MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[California8429]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor- Governor tmth

[California8429]

I don't really like the bill, however it is a step up from what would be the repealed bill.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

[California8429]

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.

[California8429]

I just spent a few hours last night debating the current situation of the Colorado Symphony Orchestra. Their situation sucks, but the unions only are hurting them. They had to take a 24% pay cut (while the staff took less) because of budget restraints. Everyone understand it’s difficult, but they went with it. The company now has ripped them off and wrote up a new plan saying if they get back to the original revenue around $12.5 million as they were before the 24% cut, they have to actually get to around $14.5 million to get their salaries back. That isn’t far, but the unions aren’t doing anything for them but draining their already meager salaries. Their union leader in fact, works for the board, so there’s no back bone there. The unions are providing them zero resources. The new CEO truly is to blame. Everything had been working fine for 20 years until he shows up and screws everything up, far passed what a recession could do. While I do think these guys should have the right to collective bargaining, these unions not only turn the board (which is actually now controlled by supporters of the members of the orchestra mainly) to a defense stance in their contract negotiations, but they aren’t helping the orchestra at all. While this isn’t completely related to the law, I think we need to look at something that allows these guys to use collective bargaining without having to turn into a union that requires dues and gives them nothing.

In Detroit the teamsters years ago screwed their own industrial workers out of a great deal. The world is changing, America is no longer some industrial based country, we have machines now and lots of them. The deal allowed for all the workers to stay but as they retired their jobs wouldn’t be replaced and the workers got 3% cost of living increase (to put that into context the COS story above said they’d be ecstatic for 1%). And the unions turned it down and wanted more which is crazy. The companies didn’t need any of these workers anymore and the unions screwed the workers out of a great deal that secured their jobs.

The real problem for all these union vs corporate situations is that nobody realizes anymore that they’re on the same team. They want the company to succeed, to move forward, and to be workable. If the workers want to unionize, fine. But if works get to be in a union and have the same rights as non-union workers, there should be no consequences for workers that choose not to be in a union and work out contracts on their own (which as seen in my first story, would be much more beneficial as the CSO practically does that on their own but they have to pay their union dues still which is pointless).

[California8429]

I'm with Cathcon on section B. I don't think it should be repealed. Just the "hire or" part of it. I see huge potential for this to be abused by union workers who were denied work when really it wasn't about their membership at all, rather budget issues, work ethnic, experience, etc. Even if you say "well the courts will see that" the company still has to get dragged all the way to that point. I also don't think companies should be forced to hire union employees, especially small and new companies that can't afford to fight unions in courts, that can't afford their demands and thus have strikes on their hands. I won't introduce the exemption for small business amendment, but deleting "hire or" should be put up for debate.

[California8429]

Here's my amendement to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

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.

Do you perhaps have a different solution to giving room to small and new business from being killed by unions because they can't give the highest wages or the best conditions? This amendment isn't perfect at all, but I really think we need to address this. Why should union members be given higher preference over non-union members? If this bill were to be passed, both would have to be hired and main employment, but the union members would get court support and the ability to strike, while the non-union member doesn't and if the business were to reward that and give non-union members nice wages and benefits, the unions sue.

[California8429]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

I'll bring this forward for a vote tomorrow. This seems good to me to set "reasonable" bars, as long as the up to 25% isn't abused.

[California8429]

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.

[California8429]

I don't fear collective bargaining, in fact I support it and enjoy seeing it. The problem we have here is unions stealing hard earned money, spending however they like, leaving the union working members to fend for themselves, and picking certain battles to just drain companies. Unions are no better than the corporations and business world you fear Badger. They both tend to be abusive and corrupt.

The goal I'd most like to see is giving collective bargaining rights to employees without having them forced to join a union. I think if that option were on the table, it would be used extensively by companies and workers and would truly benefit our region.

[California8429]

The following amendment is now at a vote. Voting will last for 24 hours. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

Aye

[California8429]

An amendment to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

Voting is now closed, the amendment has passed.

Aye-2
Nay-0
Abstain-0

Not Voting- Junkie, Inks, True Conservative

[California8429]

Since there's no debate, I'm going to move forward this amendment to a vote. Voting will last for 24 hours or until every Assemblymember has voted. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstian. (Just for FYI, you can vote until the vote is actually closed like if I close it at 25 and a half hours, feel free to vote after the 24 hours expire as long as you make it to the thread before I do )

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

Aye

[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?

[California8429]

Voting is closed, the amendment has passed.

Aye-2
Nay-0
Abstain-0

Not Voting- Junkie, Inks, True Conservative

[California8429]

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

[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?

[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.

[California8429]

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

[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.