MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[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.

So....a union then?

yes, but it gives the protection of them not having to join an existing organization or form out of them

[California8429]

I'm not talking about multiple unions in one company. I'm talking about the employees setting up their own union opposed to joining a larger union like Teamsters for example, a large union already in place.

Alright, I get your points but my point was to see this protected. I mean if you guys believe the law adequately covers these types of negotiations then great, we can move on.

[California8429]

Question to everyone, if we remove section D, will you support the passage of this bill?

[California8429]

Question to everyone, if we remove section D, will you support the passage of this bill?

if you removed section D completely, then I'd suggest a minor amendment to section E that I think would be noncontroversial, and then support passage. (I'd still prefer section C to revert back to it's original form, but I imagine that's probably a non-starter)

Of course what really needs to be done to get support, which hasn't sufficiently, is for someone to really make the case why the status quo is not acceptable and how this bill fixes it.

this bill gives the freedom for workers to choose to be in a union or not instead of forcing them one way or another. This is absolutely necessary for a well being economy and region. And what's your non-controversial amendment E amendment?

[California8429]

Sorry I have not been around for a bit, but work has been killer.  A good point on the "two months."  I was thinking two months from the beginning of contract negotiations.  While Badger's points are valid about the run of the last contract, that might not be feasible.  When dealing with local governments, often negotiations don't start for quite some time after the end of the previous contract.  For example, our union just started negotiating with the State in regards to a contract period that started 18 months ago.  The delay had to do with the budget, the end of the fiscal year, elections, and a number of other sundry reasons.  However, once both sides enter into negotiations, that is when the time should start running, in my opinion.

Additionally, in regards to D, i still think workers should have the option of not being a member of the union, so long as they still pay for any negotiated benefits that the union gets them.

Both would be good amendments to have.