What does that even mean?

As already explained, today's unions tend to be huge organizations that require fees that they use, often on themselves or for political purposes. I would like to return to the unions we once had, and the intention of why they were created. This gives us and employees that option. It protects their right for collective bargaining without actually having to join some large union organization that can exploit them and their salaries and offer much less in return. This also doesn't force employees into this system, they can still join large unions if they'd like, it's just another option on the table for collective bargaining and I'm sure you all support that.

wtf is this 'today's unions' garbage and on what idealized myth is this based? Unions have not changed their function and process of collecting dues since their origination over a century ago. Nor have these very same criticisms you level now changed one iota in that time either. Its all based on the same premise that inhibiting the ability of employees to organize for an increased share of profits and benefits from the business will allow such profits and benefits to flow uninterrupted to the owners, and that this 'is more economically efficient', but really involves sending those profits to the 'truly deserving'.

BTW: For all the talk of this measure 'creating jobs', kindly don't forget that most union/management negotiations today revolve around the very issue of job security. With respect, Mr. Speaker, your notion of "good old fashioned" unions is more a creature of your imagination than historical reality.

^^^^

Essentially. And as Al posted a while back it seems to do with a perception of unions not the reality. It makes a false premise that these smaller unions will be 'better' (which also makes an assumption that established unions are 'worse')

They are worse today. It's just as terrible as you all blaming corruptions to be completly corrupt. Most don't consult the union members of how they spend their dues, that is a fact. Right here in my area teachers pay their dues which is spent on political campaigns and they are not told by their unions, they find out much later how their hard earned money is being wasted, meanwhile the unions don't actually hold decent conversations and negotations with school boards and government.

[California8429]

As unions are fundamentally democratic, unlike say corporations which apply to the golden rule ("Those with the gold, rule"), why aren't unions collapsing from their own members revolting by throwing their leaders out en masse or voting with their feet by leaving? Answer: Most members are either supportive of their unions, or wish the union would be more aggressive, not less.

Please have the intellectual honesty to not claim you are eviscerating unions for the good of their own members. If you are truly worried about corrupt and ineffective leadership, then let unions handle it themselves with the one person one vote principle, and maybe spend more time rooting such incompetence and malfeasance out of corporations which are not governed on such democratic principles.

Well the bill is just that, turning this into a right to work region

[California8429]

The first one is the bill plus the amendments, the second one is the bill with the amendments included in the bill.

Labor Relations Act

Section 1

A. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any company or organization to require an employee to join a union (or labor organization) or pay union dues in order to be employed or to maintain their employment.

B. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to join a union. Any attempt to destroy a union organization by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

C. Any attempt by a company or organization to infringe on this right may result in a civil lawsuit brought by the state on behalf of the aggrieved employee.

Section 2

A. The Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue is hereby repealed.

Amendment 1. Section C shall hereby be amended to read:

C. Punishments for companies may include large fines totalling no more than twenty five percent of their annual income for that year that the union was affected by the afformentioned practice.

Amendment 2. Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to not be part of a union, but join the company’s collective bargaining group. Any attempt to destroy a non-union collective bargaining group by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

Amendment 3. Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.  When collective bargaining by a union/labor organization materially benefits nonmembers of the union/organization in areas of salary, benefits, health care, or safety, those nonunion members must pay a percentage of the union/labor organization fees that are representative of that negotiation, not to exceed 75% of the fee.  Nonmembers of the union/labor organization are thus not entitled to union representation in times of disciplinary proceedings.  It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to not be part of a union, but join the company's collective bargaining group. Any attempt to destroy a nonunion collective bargaining group by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

Amendment 4. Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

E.  (1) "Emergency public service employee" is defined as employees of local or regional government employees employed within the Mideast Region whose employment directly effects the security and safety of the citizens of the Mideast Region.  This defintion applies to local and regional law enforcement officers and command staff, correctional officers and command staff, prison guards and command staff, emergency medical personnel, local and regional prosecutors, regional public defenders, local and regional firefighters, and local and regional employees of departments dealing with road repair, snow removal, trash collection, and disaster relief.

(2) As Emergency public service employees are essential to protecting the public and providing security for all citizens of the Mideast region, unions/labor organizations representing emergency public service employees are prohibited from striking to resolve disputes in contract negotiations.  If no contract has been agreed to within two months, either the union/labor organization or the local or regional government can declare that negotiations are at an impasse.  Negotiations are then sent to binding arbitration before the Mideast Superior Court Judge.  After such arbitration, either side has two weeks to seek review before the Supreme Court of Atlasia for final binding arbitration.
----------------------------------------------------------
Labor Relations Act

Section 1

A. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any company or organization to require an employee to join a union (or labor organization) or pay union dues in order to be employed or to maintain their employment.

B. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to join a union. Any attempt to destroy a union organization by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

C. Punishments for companies may include large fines totalling no more than twenty five percent of their annual income for that year that the union was affected by the afformentioned practice.

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.  When collective bargaining by a union/labor organization materially benefits nonmembers of the union/organization in areas of salary, benefits, health care, or safety, those nonunion members must pay a percentage of the union/labor organization fees that are representative of that negotiation, not to exceed 75% of the fee.  Nonmembers of the union/labor organization are thus not entitled to union representation in times of disciplinary proceedings.  It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to not be part of a union, but join the company's collective bargaining group. Any attempt to destroy a nonunion collective bargaining group by an employer is also deemed unlawful.
E.  (1) "Emergency public service employee" is defined as employees of local or regional government employees employed within the Mideast Region whose employment directly effects the security and safety of the citizens of the Mideast Region.  This defintion applies to local and regional law enforcement officers and command staff, correctional officers and command staff, prison guards and command staff, emergency medical personnel, local and regional prosecutors, regional public defenders, local and regional firefighters, and local and regional employees of departments dealing with road repair, snow removal, trash collection, and disaster relief.

(2) As Emergency public service employees are essential to protecting the public and providing security for all citizens of the Mideast region, unions/labor organizations representing emergency public service employees are prohibited from striking to resolve disputes in contract negotiations.  If no contract has been agreed to within two months, either the union/labor organization or the local or regional government can declare that negotiations are at an impasse.  Negotiations are then sent to binding arbitration before the Mideast Superior Court Judge.  After such arbitration, either side has two weeks to seek review before the Supreme Court of Atlasia for final binding arbitration.

Section 2

A. The Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue is hereby repealed.

[California8429]

Voting is now closed, the bill has passed and will move to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.

Aye-2
Nay-0
Abstain-1

Not Voting-Cathcon, True Conservative

[California8429]

I will bring this forward for a vote to override the Governor's veto. It is up to you Assemblymember to decide what you want to do with your vote. I bring up this vote to bring up options to the table. You can vote Aye to pass it, or you can vote Nay because you hate it or Nay because you want to consider it in the next session or I suppose you can Abstain.

I know many Atlasians have expressed concern over Section D. The reason I created it was to give collective bargaining rights to all workers without forcing them to pay union dues to a union that doesn't represent them. This section allows them to set their own fees, it allows them to decide how to spend their fees, and it allows them to disband if they would like at times when they don't feel there is a need to collect fees for their future uses. I'm sorry if you don't like big unions being involved, but it is the exact same thing people criticize big corporations of being, corrupt. Why would we not give workers another option on the table to their benefit. This forces them to do nothing, but only protects their right to create their own company wide collective bargaining group for however short period, or extended, maybe even permanent period of time. That's why I wrote the amendment, it's unfortunate you weren't all available when it was written, debated, and voted on to question it until now, but that is my case. It's freedom and safety of that freedom, to choose to use or not to.


And with that note, I know open voting to overturn the Governor's veto on the final bill. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting will last for 48 hours or until every Assemblymember has voted.

[California8429]

Concerns were also over section E, however I wrote, and you amended Section D which I would like to explain my reasoning behind, which parallels with the comment you just posted.

[California8429]

Without a doubt employees are pressured to stay in unions when the entire company is under their thumb, in some situations. The evidence of this is RL where unions want card check and open ballots to vote for unions (in order to pick out those opposed to them and pressure them into supporting a union) since often times employees decide they don't want to form a union. This gives employees freedom to relax and have the true ability to choose to be in a union or not instead of having to worry about what might happen if they leave a union that every single person in their company is a part of. If the employees want to have fees and create or join a union, that's great, but they shouldn't have to fear deciding (group or as an individual) to not join a union.

[California8429]

So there is a vote to override without taking into consideration the concerns raised by the Governor in his veto or any other opposition to the text of the original bill?

Junkie has stated how the free rider is not an issue here and I have once again stated how section D is another option, not anything forced, for employees to use freedom in the work place to the best of their benefits.

[California8429]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

Junkie can best answer this question, however I believe the fee is the amount paid for the specific negotiation outcome if the nonunion members is going to get the benefits that the union negotiated with the company. So nonunion members only have to pay a fee (up to 75%) for the benefits of the negotiation if they so choose to do so.

[California8429]

I vote Aye in order to see this bill through. I am open to amendments with the next Assembly, however I view this as a good bill for employers, employees, and unions, and thus I will support it. I do not want to see this fail and then put on a back burner that is never brought up again. This is one of the best solutions we could ever have for these three groups, giving everyone the ability to choose to be in a union, not be in a union, create a union and have the ability to control how their fees are spent, and making sure there is a balance between worker's rights and business growth and productivity.

Edit: After much threatening and thinking, I will Abstain my vote on this bill in order for this bill to have a chance to eventually be turned into law. I believe very firmly this is a genuine good bill for the people of the Mideast, however if the people want to deprive themselves of this, that is their choice.

[California8429]

Voting is closed on the override. The vote has failed to gain 2/3 majority of the Assembly (4/5 votes).

Aye-1
Nay-1
Abstain-1

Not Voting- Cathcon, True Conservative

[California8429]

Are there any amendments Assemblymembers would like to bring up for a vote after all this criticism to do so?

[California8429]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

I know this failed, but I think I should still answer you question.  Badger's main problem with this bill was the "free-rider" issue.  Basically, unions negotiate for benefits for all employees most of the time.  He was concerned that non-union employees would still get those benefits and not have to pay, thus leading to a destruction of the unions.  As that is not something I wanted to see happen, I wrote the 75% section.

Thus, if an employee is in a situation where they would benefit from union negotiations (for example fixed salary structures, more time off, better working conditions, enviromental safeguards) those non-unon members have to pay up to 75% of the union dues.  The remaining portion they do not have to pay, as that goes to union representation that they would not enjoy.  Hope that answers the question.

that clears it up a little, but I still don't understand if the 75% of union dues is a one-time payment (such as 75% of the dues for that year) or an ongoing payment (75% of the dues for as long as the union-backed benefits continue).

one time

[California8429]

Seriously? no amendments after all this fuss?

[California8429]

What is your point with section D?  And can workers who want to bargain collectively choose who they're collectively bargaining with?  Or can they pick and choose who is in their group?

First off, I'm not sure I understand the difference between those two questions.

The point is for a collective bargaining group to be created at the company, by whomever, and they have complete control (over fees, negotiations, how they use their money, how high the fee is, etc). Anyone would be given the ability to join the group. It's something to discuss and propose, allowing the collective bargaining group to vote secret ballot (by say 2/3 vote or something) to kick someone out of the group that truly hinders the entire group.