MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[California8429]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor- Governor tmth

[California8429]

I don't really like the bill, however it is a step up from what would be the repealed bill.

I just honestly don't think companies (especially new ones with little or zero revenue) should be required to take in union employees if they don't want to. Everyone ends up paying. The unions aren't what they used to be. I absolutely support works having the ability to negotiate and be protected from terrible working conditions on top of almost no pay, however the unions these days don't do that. They simply just want union dues to pay for political campaigns and elevate their own elite leaders.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link to "Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue": https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Anti_Union_Busting_Statute

Ugh! So we switch prosecution of illegal union busting from The Mideast Department of Labor to the individual him/herself? Jane Doe vs. Wal-Mart: See which side runs out of money first and we can all guess the outcome of this legislation.

What possible reason is there to repeal the Union-Busting Statute? It's worked fine. This seems just a iron hand in a velvet gloved way of weakening employees rights to organize in favor of large corporations.

"Right to Work" simply means that any advances made by union employees in a company for better working conditions, health insurance, and other fringe benefits are granted to non-union workers who leach of the organizaton's hard won negotiations without ever having to pay union dues or potentially go on strike. If that's the case, why would anyone ever join a union?

But then that's the real point here, isn't it?

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link to "Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue": https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Anti_Union_Busting_Statute

Ugh! So we switch prosecution of illegal union busting from The Mideast Department of Labor to the individual him/herself? Jane Doe vs. Wal-Mart: See which side runs out of money first and we can all guess the outcome of this legislation.

What possible reason is there to repeal the Union-Busting Statute? It's worked fine. This seems just a iron hand in a velvet gloved way of weakening employees rights to organize in favor of large corporations.

"Right to Work" simply means that any advances made by union employees in a company for better working conditions, health insurance, and other fringe benefits are granted to non-union workers who leach of the organizaton's hard won negotiations without ever having to pay union dues or potentially go on strike. If that's the case, why would anyone ever join a union?

But then that's the real point here, isn't it?

First, what was stated in the "Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue" is reworded here, so Unions aren't losing the rights they had previously. While unions do have benefits, they also spend a large part of their money towards political campaigns and lobbying. Personally, I don't see why someone should be forced to be paying towards that, as they could be helping candidates they don't support. Then again, I may be biased there, as almost all union money goes towards liberal candidates.

All this bill will add is keep employees from being forced into unions. I guess the biggest "loser" here would be liberal politicians, as this could potentially mean less money for their campaigns. On the flip side, it'll give those employees more money to spend on their own, which can help boost the economy.

Also, I don't really see the point in having to post this twice. Probably just posting it here would have been simpler and less "cluttery". The Mideast Assembly Thread is now more focused on introducing bills and Assembly business, while individual threads are where the debating should occur.

[tmthforu94]

Do any Assembly members have anything they'd like to contribute/amend to this act?

[California8429]

Could we all agree on letting businesses that have been started up for less than 2 or 3 years be exempt from being forced to accept union employees? I think that would give them some breathing room while they already have zero profit. I'll support the rest of the bill.

[Badger]

I don't really like the bill, however it is a step up from what would be the repealed bill.

I just honestly don't think companies (especially new ones with little or zero revenue) should be required to take in union employees if they don't want to. Everyone ends up paying. The unions aren't what they used to be. I absolutely support works having the ability to negotiate and be protected from terrible working conditions on top of almost no pay, however the unions these days don't do that. They simply just want union dues to pay for political campaigns and elevate their own elite leaders.

That is unmitigated horsepucky.

No one is "forcing" any business to take in unions. It's the employees' right (for now, at least--though God knows how much longer now that the regional government is "divided" between the right and far right ) to organize a union. Ever tried it? Its not easy, and if the business isn't treating its employees like $hi%, they're generally not interested.

What on earth do you mean "unions aren't what they used to be"? I'm not sure what kind of idealized misconception you have about "good old fashioned unions" but they're doing the same thing today they've always done: provide a balance against the otherwise unrestrained power of business by representing employees for job security, fair wages and benefits, and safe working conditions.

It's odd to attack unions for "spending money on political campaigns and elevating their own leaders" on the one hand, but to defend corporations with this legislation when they are far FAR worse in doing so. Compare the ratio of pay of the average union official or leader to the average union employee, then make the same comparison of pay of a corporation head vs. their average employee. The difference is astounding; and the ratio of CEO pay to employee pay has grown enormously in the past decades, not coincidentally as union membership has declined along with middle class standing. Likewise, the ratio of political spending by corporations and business groups dwarfs union spending. Warning of "big union money" in elections is akin to those old cartoons of an elephant recoiling in terror upon seeing a mouse.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link to "Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue": https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Anti_Union_Busting_Statute

Ugh! So we switch prosecution of illegal union busting from The Mideast Department of Labor to the individual him/herself? Jane Doe vs. Wal-Mart: See which side runs out of money first and we can all guess the outcome of this legislation.

What possible reason is there to repeal the Union-Busting Statute? It's worked fine. This seems just a iron hand in a velvet gloved way of weakening employees rights to organize in favor of large corporations.

"Right to Work" simply means that any advances made by union employees in a company for better working conditions, health insurance, and other fringe benefits are granted to non-union workers who leach of the organization's hard won negotiations without ever having to pay union dues or potentially go on strike. If that's the case, why would anyone ever join a union?

But then that's the real point here, isn't it?

First, what was stated in the "Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue" is reworded here, so Unions aren't losing the rights they had previously. While unions do have benefits, they also spend a large part of their money towards political campaigns and lobbying. Personally, I don't see why someone should be forced to be paying towards that, as they could be helping candidates they don't support. Then again, I may be biased there, as almost all union money goes towards liberal candidates.

All this bill will add is keep employees from being forced into unions. I guess the biggest "loser" here would be liberal politicians, as this could potentially mean less money for their campaigns. On the flip side, it'll give those employees more money to spend on their own, which can help boost the economy.

Also, I don't really see the point in having to post this twice. Probably just posting it here would have been simpler and less "cluttery". The Mideast Assembly Thread is now more focused on introducing bills and Assembly business, while individual threads are where the debating should occur.

"Could be" biased, governor?

If we really are just trying to be fair rather than make it harder to organize unions, why don't we prohibit businesses spending any revenue on political activities without the consent of each employee and shareholder? After all, if conservatives believe in union members being able to withhold the portion of their union dues spent on political activity so they're not forced to spend money on candidates or issues they disagree with, why can't a shareholder similarly choose to withhold the amount of their dividend, or an employee withhold the amount of their paycheck, spent by their employer on political activities or candidates they disagree with?

Kinda puts things in perspective for conservatives, no?

With respect, Governor, this is not the same as the union anti-busting statute. In addition to the right to work clause, it changes the enforcement mechanism from "fines" (imposed by a state authority such as the regional labor department) from private civil suits. That makes it MUCH easier for corporations to skirt enforcement of the labor laws because a wrongly fired employee has just a tad less resources to fight, no matter how much in the right they are.

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.

[Badger]

Could we all agree on letting businesses that have been started up for less than 2 or 3 years be exempt from being forced to accept union employees? I think that would give them some breathing room while they already have zero profit. I'll support the rest of the bill.

Hell no!   Again, it is the right of employees to organize, not the government's role to prohibit such a basic legal right. Do we really believe that union employees will drive out a new small business that can't afford Cadillac style pay and fringe benefits? Unions in beleaguered industries (e.g. auto manufacturing) have agreed to big concessions in order to preserve the businesses. Thinking that unions blindly will kill the goose laying the golden eggs whenever possible is based in ideology, not reality.

Mr. Speaker, I realize you subscribe most economic problems to union organizing plus government enforcement of workplace safety/employee protection laws , but knowing you are a patriotic American Atlasian I'm amazed you would even suggest anything so blatantly anti-freedom and  unconstitutional. The government forbidding organization of unions in private businesses?!?!? That violates basic constitutional rights to freedom of association and speech, A-Bob. I realize that douches on both the left and right jump at Nazi/Hitler comparisons at the drop of a hat , but your proposal literally is exactly what the Nazi party did after taking power. For shame!

FWIW, such an amendment would be so fundamentally in violation of federal statute, in addition to the federal and regional constitutions, it would have the life expectancy in court of a snowball in a microwave.

[tmthforu94]

Badger, if it makes you feel any better, such an amendment wouldn't be signed by me.

[Badger]

Badger, if it makes you feel any better, such an amendment wouldn't be signed by me.

That does, thank you.

I really have to quit posting on an empty stomach. Makes me (more) irritable.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Supported.

[Junkie]

If everyone would give me some time, I would like to offer an amendment that deals solely with the collective bargaining of "emergency" state employee unions (such as cops, firefighter, prosecutors, public defenders).  In Wisconsin, and I believe several other states (New York, for example) these types of employees are prohibited from striking.  Instead, binding arbitration (with appropriate appellate rights) is set up.  Based upon the essential nature of these workers, I believe this would be appropriate.  However, I am in the process of trying to make sure that such a statute fits in with the SC decision in UNESPE.

Also, an aside, I am a member of a Union.  For the most part, the union has been useless and does not have the best interests of its members at heart.  As such, I would support this bill.  Also, I believe that the bill as it stands, passes constitutional muster.

[Badger]

If everyone would give me some time, I would like to offer an amendment that deals solely with the collective bargaining of "emergency" state employee unions (such as cops, firefighter, prosecutors, public defenders).  In Wisconsin, and I believe several other states (New York, for example) these types of employees are prohibited from striking.  Instead, binding arbitration (with appropriate appellate rights) is set up.  Based upon the essential nature of these workers, I believe this would be appropriate.  However, I am in the process of trying to make sure that such a statute fits in with the SC decision in UNESPE.

Also, an aside, I am a member of a Union.  For the most part, the union has been useless and does not have the best interests of its members at heart.  As such, I would support this bill.  Also, I believe that the bill as it stands, passes constitutional muster.

Would you concede, Junkie, that most union members would disagree with you on its usefulness? You've mentioned several times your disdain for your own union, but friends of mine who are union members, while not beleiving the union is the sun, moon and stars, is decidedly better than having a "free rider" or "open" shop dominated by management.

[Junkie]

If everyone would give me some time, I would like to offer an amendment that deals solely with the collective bargaining of "emergency" state employee unions (such as cops, firefighter, prosecutors, public defenders).  In Wisconsin, and I believe several other states (New York, for example) these types of employees are prohibited from striking.  Instead, binding arbitration (with appropriate appellate rights) is set up.  Based upon the essential nature of these workers, I believe this would be appropriate.  However, I am in the process of trying to make sure that such a statute fits in with the SC decision in UNESPE.

Also, an aside, I am a member of a Union.  For the most part, the union has been useless and does not have the best interests of its members at heart.  As such, I would support this bill.  Also, I believe that the bill as it stands, passes constitutional muster.

Would you concede, Junkie, that most union members would disagree with you on its usefulness? You've mentioned several times your disdain for your own union, but friends of mine who are union members, while not beleiving the union is the sun, moon and stars, is decidedly better than having a "free rider" or "open" shop dominated by management.

Of course, I would concede that.  I will even admit that there are individuals that do believe that the unions are the "sun, the mooon, and the stars."  I can see where you would be mislead by my comments.  My comments are not aboutall unions, but rather my opinion of most, not all, public service employee unions.  While I believe that that some types of these employees, such as firefighters and police, do benefit by union membership for bargaining purposes, I also believe that most public employees and the people they are supposed to serve are not well served by unions.  Quite frankly, I believe a civil service, merit system makes the most economic sense and also leads to quality workers.

I will also concede that uions have a noble past and in some cases are needed.  I come from a strong union family, but while many of family members are union, most do not feel that their leadership is doing what is best for them or even most members.  My cousin who is an electrician likes his union, but that is a differrent type.

That being sqaid, I have have relatives that work in non-union jobs and are not sad or taken advantage of because they are not in a union.  It is all of this experience that I take into account when I weigh this bill.  And thus I support it.

[California8429]

I just spent a few hours last night debating the current situation of the Colorado Symphony Orchestra. Their situation sucks, but the unions only are hurting them. They had to take a 24% pay cut (while the staff took less) because of budget restraints. Everyone understand it’s difficult, but they went with it. The company now has ripped them off and wrote up a new plan saying if they get back to the original revenue around $12.5 million as they were before the 24% cut, they have to actually get to around $14.5 million to get their salaries back. That isn’t far, but the unions aren’t doing anything for them but draining their already meager salaries. Their union leader in fact, works for the board, so there’s no back bone there. The unions are providing them zero resources. The new CEO truly is to blame. Everything had been working fine for 20 years until he shows up and screws everything up, far passed what a recession could do. While I do think these guys should have the right to collective bargaining, these unions not only turn the board (which is actually now controlled by supporters of the members of the orchestra mainly) to a defense stance in their contract negotiations, but they aren’t helping the orchestra at all. While this isn’t completely related to the law, I think we need to look at something that allows these guys to use collective bargaining without having to turn into a union that requires dues and gives them nothing.

In Detroit the teamsters years ago screwed their own industrial workers out of a great deal. The world is changing, America is no longer some industrial based country, we have machines now and lots of them. The deal allowed for all the workers to stay but as they retired their jobs wouldn’t be replaced and the workers got 3% cost of living increase (to put that into context the COS story above said they’d be ecstatic for 1%). And the unions turned it down and wanted more which is crazy. The companies didn’t need any of these workers anymore and the unions screwed the workers out of a great deal that secured their jobs.

The real problem for all these union vs corporate situations is that nobody realizes anymore that they’re on the same team. They want the company to succeed, to move forward, and to be workable. If the workers want to unionize, fine. But if works get to be in a union and have the same rights as non-union workers, there should be no consequences for workers that choose not to be in a union and work out contracts on their own (which as seen in my first story, would be much more beneficial as the CSO practically does that on their own but they have to pay their union dues still which is pointless).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm pretty much in support of this act, except for Section B, which is a Gray area, because no-one is really entitled to a job, but at the same time, employees deserve protection, so it's up in the air.

[tmthforu94]

I'm pretty much in support of this act, except for Section B, which is a Gray area, because no-one is really entitled to a job, but at the same time, employees deserve protection, so it's up in the air.

It's staying in if you want my signature on this. Apparently I'm not the most pro-union person out there for trying to put the interests of the individual worker above anything else, but at the same time, I'm not going to try and destroy unions. Eliminated Section B would severely damage them, as some employees may be too scared to join the union, in fears of job security.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm pretty much in support of this act, except for Section B, which is a Gray area, because no-one is really entitled to a job, but at the same time, employees deserve protection, so it's up in the air.

It's staying in if you want my signature on this. Apparently I'm not the most pro-union person out there for trying to put the interests of the individual worker above anything else, but at the same time, I'm not going to try and destroy unions. Eliminated Section B would severely damage them, as some employees may be too scared to join the union, in fears of job security.

I'm mostly in agreement with what you said, except in the case of small businesses, where they might not at that tmie have the money to pay union wages.

Also, no-one is really entitled to a job, in my opinion. You join a union at your own risk, for better or worse, though I believe that workers shoudl get some protections. At the same time, a union has the right to strike and stop the company dead in its tracks until they reach an agreement or the company brings in 'scabs'. I'm pretty much hands off when it comes to the union-company relationship.

[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.

[tmthforu94]

With respect, Governor, this is not the same as the union anti-busting statute. In addition to the right to work clause, it changes the enforcement mechanism from "fines" (imposed by a state authority such as the regional labor department) from private civil suits. That makes it MUCH easier for corporations to skirt enforcement of the labor laws because a wrongly fired employee has just a tad less resources to fight, no matter how much in the right they are.

I understand your concern here. It was not my intent to destroy that bill, more add on to it. Allow me some time and I'll try and come up with an amendment addressing your concern.

That is also a reasonable suggestion regarding the union not being able to spend on a campaign without the member's consent, and that will also hopefully be addressed, so A-Bob, please don't open the vote up for a while. If someone else would like to create an amendment for that, be my guest. If not, I'll try and write something up on that too.

[California8429]

I'm with Cathcon on section B. I don't think it should be repealed. Just the "hire or" part of it. I see huge potential for this to be abused by union workers who were denied work when really it wasn't about their membership at all, rather budget issues, work ethnic, experience, etc. Even if you say "well the courts will see that" the company still has to get dragged all the way to that point. I also don't think companies should be forced to hire union employees, especially small and new companies that can't afford to fight unions in courts, that can't afford their demands and thus have strikes on their hands. I won't introduce the exemption for small business amendment, but deleting "hire or" should be put up for debate.

[California8429]

Here's my amendement to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[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.

I like the amendment, but like everything, it can go two ways, so I'm leaning with A-Bob on this, but am still undecided.