MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[California8429]

Here's my amendement to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this amendment. I disagree with the removal of "hire" in the first sentence. This amendment would only encourage people to not join the union, as their chances of getting a job would be on the line.

Do you perhaps have a different solution to giving room to small and new business from being killed by unions because they can't give the highest wages or the best conditions? This amendment isn't perfect at all, but I really think we need to address this. Why should union members be given higher preference over non-union members? If this bill were to be passed, both would have to be hired and main employment, but the union members would get court support and the ability to strike, while the non-union member doesn't and if the business were to reward that and give non-union members nice wages and benefits, the unions sue.

[tmthforu94]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note: That is taken directly from the original anti-union busting law.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Here's my amendement to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this amendment. I disagree with the removal of "hire" in the first sentence. This amendment would only encourage people to not join the union, as their chances of getting a job would be on the line.

Do you perhaps have a different solution to giving room to small and new business from being killed by unions because they can't give the highest wages or the best conditions? This amendment isn't perfect at all, but I really think we need to address this. Why should union members be given higher preference over non-union members? If this bill were to be passed, both would have to be hired and main employment, but the union members would get court support and the ability to strike, while the non-union member doesn't and if the business were to reward that and give non-union members nice wages and benefits, the unions sue.

As far as in relation to small businesses, you could make businesses earning under a certain number exempt from it, however, that would most likley lead to growing businesses hiding their actual numbers in an attempt to be able to hire people who aren't connected to a union.

[Junkie]

As proponent of the statute, Governor, I believe it behooves you to explain what to do about the very real "free rider" problem I described above.

Bump.

Anyone? This is really the main issue here and is sadly being ignored.

Badger, sorry I did not respond earlier to this.  I do not believe that the "free rider" issue is in fact all that big.  Our union allows people to not join or cut from the union.  The contract that is negotiated includes a portion that comes from every employees check that goes to the union for "negotiating fees."  Non-union people must still pay that.  It ends up being a difference of about $2.50 a paycheck.  Pretty small, but then again so is our union.  However, the non-union members do not get a union rep in cases of discplinary or termination meetings.  Thus, many people stay in the union for that purpose.  Therefore, based on my own personal experience, I do not think that your concerns will end up being that much of an issue.

You may wonder why I am still in the union.  I am still in because I want a voice on other issues, who our unions supports, positions on statutes, etc.  Although, one buddy, who is now in Iraq, dropped out, and once a month we would go to a quarter tap bar and use his "non-union dues"as he called them and have a pretty good night.

[California8429]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note: That is taken directly from the original anti-union busting law.

I'll bring this forward for a vote tomorrow. This seems good to me to set "reasonable" bars, as long as the up to 25% isn't abused.

[Badger]

Here's my amendement to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good God. So now we're making it legal for employers to blacklist anyone known to be a union supporter? Sure they're safe in their current job, but heaven forbid they actually want to get a different job, then its open season. Its nice to see we're so concerned about union members "abusing" the system by claiming they were wrongly denied employment for exercising their constitutional rights, but no concern whatsoever about companies abusing the system by actually doing this.

What a grotesque attack on the fundamental  rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association! Giving someone no legal right to even have their case heard by a judge or jury even if the evidence is crystal clear they were wrongly denied employment?!? Because of "possible abuse"?!? Here's a thought: Mideastern law currently allows a cause of action for anyone denied employment because of their race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation; why not limit those laws' cause of action for only not "maintaining" employment as well--to prevent "abuses" by people denied employment. But then maybe I shouldn't suggest this openly; after all, the people protected by those laws generally don't support conservative politicians any more than union members do, so such a proposal might actually pass the Reichstag Assembly.

Stand tall on this Governor!

[Badger]

As proponent of the statute, Governor, I believe it behooves you to explain what to do about the very real "free rider" problem I described above.

Bump.

Anyone? This is really the main issue here and is sadly being ignored.

Badger, sorry I did not respond earlier to this.  I do not believe that the "free rider" issue is in fact all that big.  Our union allows people to not join or cut from the union.  The contract that is negotiated includes a portion that comes from every employees check that goes to the union for "negotiating fees."  Non-union people must still pay that.  It ends up being a difference of about $2.50 a paycheck.  Pretty small, but then again so is our union.  However, the non-union members do not get a union rep in cases of discplinary or termination meetings.  Thus, many people stay in the union for that purpose.  Therefore, based on my own personal experience, I do not think that your concerns will end up being that much of an issue.

You may wonder why I am still in the union.  I am still in because I want a voice on other issues, who our unions supports, positions on statutes, etc.  Although, one buddy, who is now in Iraq, dropped out, and once a month we would go to a quarter tap bar and use his "non-union dues"as he called them and have a pretty good night.

OK, Junkie, but what you're talking about is exactly why we shouldn't pass right to work statutes. Under that scenario other non-union employees a) wouldn't have to pay any negotiating fee out of their paycheck and; b) would still have the right to demand union representation in hearings (and can even sue the union if they felt they weren't adaquately represented!). Under this proposal the free rider problem is still alive and kicking.

(To All) Maybe a simple amendment addressing the free rider issue, so there can be a genuinely consensus bill passed rather than an ideological hack job?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You make Libertas proud Badger.


LONG LIVE EXCESSICE HYPERBOLE!!!!!


Reichstag? How ridiculous.

[Badger]

You make Libertas proud Badger.


LONG LIVE EXCESSICE HYPERBOLE!!!!!


Reichstag? How ridiculous.

"Libertas"? Now that's a low blow.

A tad hyperbolic perhaps, but within reason. But then we Mideasterners aren't used to extremists running the show like you IDSers.

But ridiculous? A-Bob's proposals in this thread actually bare a grain of truth for even that heavy-handed a comparison.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You make Libertas proud Badger.


LONG LIVE EXCESSICE HYPERBOLE!!!!!


Reichstag? How ridiculous.

"Libertas"? Now that's a low blow.

A tad hyperbolic perhaps, but within reason. But then we Mideasterners aren't used to extremists running the show like you IDSers.

But ridiculous? A-Bob's proposals in this thread actually bare a grain of truth for even that heavy-handed a comparison.

Low blow? Actually that is a grain of truth. Whether its "GOP plan for Health care is "DIE QUICKLY", "GOP wants grandma to eat catfood", or "GOP wants to kick poor kids onto street", the far left has been well noted for its use of "excessive hyperbole" for ages. One of the biggest offenders is another red OH avatar, but he gets away with it because he manages to slip a graph or a study in every now and then to "legitmize" the whole affair.

Unless A-bob posted something from Mein Kampf in invisible ink, otherwise I can't see a damn thing that would warrant such a riddiculous term to be used as blatantly and repeatedly, across multiple threads as you have in the last few days. If you want to disagree with him, then disagree with him. Don't label the assembly with the name of the German parliament from 1870-1945. 

[Badger]

You make Libertas proud Badger.


LONG LIVE EXCESSICE HYPERBOLE!!!!!


Reichstag? How ridiculous.

"Libertas"? Now that's a low blow.

A tad hyperbolic perhaps, but within reason. But then we Mideasterners aren't used to extremists running the show like you IDSers.

But ridiculous? A-Bob's proposals in this thread actually bare a grain of truth for even that heavy-handed a comparison.

Low blow? Actually that is a grain of truth. Whether its "GOP plan for Health care is "DIE QUICKLY", "GOP wants grandma to eat catfood", or "GOP wants to kick poor kids onto street", the far left has been well noted for its use of "excessive hyperbole" for ages. One of the biggest offenders is another red OH avatar, but he gets away with it because he manages to slip a graph or a study in every now and then to "legitmize" the whole affair.

Unless A-bob posted something from Mein Kampf in invisible ink, otherwise I can't see a damn thing that would warrant such a riddiculous term to be used as blatantly and repeatedly, across multiple threads as you have in the last few days. If you want to disagree with him, then disagree with him. Don't label the assembly with the name of the German parliament from 1870-1945. 

First off, Yank. The "Reichstag" term was used mostly as a joke to parody how far right the regional government has gone especially given compared to historical trends. I no more believe the regional government is Nazis more than a conservative joking about "The People's Republic of Berkley/San Fransisco/Massachusetts/Vermont/Whatever" believes the government of those respective locales are enforcing collective ownership of farmland. Get over yourself.

Secondly, I made the comment even BEFORE A-Bob quite seriously proposed banning employees from organizing unions at some private businesses. As I previously noted, as much as the Hitler/Nazi comparisons are grossly overused at the drop of a hat, this one literally had a grain of truth to it! Your wholesale defense here is a tad misplaced.

Finally, I'll talk to Marokai about using all those nasty facts and figures to make conservatives arguments look shabby. Imagine the nerve....

[California8429]

I'm not sure how it's a joke as you've used it repeatedly and even called me the Führer, but I don't care about that as I do about protecting small business.


This wouldn't ban them from organizing a union at all as you can see from the text. Only "hire or" was removed, because I don't believe small, new business should be restrained and watered down with the baggage unions bring. If you have a better solution please propose something. I do realize a lot of employees won't abuse the system, but as long as it exists, it will be, and small businesses are not large corporations with millions they can spend in courts as you seem to think they are. They often aren't even bringing in a net profit. Forgive me for trying to balance protecting small business as our unemployment is almost at 10% and balancing union rights.


I proposed the amendment to open up debate to how to create this balance with small business with no money that can offer little benefits to their workers while also protecting worker's abilities to join unions. I never planned on bringing this specific amendment to a vote, only the idea to be brought out to create the best amendment.

[Badger]

I'm not sure how it's a joke as you've used it repeatedly and even called me the Führer, but I don't care about that as I do about protecting small business.


This wouldn't ban them from organizing a union at all as you can see from the text. Only "hire or" was removed, because I don't believe small, new business should be restrained and watered down with the baggage unions bring. If you have a better solution please propose something. I do realize a lot of employees won't abuse the system, but as long as it exists, it will be, and small businesses are not large corporations with millions they can spend in courts as you seem to think they are. They often aren't even bringing in a net profit. Forgive me for trying to balance protecting small business as our unemployment is almost at 10% and balancing union rights.


I proposed the amendment to open up debate to how to create this balance with small business with no money that can offer little benefits to their workers while also protecting worker's abilities to join unions. I never planned on bringing this specific amendment to a vote, only the idea to be brought out to create the best amendment.

A-Bob, I was primarily referring to your proposal to disallow unions from forming for new businesses for 2-3 years, though yes your proposal to allow blacklisting for employment of union organizers or supporters is also awfully outrageous too.

My suggestion would be that fundamentally restricting First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association is a piss poor idea. The fact it was proposed in the name of "protecting small business" makes the proposal no less astonishing.

When politicians fear collective bargaining more than they value the most basic constitutional rights, something is seriously wrong.

[California8429]

I don't fear collective bargaining, in fact I support it and enjoy seeing it. The problem we have here is unions stealing hard earned money, spending however they like, leaving the union working members to fend for themselves, and picking certain battles to just drain companies. Unions are no better than the corporations and business world you fear Badger. They both tend to be abusive and corrupt.

The goal I'd most like to see is giving collective bargaining rights to employees without having them forced to join a union. I think if that option were on the table, it would be used extensively by companies and workers and would truly benefit our region.

[California8429]

The following amendment is now at a vote. Voting will last for 24 hours. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

I strongly urge the Assembly to pass this amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You make Libertas proud Badger.


LONG LIVE EXCESSICE HYPERBOLE!!!!!


Reichstag? How ridiculous.

"Libertas"? Now that's a low blow.

A tad hyperbolic perhaps, but within reason. But then we Mideasterners aren't used to extremists running the show like you IDSers.

But ridiculous? A-Bob's proposals in this thread actually bare a grain of truth for even that heavy-handed a comparison.

Low blow? Actually that is a grain of truth. Whether its "GOP plan for Health care is "DIE QUICKLY", "GOP wants grandma to eat catfood", or "GOP wants to kick poor kids onto street", the far left has been well noted for its use of "excessive hyperbole" for ages. One of the biggest offenders is another red OH avatar, but he gets away with it because he manages to slip a graph or a study in every now and then to "legitmize" the whole affair.

Unless A-bob posted something from Mein Kampf in invisible ink, otherwise I can't see a damn thing that would warrant such a riddiculous term to be used as blatantly and repeatedly, across multiple threads as you have in the last few days. If you want to disagree with him, then disagree with him. Don't label the assembly with the name of the German parliament from 1870-1945. 

First off, Yank. The "Reichstag" term was used mostly as a joke to parody how far right the regional government has gone especially given compared to historical trends. I no more believe the regional government is Nazis more than a conservative joking about "The People's Republic of Berkley/San Fransisco/Massachusetts/Vermont/Whatever" believes the government of those respective locales are enforcing collective ownership of farmland. Get over yourself.

Secondly, I made the comment even BEFORE A-Bob quite seriously proposed banning employees from organizing unions at some private businesses. As I previously noted, as much as the Hitler/Nazi comparisons are grossly overused at the drop of a hat, this one literally had a grain of truth to it! Your wholesale defense here is a tad misplaced.

Finally, I'll talk to Marokai about using all those nasty facts and figures to make conservatives arguments look shabby. Imagine the nerve....

1. You respond to literal tongue and cheek with a roll eyes? Telling Badger, very telling. Besides I don't see how your little "Get over yourself" makes a single bit of sense in that context".

2. And Libertas was right when he attributed some of the things he railed against to Marx. It still didn't justify the style though. 

3. And here we not only see the hyperbole but the exaggeration and invention on perfect display. Thanks badger for being so damn easy. You will have a hard time backing that statement up with anything close to reality. Again, thanks!

[tmthforu94]

As interesting as this discussion is, could it be moved to another thread so we can watch it there instead? My only problem with putting it here is that it's, well, you know, kind of clogging up a thread that's supposed to be about the "Labor Relations Act".

[California8429]

An amendment to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

Voting is now closed, the amendment has passed.

Aye-2
Nay-0
Abstain-0

Not Voting- Junkie, Inks, True Conservative

[Junkie]

I would have voted Aye.  Also, I have two amendments I would like to add, but today I am swamped at work and then going on vacation.  I think I can find time on friday, so I will check in then.

[California8429]

Since there's no debate, I'm going to move forward this amendment to a vote. Voting will last for 24 hours or until every Assemblymember has voted. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstian. (Just for FYI, you can vote until the vote is actually closed like if I close it at 25 and a half hours, feel free to vote after the 24 hours expire as long as you make it to the thread before I do )

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

Aye

[Badger]

I'm a little late posing this question, but---again---how does this amendment deal with the free rider issue? IMHO, it doesn't.