MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[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?

[tmthforu94]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[tmthforu94]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[tmthforu94]

I strongly urge the Assembly to pass this amendment.

[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".

[tmthforu94]

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

Yeah, I noticed that too. Glad I’m not the only one. A-Bob, could you try and explain what you were referring to there?

[tmthforu94]

My friends in the Mideast, this bill is not evil. This bill is not poorly composes. This bill, though, isn't that great either, and the Mideast region deserves greatness. In the recent hours and days, amendments, concerns, and suggestions have been brought forth, and the public has shown extreme dissatisfaction in this bill. The current version is quite simply wrong for the Mideast Region. I ask the Assembly to please vote NAY on the veto override, and let's get back to work on this bill and give the people what they deserve - a good piece of legislation.

[tmthforu94]

I must say, as Governor, I'm deeply disappointed in this Assembly for not even trying to consider changing any of my concerns, and instead moving straight to a vote. This certainly isn't the right way we should be handling things, especially on a bill that's very important to many Mideasterners.

[tmthforu94]

I generally consider this a waste of time. We have two options. Either A) We keep working on this bill, make some compromises, and pass a final version that is approved by a majority of the region. Or, we can do it how some people want and go B) Override the veto, where this then goes to a regional vote. This bill has bi-partisan opposition against it, with really only certain members of the Assembly being vocal supports. I don't believe one Mideast citizen has risen in support of this bill, yet the Assembly is still insistant on it's passage. Anyways, this bill can fail on the regional vote, then we'll start all over. So A-Bob, you're saying you don't want this to take a backburner, but I think it has a much better chance of being worked on still and taking center stage now when it's a top priority, than in a month or so, after this version fails the regional vote.

Once again, I urge all members of this chamber to vote NAY, and let's start working for the region again.