MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[afleitch]

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

[afleitch]

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.

 

[afleitch]

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.

^^^^

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')

[afleitch]

So there is a vote to override without taking into consideration the concerns raised by the Governor in his veto or any other opposition to the text of the original bill?