MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

for the record, AYE on both amendments.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I support both amendments.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE
AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

ABSTAIN

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

NAY

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What is your point with section D?  And can workers who want to bargain collectively choose who they're collectively bargaining with?  Or can they pick and choose who is in their group?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What is your point with section D?  And can workers who want to bargain collectively choose who they're collectively bargaining with?  Or can they pick and choose who is in their group?

First off, I'm not sure I understand the difference between those two questions.

The point is for a collective bargaining group to be created at the company, by whomever, and they have complete control (over fees, negotiations, how they use their money, how high the fee is, etc). Anyone would be given the ability to join the group. It's something to discuss and propose, allowing the collective bargaining group to vote secret ballot (by say 2/3 vote or something) to kick someone out of the group that truly hinders the entire group.

Then that IS a union, and portions of Section D are unnecessary.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So then, we're talking about multiple unions in one company?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Furthermore, are these "non-union" collective bargaining groups paying taxes?  Unions are tax exempt... creating these non-union collective bargaining groups seems like it opens a HUGE can of worms.

If they want to go off and form their own union, they can do so through the proper channels and then work with the company.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

They should already have the right to form a union.  But if we create a law that enables unions without the "union" name, we get into complexities that affect tax status, among other things.

I think the law is fine without that part of section D.