MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:04:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Author Topic: MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)  (Read 11465 times)
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2011, 04:48:38 PM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2011, 05:10:43 PM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I知 not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2011, 05:33:18 PM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I知 not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?


Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2011, 05:46:55 PM »

Voting is closed, both amendments have passed.

Section D
Aye-5
Nay-0
Abstain-0

Section E
Aye-5
Nay-0
Abstan-0

It's been awhile since we've had every member vote Smiley
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2011, 05:47:54 PM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I知 not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?


Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2011, 08:42:39 PM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I知 not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?


Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 

Yes, but not the modern day connotation of the word Wink
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2011, 10:31:58 PM »

With no further objections, I will bring this bill to a final vote.
Logged
Junkie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 790
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: January 11, 2011, 07:53:47 AM »

Aye
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: January 11, 2011, 03:33:02 PM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I知 not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?


Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 

Yes, but not the modern day connotation of the word Wink

What does that even mean? Huh
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: January 11, 2011, 05:20:10 PM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I知 not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?


Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 

Yes, but not the modern day connotation of the word Wink

What does that even mean? Huh

As already explained, today's unions tend to be huge organizations that require fees that they use, often on themselves or for political purposes. I would like to return to the unions we once had, and the intention of why they were created. This gives us and employees that option. It protects their right for collective bargaining without actually having to join some large union organization that can exploit them and their salaries and offer much less in return. This also doesn't force employees into this system, they can still join large unions if they'd like, it's just another option on the table for collective bargaining and I'm sure you all support that.
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: January 11, 2011, 05:55:46 PM »

Voting is now open on the final version of the bill. Voting will last for 48 hours or until every Assemblymember has voted. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: January 11, 2011, 05:56:10 PM »

Aye
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: January 11, 2011, 05:56:36 PM »


You'll need to vote again since voting was not officially open at the time of this posting, sorry Sad
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: January 11, 2011, 08:20:40 PM »

Afleitch raises some good points.  Modern day "connotations" of the word don't affect what the legislation actually is.  I think we need to stop the vote and go back to discussion.
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2011, 08:25:05 PM »

Afleitch raises some good points.  Modern day "connotations" of the word don't affect what the legislation actually is.  I think we need to stop the vote and go back to discussion.

Modern day connotation doesn't change the meaning of the text. It still gives the ability and freedom for employees to form their own unions not connected to another union. Why is there reason to vote against that? I am using the modern day connotations as the debate portion. Even subtracting "non-unions" wouldn't change the intent since it still gives the right for employees to decide if they'd like to form nonregular independent collective bargaining groups.
Logged
Junkie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 790
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2011, 09:09:40 PM »

Aye
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: January 12, 2011, 09:06:42 AM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I知 not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?


Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 

Yes, but not the modern day connotation of the word Wink

What does that even mean? Huh

As already explained, today's unions tend to be huge organizations that require fees that they use, often on themselves or for political purposes. I would like to return to the unions we once had, and the intention of why they were created. This gives us and employees that option. It protects their right for collective bargaining without actually having to join some large union organization that can exploit them and their salaries and offer much less in return. This also doesn't force employees into this system, they can still join large unions if they'd like, it's just another option on the table for collective bargaining and I'm sure you all support that.

wtf is this 'today's unions' garbage and on what idealized myth is this based? Unions have not changed their function and process of collecting dues since their origination over a century ago. Nor have these very same criticisms you level now changed one iota in that time either. Its all based on the same premise that inhibiting the ability of employees to organize for an increased share of profits and benefits from the business will allow such profits and benefits to flow uninterrupted to the owners, and that this 'is more economically efficient', but really involves sending those profits to the 'truly deserving'.

BTW: For all the talk of this measure 'creating jobs', kindly don't forget that most union/management negotiations today revolve around the very issue of job security. With respect, Mr. Speaker, your notion of "good old fashioned" unions is more a creature of your imagination than historical reality.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: January 12, 2011, 11:36:50 AM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I知 not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?


Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 

Yes, but not the modern day connotation of the word Wink

What does that even mean? Huh

As already explained, today's unions tend to be huge organizations that require fees that they use, often on themselves or for political purposes. I would like to return to the unions we once had, and the intention of why they were created. This gives us and employees that option. It protects their right for collective bargaining without actually having to join some large union organization that can exploit them and their salaries and offer much less in return. This also doesn't force employees into this system, they can still join large unions if they'd like, it's just another option on the table for collective bargaining and I'm sure you all support that.

wtf is this 'today's unions' garbage and on what idealized myth is this based? Unions have not changed their function and process of collecting dues since their origination over a century ago. Nor have these very same criticisms you level now changed one iota in that time either. Its all based on the same premise that inhibiting the ability of employees to organize for an increased share of profits and benefits from the business will allow such profits and benefits to flow uninterrupted to the owners, and that this 'is more economically efficient', but really involves sending those profits to the 'truly deserving'.

BTW: For all the talk of this measure 'creating jobs', kindly don't forget that most union/management negotiations today revolve around the very issue of job security. With respect, Mr. Speaker, your notion of "good old fashioned" unions is more a creature of your imagination than historical reality.

^^^^

Essentially. And as Al posted a while back it seems to do with a perception of unions not the reality. It makes a false premise that these smaller unions will be 'better' (which also makes an assumption that established unions are 'worse')
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: January 12, 2011, 04:26:23 PM »


Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.

Therefore becoming a union Roll Eyes
Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I知 not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?


Not at all. They don't have to pay regular dues, and if they do decide on their own to do that, it's between themselves. They aren't part of any large union organizations or anythig that can take their fees and use them for their own (even political) purposes.

But any groups formed by employees for the purposes of collective bargaining are unions. Whether they have 10 members or 100,000 doesn't matter. The bill gives them the power to negotiate on their members behalf and collect fees. Therefore they are unions.

 

Yes, but not the modern day connotation of the word Wink

What does that even mean? Huh

As already explained, today's unions tend to be huge organizations that require fees that they use, often on themselves or for political purposes. I would like to return to the unions we once had, and the intention of why they were created. This gives us and employees that option. It protects their right for collective bargaining without actually having to join some large union organization that can exploit them and their salaries and offer much less in return. This also doesn't force employees into this system, they can still join large unions if they'd like, it's just another option on the table for collective bargaining and I'm sure you all support that.

wtf is this 'today's unions' garbage and on what idealized myth is this based? Unions have not changed their function and process of collecting dues since their origination over a century ago. Nor have these very same criticisms you level now changed one iota in that time either. Its all based on the same premise that inhibiting the ability of employees to organize for an increased share of profits and benefits from the business will allow such profits and benefits to flow uninterrupted to the owners, and that this 'is more economically efficient', but really involves sending those profits to the 'truly deserving'.

BTW: For all the talk of this measure 'creating jobs', kindly don't forget that most union/management negotiations today revolve around the very issue of job security. With respect, Mr. Speaker, your notion of "good old fashioned" unions is more a creature of your imagination than historical reality.

^^^^

Essentially. And as Al posted a while back it seems to do with a perception of unions not the reality. It makes a false premise that these smaller unions will be 'better' (which also makes an assumption that established unions are 'worse')

They are worse today. It's just as terrible as you all blaming corruptions to be completly corrupt. Most don't consult the union members of how they spend their dues, that is a fact. Right here in my area teachers pay their dues which is spent on political campaigns and they are not told by their unions, they find out much later how their hard earned money is being wasted, meanwhile the unions don't actually hold decent conversations and negotations with school boards and government.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: January 12, 2011, 09:39:11 PM »

As unions are fundamentally democratic, unlike say corporations which apply to the golden rule ("Those with the gold, rule"), why aren't unions collapsing from their own members revolting by throwing their leaders out en masse or voting with their feet by leaving? Answer: Most members are either supportive of their unions, or wish the union would be more aggressive, not less.

Please have the intellectual honesty to not claim you are eviscerating unions for the good of their own members. If you are truly worried about corrupt and ineffective leadership, then let unions handle it themselves with the one person one vote principle, and maybe spend more time rooting such incompetence and malfeasance out of corporations which are not governed on such democratic principles.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: January 13, 2011, 01:36:25 AM »

Beyond any other objections, could the Speaker please post a full copy of the bill as currently amended so everyone has a clear idea of what's being voted on?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: January 13, 2011, 04:05:21 AM »

Modern day unions and smaller unions are both unions.  Whether a union has a national organization or not, it's still a union.

ABSTAIN
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: January 13, 2011, 05:21:50 PM »

As unions are fundamentally democratic, unlike say corporations which apply to the golden rule ("Those with the gold, rule"), why aren't unions collapsing from their own members revolting by throwing their leaders out en masse or voting with their feet by leaving? Answer: Most members are either supportive of their unions, or wish the union would be more aggressive, not less.

Please have the intellectual honesty to not claim you are eviscerating unions for the good of their own members. If you are truly worried about corrupt and ineffective leadership, then let unions handle it themselves with the one person one vote principle, and maybe spend more time rooting such incompetence and malfeasance out of corporations which are not governed on such democratic principles.

Well the bill is just that, turning this into a right to work region Smiley
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: January 13, 2011, 05:27:51 PM »

The first one is the bill plus the amendments, the second one is the bill with the amendments included in the bill.

Labor Relations Act

Section 1

A. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any company or organization to require an employee to join a union (or labor organization) or pay union dues in order to be employed or to maintain their employment.

B. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to join a union. Any attempt to destroy a union organization by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

C. Any attempt by a company or organization to infringe on this right may result in a civil lawsuit brought by the state on behalf of the aggrieved employee.

Section 2

A. The Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue is hereby repealed.

Amendment 1. Section C shall hereby be amended to read:

C. Punishments for companies may include large fines totalling no more than twenty five percent of their annual income for that year that the union was affected by the afformentioned practice.

Amendment 2. Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to not be part of a union, but join the company痴 collective bargaining group. Any attempt to destroy a non-union collective bargaining group by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

Amendment 3. Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.  When collective bargaining by a union/labor organization materially benefits nonmembers of the union/organization in areas of salary, benefits, health care, or safety, those nonunion members must pay a percentage of the union/labor organization fees that are representative of that negotiation, not to exceed 75% of the fee.  Nonmembers of the union/labor organization are thus not entitled to union representation in times of disciplinary proceedings.  It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to not be part of a union, but join the company's collective bargaining group. Any attempt to destroy a nonunion collective bargaining group by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

Amendment 4. Section 1 shall have the following added to it:

E.  (1) "Emergency public service employee" is defined as employees of local or regional government employees employed within the Mideast Region whose employment directly effects the security and safety of the citizens of the Mideast Region.  This defintion applies to local and regional law enforcement officers and command staff, correctional officers and command staff, prison guards and command staff, emergency medical personnel, local and regional prosecutors, regional public defenders, local and regional firefighters, and local and regional employees of departments dealing with road repair, snow removal, trash collection, and disaster relief.

(2) As Emergency public service employees are essential to protecting the public and providing security for all citizens of the Mideast region, unions/labor organizations representing emergency public service employees are prohibited from striking to resolve disputes in contract negotiations.  If no contract has been agreed to within two months, either the union/labor organization or the local or regional government can declare that negotiations are at an impasse.  Negotiations are then sent to binding arbitration before the Mideast Superior Court Judge.  After such arbitration, either side has two weeks to seek review before the Supreme Court of Atlasia for final binding arbitration.
----------------------------------------------------------
Labor Relations Act

Section 1

A. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any company or organization to require an employee to join a union (or labor organization) or pay union dues in order to be employed or to maintain their employment.

B. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to join a union. Any attempt to destroy a union organization by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

C. Punishments for companies may include large fines totalling no more than twenty five percent of their annual income for that year that the union was affected by the afformentioned practice.

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.  When collective bargaining by a union/labor organization materially benefits nonmembers of the union/organization in areas of salary, benefits, health care, or safety, those nonunion members must pay a percentage of the union/labor organization fees that are representative of that negotiation, not to exceed 75% of the fee.  Nonmembers of the union/labor organization are thus not entitled to union representation in times of disciplinary proceedings.  It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to not be part of a union, but join the company's collective bargaining group. Any attempt to destroy a nonunion collective bargaining group by an employer is also deemed unlawful.
E.  (1) "Emergency public service employee" is defined as employees of local or regional government employees employed within the Mideast Region whose employment directly effects the security and safety of the citizens of the Mideast Region.  This defintion applies to local and regional law enforcement officers and command staff, correctional officers and command staff, prison guards and command staff, emergency medical personnel, local and regional prosecutors, regional public defenders, local and regional firefighters, and local and regional employees of departments dealing with road repair, snow removal, trash collection, and disaster relief.

(2) As Emergency public service employees are essential to protecting the public and providing security for all citizens of the Mideast region, unions/labor organizations representing emergency public service employees are prohibited from striking to resolve disputes in contract negotiations.  If no contract has been agreed to within two months, either the union/labor organization or the local or regional government can declare that negotiations are at an impasse.  Negotiations are then sent to binding arbitration before the Mideast Superior Court Judge.  After such arbitration, either side has two weeks to seek review before the Supreme Court of Atlasia for final binding arbitration.

Section 2

A. The Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue is hereby repealed.
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: January 13, 2011, 06:03:49 PM »

Voting is now closed, the bill has passed and will move to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.

Aye-2
Nay-0
Abstain-1

Not Voting-Cathcon, True Conservative
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 13 queries.