OLD: Comprehensive Social Security Reform Act (See new thread: Reference Only)

[Junkie]

Don't mean to barge in too much, but I guess it is too late for that.   First of all, I want to express my admiration as to this bill.  It is complex and from a legal standpoint, beautifully written.

I just have one question that I hope will be considered.  As far as this "Council," I think that it might be a little unworkable.  One third are to be representative of workers, with elections administered by the unions.  However, large numbers of workers are not in unions.  I worked at hotel with about 100 employees and we were not unionized.  Under this bill, a union would have the right and the duty to come into the business and organize an election for the council.  I see two problems: (1) in cases of non-unionized employees, which union is responsible for the elections and (2) many businesses might view this as a way to backdoor unions into their affairs.  While I am sure that is not the point of this bill, in effect, unions will have roles in every business where there are employees.

The same can be said for the business communities.  Many small business are not members of organizations, or if they are, they are just local affiliations.   This bill would necessitate these business to join larger organizations in order to have their voices heard on this council, of course brining along the fees that come with that.

I just wanted to air these concerns.

[Junkie]

You raise valid points, and there's probably something to be fixed about this part of the bill. Personally, I considered unions more as a mean than as an aim for employee representation. FTR, this is not necessarily unworkable even in low-unionzed countries, as France has one of the lowest unionization rates in Europe. But still maybe that's not the best thing to do. Do you have any alternative suggestion of a system to ensure representation of the two components ?

Sorry, but I was taking time to look at how the original board for the SSA was set up.  In order to keep with the intent of your bill's council, how about the following:

(1) Make the council 7 members all appointed by the President subject to Senate approval
(2) The council must have at least one member from each major party
(3) Two must be employees (with nominations for the President coming from the unions) two must be business (with nominations from business organizations) and the remaining three up to the President subject to the above limitations.

[Junkie]

I like your idea, but is it really a good thing to make the council partisan ? I mean, I think the councilors should have nothing to do with the political sphere, and come from the civil society.

As for the nomination, I'd rather have the councilors appointed by the SoIA and not confirmed by the Senate. For the same reason to make the council an administrative body and not a political one.

I understand your concerns about not making the body political.  However, as the SoIA is a political office, any appointments will be political in nature, confirmed or not by the Senate.  I actually got the idea from FDR's first creation of the SSA.  One problem with appointed boards is that when a new administration comes into power, they replace everybody.  By having political party representation, there is a greater chance that someone with institutional knowledge will stick around.  It will also give all parties a say on the board, and hopefully reduce gridlock.  Although I may be an idealist.

[Junkie]

This is too bad.  For those that spent so much work on this, good job.  It is a pity.