SENATE BILL: Workers' Liberation Amendment (Failed)

[Redalgo]

I like We Shall be Free. Trouble is, am not sure if the music accompanying the lyrics can easily be made into something more formal and hymnal in tone. Unfortunately, I probably would not be of much help finding a suitable alternative, seeing as my next four or five ideas are so ideologically charged that they could not possibly pass muster, given the circumstances. Perhaps the tune of a piece like Adeste Fideles, Amazing Grace, or Greensleeves would be suitable if they were to be given modified or entirely new lyrics?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Amazing Grace would be my first choice.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has passed.

[TJ in Oregon]

If this amendment were passed, what changes to the system can you see resulting from the change in wording in (b)?

[LastVoter]

Also add in that no individual can be forced or compelled to join a union as a condition of employment in any busisness.

Then unions should be allowed to negotiate two-tiered wages for non union workers.

[LastVoter]

Also we should consider making no strike clauses illegal, and strikes without an official union should enjoy the same protection as unionized strikers.

[Redalgo]

If this amendment were passed, what changes to the system can you see resulting from the change in wording in (b)?

I would anticipate public workers being able to go on strike in response to austerity measures and unions in general still being able to pressure for workers' interests during wartime when it is not rare for popular support to surge for authoritarian measures meant to put "nation first."

Also add in that no individual can be forced or compelled to join a union as a condition of employment in any busisness.

Then unions should be allowed to negotiate two-tiered wages for non union workers.

I respectfully disagree, feeling such a measure would be excessively corporatist. I do think it would be fair though for the unions to be able to negotiate for rights and privileges within the workplace which only apply to union members, thereby mitigating the risk of workers avoiding dues but still getting to reap the benefits of the unioners' activities.

Also we should consider making no strike clauses illegal, and strikes without an official union should enjoy the same protection as unionized strikers.

I'll strongly consider language to this effect in my pending amendment.

[Redalgo]

Alright, it's time for another amendment. If there are still any changes to be made I'll wait until this one either passes or fails. Is the new language relatively satisfactory? Are there other concerns?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

Alright, it's time for another amendment. If there are still any changes to be made I'll wait until this one either passes or fails. Is the new language relatively satisfactory? Are there other concerns?

(f) A third section shall be added to Article VIII of the Constitution entitled, "Symbols of the Republic," which as its first statement shall read, "The official banner of the Republic of Atlasia shall be as follows:" and then in the space left immediately below display as an illustration this image image. Below that shall be additional text which reads, "The national anthem of the Republic of Atlasia shall be The Internationale sung to the tune of Amazing Grace."

So we're establishing that the national anthem shall be sung to the tune of Amazing Grace but not establishing just what that anthem is?

[Redalgo]

If I just say Amazing Grace it implies using its original, strongly Christian lyrics, which would be a very horrible idea, and at the same time I figured it'd take us several days if not weeks to decide what the replacement lyrics and/or title should be. So I saved everyone involved a bit of trouble by specifying the tune and leaving the rest to be decided at a later date or the be figured out by some private party on their own to subsequently become widely embraced and later legitimized.

Usually I'd consider it an entertaining challenge to do on my own, but I've been far too stressed out and exhausted lately to care at this point. xD

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hearing no objections the amendment has been passed.

[Redalgo]

Alright, wonderful. If there is anyone left still leaning against the fence, now is the time to let me know what needs to be changed for this piece of legislation to work for you. Otherwise I will call for a vote on this in 24 hours' time, seeing at this time there are no ongoing discussions over its continents.

[LastVoter]

I think you basically disallowed closed union shops, and haven't really addressed my concerns about workers attempting to evade union dues in unionized work places.

[Redalgo]

I am disallowing closed union shops, yes, but at the same time nothing will be preventing the unions from only negotiating with employers on the behalf of their own members, ya? Changes made to workplace environs on account of union activity would benefit many people who do not pay dues I suppose, yet at the same time unions would not be obliged to negotiate for any improvements in the compensation and benefits received by any non-union personnel. Workers who are not in unions and prefer to deal with their employer on a one-on-one basis should not be compelled to forfeit a share of their wages to a labor organization from which they neither expect nor desire any patronage. To do otherwise, I fear, would be excessively corporatist.

If this is not a satisfactory response, could you please elaborate on what it is you object to and how you think it best ought to be resolved? I'm not entirely sure that I am following your line of thought here quite yet.

[LastVoter]

I am disallowing closed union shops, yes, but at the same time nothing will be preventing the unions from only negotiating with employers on the behalf of their own members, ya? Changes made to workplace environs on account of union activity would benefit many people who do not pay dues I suppose, yet at the same time unions would not be obliged to negotiate for any improvements in the compensation and benefits received by any non-union personnel. Workers who are not in unions and prefer to deal with their employer on a one-on-one basis should not be compelled to forfeit a share of their wages to a labor organization from which they neither expect nor desire any patronage. To do otherwise, I fear, would be excessively corporatist.

If this is not a satisfactory response, could you please elaborate on what it is you object to and how you think it best ought to be resolved? I'm not entirely sure that I am following your line of thought here quite yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement
You just wrote a federal right-to-work law.

[Redalgo]

Ya. Upon further review of the article in question and a couple of others I have decided to back the "right-to-work" position and think unions ought to partake in members-only collective bargaining. Labor unions are interest groups. Just as we are not all expected to cough up periodic contributions for political parties we do not support, and just as we are not expected to pay fees to groups lobbying for the modification of certain areas of public policy, I would not force workers to pay dues to a union. In all of these instances we might observe the problem of there being free riders benefiting from the extraordinary labors of a group of people who contribute disproportionately to social causes.

I see how this could hurt union membership, weaken the leverage union members have against their employers, and possibly lead to a loss of at least some benefits but these union security agreements seem needlessly restrictive of individual liberties and market competition. If we can regulate the working conditions of businesses and establish a strong enough safety net via the state I fail to see how things could turn out badly in the long-run. Incidentally, I do not consider this particular position anti-union so much as pro-freedom of association.

If union members want more leverage in negotiations with employers they should seek to recruit non-members into their organizations by making the benefits of union membership seem to be worth the cost in dues to be paid. If they fail, just as in the case of a party or special interest group seeking funds, they must choose whether to continue on - driven by principle or self-interest (either of which can be noble) - or they can decide their efforts are too costly relative to the general level of interest their constituents have in contributing to their political maneuvers and respond accordingly. It is not as if workers cannot reorganize at a later date if a sufficiently large number of them feel they are not getting a fair shake. Unless you convince me it is a dreadful mistake, I have no reservations about my amendment.

Then again, perhaps in doing this I've foolishly managed to alienate members of all parties assembled. O.o

[LastVoter]

Ya. Upon further review of the article in question and a couple of others I have decided to back the "right-to-work" position and think unions ought to partake in members-only collective bargaining. Labor unions are interest groups. Just as we are not all expected to cough up periodic contributions for political parties we do not support, and just as we are not expected to pay fees to groups lobbying for the modification of certain areas of public policy, I would not force workers to pay dues to a union. In all of these instances we might observe the problem of there being free riders benefiting from the extraordinary labors of a group of people who contribute disproportionately to social causes.

I see how this could hurt union membership, weaken the leverage union members have against their employers, and possibly lead to a loss of at least some benefits but these union security agreements seem needlessly restrictive of individual liberties and market competition. If we can regulate the working conditions of businesses and establish a strong enough safety net via the state I fail to see how things could turn out badly in the long-run. Incidentally, I do not consider this particular position anti-union so much as pro-freedom of association.

If union members want more leverage in negotiations with employers they should seek to recruit non-members into their organizations by making the benefits of union membership seem to be worth the cost in dues to be paid. If they fail, just as in the case of a party or special interest group seeking funds, they must choose whether to continue on - driven by principle or self-interest (either of which can be noble) - or they can decide their efforts are too costly relative to the general level of interest their constituents have in contributing to their political maneuvers and respond accordingly. It is not as if workers cannot reorganize at a later date if a sufficiently large number of them feel they are not getting a fair shake. Unless you convince me it is a dreadful mistake, I have no reservations about my amendment.

Then again, perhaps in doing this I've foolishly managed to alienate members of all parties assembled. O.o

Really I thought for as a labor member you wouldn't be writing this kind of legislation.  I suggest you read the effects of right-to-works laws on Southern & Midwestern Unions. It simply changes the workplace dynamics heavily against unions.

[Redalgo]

For the time being there is little to persuade me to change course posted here. Being in Labor does not mean I should conform to an orthodox interpretation of social democracy, democratic socialism, or progressivism either, incidentally. Sometimes my stances are well off to the left of what is typical of the party membership. Sometimes the opposite is true, as well. As a trustee occupying this seat, it is my responsibility to pursue courses of action I deem to be in the public's best interests. These perceptions don't always align my political objectives with those of unions.

At this time I would like to call for a final vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh dear, a call for a final vote containing debate about the bill itself.


I ask unanimous consent to waive the cloture requirement and proceed immediately to a final vote. Senators have 24 hours to object.


This is quicker then using a cloture vote.

[Redalgo]

Oh dear, a call for a final vote containing debate about the bill itself.

Anything I can do to make your job more interesting! ^^

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I really like e and h. A lot. Unfortunately I will not be able to support it because of some other sections that widen the scope of government through new claims of rights.

Amazing Grace is a personal and meditative tune that would be appropriate for a memorial occasion or as a national hymn. Adeste Fidelis is much better for a general purpose national anthem.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hearing no objection to the motion, a vote is now open on final passage of the underlying legislation, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Abstain.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nay