MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[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?

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I don't really like the bill, however it is a step up from what would be the repealed bill.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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Badger]

Here's my amendement to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good God. So now we're making it legal for employers to blacklist anyone known to be a union supporter? Sure they're safe in their current job, but heaven forbid they actually want to get a different job, then its open season. Its nice to see we're so concerned about union members "abusing" the system by claiming they were wrongly denied employment for exercising their constitutional rights, but no concern whatsoever about companies abusing the system by actually doing this.

What a grotesque attack on the fundamental  rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association! Giving someone no legal right to even have their case heard by a judge or jury even if the evidence is crystal clear they were wrongly denied employment?!? Because of "possible abuse"?!? Here's a thought: Mideastern law currently allows a cause of action for anyone denied employment because of their race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation; why not limit those laws' cause of action for only not "maintaining" employment as well--to prevent "abuses" by people denied employment. But then maybe I shouldn't suggest this openly; after all, the people protected by those laws generally don't support conservative politicians any more than union members do, so such a proposal might actually pass the Reichstag Assembly.

Stand tall on this Governor!

[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.

Badger, sorry I did not respond earlier to this.  I do not believe that the "free rider" issue is in fact all that big.  Our union allows people to not join or cut from the union.  The contract that is negotiated includes a portion that comes from every employees check that goes to the union for "negotiating fees."  Non-union people must still pay that.  It ends up being a difference of about $2.50 a paycheck.  Pretty small, but then again so is our union.  However, the non-union members do not get a union rep in cases of discplinary or termination meetings.  Thus, many people stay in the union for that purpose.  Therefore, based on my own personal experience, I do not think that your concerns will end up being that much of an issue.

You may wonder why I am still in the union.  I am still in because I want a voice on other issues, who our unions supports, positions on statutes, etc.  Although, one buddy, who is now in Iraq, dropped out, and once a month we would go to a quarter tap bar and use his "non-union dues"as he called them and have a pretty good night.

OK, Junkie, but what you're talking about is exactly why we shouldn't pass right to work statutes. Under that scenario other non-union employees a) wouldn't have to pay any negotiating fee out of their paycheck and; b) would still have the right to demand union representation in hearings (and can even sue the union if they felt they weren't adaquately represented!). Under this proposal the free rider problem is still alive and kicking.

(To All) Maybe a simple amendment addressing the free rider issue, so there can be a genuinely consensus bill passed rather than an ideological hack job?

[Badger]

You make Libertas proud Badger.


LONG LIVE EXCESSICE HYPERBOLE!!!!!


Reichstag? How ridiculous.

"Libertas"? Now that's a low blow.

A tad hyperbolic perhaps, but within reason. But then we Mideasterners aren't used to extremists running the show like you IDSers.

But ridiculous? A-Bob's proposals in this thread actually bare a grain of truth for even that heavy-handed a comparison.

[Badger]

You make Libertas proud Badger.


LONG LIVE EXCESSICE HYPERBOLE!!!!!


Reichstag? How ridiculous.

"Libertas"? Now that's a low blow.

A tad hyperbolic perhaps, but within reason. But then we Mideasterners aren't used to extremists running the show like you IDSers.

But ridiculous? A-Bob's proposals in this thread actually bare a grain of truth for even that heavy-handed a comparison.

Low blow? Actually that is a grain of truth. Whether its "GOP plan for Health care is "DIE QUICKLY", "GOP wants grandma to eat catfood", or "GOP wants to kick poor kids onto street", the far left has been well noted for its use of "excessive hyperbole" for ages. One of the biggest offenders is another red OH avatar, but he gets away with it because he manages to slip a graph or a study in every now and then to "legitmize" the whole affair.

Unless A-bob posted something from Mein Kampf in invisible ink, otherwise I can't see a damn thing that would warrant such a riddiculous term to be used as blatantly and repeatedly, across multiple threads as you have in the last few days. If you want to disagree with him, then disagree with him. Don't label the assembly with the name of the German parliament from 1870-1945. 

First off, Yank. The "Reichstag" term was used mostly as a joke to parody how far right the regional government has gone especially given compared to historical trends. I no more believe the regional government is Nazis more than a conservative joking about "The People's Republic of Berkley/San Fransisco/Massachusetts/Vermont/Whatever" believes the government of those respective locales are enforcing collective ownership of farmland. Get over yourself.

Secondly, I made the comment even BEFORE A-Bob quite seriously proposed banning employees from organizing unions at some private businesses. As I previously noted, as much as the Hitler/Nazi comparisons are grossly overused at the drop of a hat, this one literally had a grain of truth to it! Your wholesale defense here is a tad misplaced.

Finally, I'll talk to Marokai about using all those nasty facts and figures to make conservatives arguments look shabby. Imagine the nerve....

[Badger]

I'm not sure how it's a joke as you've used it repeatedly and even called me the Führer, but I don't care about that as I do about protecting small business.


This wouldn't ban them from organizing a union at all as you can see from the text. Only "hire or" was removed, because I don't believe small, new business should be restrained and watered down with the baggage unions bring. If you have a better solution please propose something. I do realize a lot of employees won't abuse the system, but as long as it exists, it will be, and small businesses are not large corporations with millions they can spend in courts as you seem to think they are. They often aren't even bringing in a net profit. Forgive me for trying to balance protecting small business as our unemployment is almost at 10% and balancing union rights.


I proposed the amendment to open up debate to how to create this balance with small business with no money that can offer little benefits to their workers while also protecting worker's abilities to join unions. I never planned on bringing this specific amendment to a vote, only the idea to be brought out to create the best amendment.

A-Bob, I was primarily referring to your proposal to disallow unions from forming for new businesses for 2-3 years, though yes your proposal to allow blacklisting for employment of union organizers or supporters is also awfully outrageous too.

My suggestion would be that fundamentally restricting First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association is a piss poor idea. The fact it was proposed in the name of "protecting small business" makes the proposal no less astonishing.

When politicians fear collective bargaining more than they value the most basic constitutional rights, something is seriously wrong.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Badger]

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?

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

What does that even mean?

[Badger]

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?

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

What does that even mean?

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.

[Badger]

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.

[Badger]

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?

[Badger]

Oh, and Badger, could it be that people are not leaving unions because they are just complacent or don't have the option to leave?  I would admit that this probably only applies to public employee unions, but you must admit that it is a possibility.

Certainly that may apply to a minority of members, but it doesn't change my point. Undermining the ability of employees who want to organize or maintain their union isn't for the benefit of union members who need "saved" from their leaders supposed widespread incompetence or self-serving.

Out of the millions of union members I have no doubt there are useless and self-serving leaders, just as there are in private businesses as well. If members aren't leaving out of complacency, then their union leaders must not be that bad, otherwise most members would hardly remain complacent if their dues were being wasted for nothing. As you note members who can't leave are very much in the minority (in fact, doesn't federal law allow an employee to leave a union even in non-right to work states?).

Regardless, even in cases where members are too complacent or "stuck" to outright leave the union, they can readily replace incompetent or corrupt leaders via democratic elections. Sure some bad officials--like bad politicians--can remain entrenched despite substandard performance, but I submit like any democracy those are the exception rather than the rule. The principle of one person, one vote governing unions can remove self-interested officials much more readily than shareholders can remove self-interested directors or executives from a corporation.

My objection was to rhetoric about eviscerating unions "for their own good", but my argument is moot as A-Bob happily conceded this bill isn't about "saving" unions from themselves.  Besides, what's political debate without a little rhetoric?

[Badger]

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.

So....a union then?

[Badger]

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.

So....a union then?

yes, but it gives the protection of them not having to join an existing organization or form out of them

But union members already can vote to decertify a collective bargaining unit at any time, A-Bob. Or vote to form a new one.

It seems like in addition to numerous other problems, this proposal is trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Badger]

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

It certainly sounds that way. I can't imagine even businesses would like the complications involved here.

[Badger]

Question to everyone, if we remove section D, will you support the passage of this bill?

if you removed section D completely, then I'd suggest a minor amendment to section E that I think would be noncontroversial, and then support passage. (I'd still prefer section C to revert back to it's original form, but I imagine that's probably a non-starter)

Of course what really needs to be done to get support, which hasn't sufficiently, is for someone to really make the case why the status quo is not acceptable and how this bill fixes it.

this bill gives the freedom for workers to choose to be in a union or not instead of forcing them one way or another. This is absolutely necessary for a well being economy and region.

But. They're. Already. Not. Forced.

[Badger]

I don't have the specific wording for the amendment. I admit I don't know that much about union proceedings, but my thought is that because they are prohibited from striking, the union will need another mechanism in order to force negotiations.

Binding arbitration if either side certifies negotiations are at an impasse after "x" weeks after lapse of contract?