MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[California8429]

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

it doesn't, it isn't the intent.

however I'd be fine to support an amendment saying something like "union members are required to pay union dues" is that what you're looking for?

[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.

it doesn't, it isn't the intent.

however I'd be fine to support an amendment saying something like "union members are required to pay union dues" is that what you're looking for?

No, of course union members have to pay dues. Otherwise they wouldn't be members.

I'm talking about when union members pay their dues, sweat out negotiations, maybe even strike it the company is completely inflexable, and then the company and union agrees on provisions that improve workplace safety and conditions. Obviously that benefits all employees, union and non-union alike. Or what if the company and union agree to allow different health benefits and the company determines its too expensive to administer two different health plans for union and non-union employees and simply grants the hard-won imporved benefits to all its employees? So why should those employees who aren't paying union dues for the union's representation and who probably scabbed during any strike, be able to give the union employees the finger and enjoy all the gains that the union spent money weat and tears to negotiate?

Give me a day or two and I can at least suggest a middle ground to allow both (erg) right to work and still fairly minimize the free rider problem.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Aye.

[California8429]

Voting is closed, the amendment has passed.

Aye-2
Nay-0
Abstain-0

Not Voting- Junkie, Inks, True Conservative

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

for the record, AYE on both amendments.

[California8429]

I stand with Junkie's comments on the free riding issue. Plus union members get benefits as Junkie has pointed out.

[Junkie]

I will hopefully have the amendments done tonight, well at least one of them.

[Junkie]

Here is an amendment that I think will codify a reasonable fix to the "free rider" issue that Badger is concerned about.  It is what I already posted about.  This just makes it official.  Amendment in bold for easier reading.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Junkie]

Here is another amendment that I feel is important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

E is a 100% important yes.

Your first amendment I'm on the fence. It says non-union members are not entitled to union representation (obviously a good fix) however does that carry over with the language that if union members strike a deal for higher wages that they don't or do get that higher wage as well?

[Junkie]

E is a 100% important yes.

Your first amendment I'm on the fence. It says non-union members are not entitled to union representation (obviously a good fix) however does that carry over with the language that if union members strike a deal for higher wages that they don't or do get that higher wage as well?

If the union negotiates a raise, the nonmembers get the raise as well.  My amendment just makes the nonmembers pay for their fair share of getting that raise (negotiation, lawyers, lobbyists etc).  It will allow people the choice of leaving the union, but in cases where the union actually negotiates the raise, they will have to give something to the union for the benefit they recieve.  Or at least, that is what I intended.

[Badger]

E is a 100% important yes.

Your first amendment I'm on the fence. It says non-union members are not entitled to union representation (obviously a good fix) however does that carry over with the language that if union members strike a deal for higher wages that they don't or do get that higher wage as well?

If the union negotiates a raise, the nonmembers get the raise as well.  My amendment just makes the nonmembers pay for their fair share of getting that raise (negotiation, lawyers, lobbyists etc).  It will allow people the choice of leaving the union, but in cases where the union actually negotiates the raise, they will have to give something to the union for the benefit they receive.  Or at least, that is what I intended.

As A-Bob and I are both a bit unsure of this amendment, that probably means its a good compromise solution.

A couple questions, Junkie. This doesn't mean a union-negotiated increase in wages or health benefits have to apply to all employees, union and non-union alike, does it? The language in the first sentence of your above post seems to contradict your use of the word "when" in the amendment's language. I ask as some RL "right-to-work" statutes actually include such provisions, and the absence of such provisions in this bill has been, IMHO, one of its few saving graces.

It seems that a business could theoretically have two separate wage/benefit standards, one negotiated by the union for its members, and another for those employees who still refuse to join the union. When a business chooses to adopt the union negotiated wage/benefit scale for all employees, though, or the union wins improvements in workplace conditions and/or safety that benefit all employees, then and only then should be required to pony up the same as union employees, even if they still choose not to join.

That leads to my second question: Could you please elaborate what you mean by the phrase: "not to exceed 75% of the fee"? Thanks, and nice work!

[California8429]

Ok thanks, I'll approve of it. However, should we also have text stating that for whatever reason if a non-union member doesn't want to get the negotiated benefits, they don't have to pay the negotiation fee? I think that would be a good idea to have (though I'm sure it will be rarely used) but choice is always good in my mind. Unless your text includes that, though I don't seem to see it

[California8429]

I'll bring both amendments to vote at the same time once we sort this through.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I support both amendments.

[California8429]

Debating has ceased for 48 hours, if there are no further comments, I will bring forward the both amendment's votes tomorrow.

[Junkie]

In regards to the questions, I will deal first with Badger --> the no more than 75% means that non-union employees that get union negotiated befenits by management will pay for that.  Since they don't union reps in displinary or termination matters, they should not have to pay for that.  Also they don't have to pay for political actions by the union.  I am attempting to codify that nonunion employees will pay for the services they get and not have to pay for what they don't get.

A-bob, as nonunion employees will only pay if they benefit, a choice to not benefit will then allow them not to have to pay any amount to the union.  Hope that answers the questions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Non-union collective bargaining? What exactly is that? 'Unions' for scabs? Or silly right-wing delusion about how workplace relations actually work? Or do I repeat myself?

Not sure why I bothered clicking on this thread, but reading that I thought 'wtf?' and so there it is.

[California8429]

Non-union collective bargaining? What exactly is that? 'Unions' for scabs? Or silly right-wing delusion about how workplace relations actually work? Or do I repeat myself?

Not sure why I bothered clicking on this thread, but reading that I thought 'wtf?' and so there it is.

cutting red tape of union with the ability for employees to confront their employeer safely about wages, benefits, etc, even as a collective group.

[California8429]

Both amendments are now open to voting. Voting will last for 24 hours or until every Assemblymember has voted. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on BOTH amendments (in order please)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

Aye
Aye

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE
AYE

[Junkie]

Aye
Aye

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Aye on both

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ay Ay, captain.