MA: Amendment to the Labor Relations Act (Statute)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Mr. X

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So...can we get a vote on this?

[Gass3268]

I propose the fallowing amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

How about an even 2/3's?

[Gass3268]

How about an even 2/3's?

I could do that along with the removal of section 3.

[tmthforu94]

So...can we get a vote on this?

Also, Mr. X, could you please outline what this changes from the original bill?

[tmthforu94]

Also, is this even necessary since this is about to pass in the Senate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Snowstalker

[Gass3268]

Also, is this even necessary since this is about to pass in the Senate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Snowstalker

Is it necessary to have our own abortion bill with there already being a Federal law recently put in place?

[tmthforu94]

Also, is this even necessary since this is about to pass in the Senate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Snowstalker

Is it necessary to have our own abortion bill with there already being a Federal law recently put in place?

The validity of that bill has never been confirmed.

[Gass3268]

Also, is this even necessary since this is about to pass in the Senate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Snowstalker

Is it necessary to have our own abortion bill with there already being a Federal law recently put in place?

The validity of that bill has never been confirmed.

Any word if that is ever going to happen?

[tmthforu94]

Also, is this even necessary since this is about to pass in the Senate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Snowstalker

Is it necessary to have our own abortion bill with there already being a Federal law recently put in place?

The validity of that bill has never been confirmed.

Any word if that is ever going to happen?

Not a clue. I only involve myself with the federal government when it's absolutely needed. I'll shoot Yankee a PM now.

[tmthforu94]

I suppose we have been in violation of the abortion law for a while, but no action has really been taken on it. I'll try and contact some folks and see the precedent on that. However, it doesn't make sense for you guys to be passing this when the version in the Senate is even more liberal. It'd be smarter to just repeal everything and abide by federal law.

[Gass3268]

Also, is this even necessary since this is about to pass in the Senate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Snowstalker

Is it necessary to have our own abortion bill with there already being a Federal law recently put in place?

The validity of that bill has never been confirmed.

Any word if that is ever going to happen?

Not a clue. I only involve myself with the federal government when it's absolutely needed. I'll shoot Yankee a PM now.

Someone should get Bacon King on the case!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So...can we get a vote on this?

Also, Mr. X, could you please outline what this changes from the original bill?

To answer Governor Tmthforu94's question, it removes the right to low wages ("right to work") language.  I am also fine with the changes suggested by Assemblyman Gass3268 (the removal of section 3 and changing the percentage in section 2, article 1 to 67%

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And why the removal of right to work?

[Kitteh]

And why the removal of right to work?

Because it has been consistently shown to lead to lower wages everywhere it is passed.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And why the removal of right to work?

Because it has been consistently shown to lead to lower wages everywhere it is passed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And why the removal of right to work?

Because it has been consistently shown to lead to lower wages everywhere it is passed.

But it offers people the choice not to join a union.  If they so choose to do so, why should they not be allowed to do so?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And why the removal of right to work?

Because it has been consistently shown to lead to lower wages everywhere it is passed.

But it offers people the choice not to join a union.  If they so choose to do so, why should they not be allowed to do so?

Because it creates a free-loader problem, they get the benefits of being in a union without paying membership dues.

[Kitteh]

And why the removal of right to work?

Because it has been consistently shown to lead to lower wages everywhere it is passed.

But it offers people the choice not to join a union.  If they so choose to do so, why should they not be allowed to do so?

Because it creates a situation where someone can benefit from agreements like better wages and benefits that were obtained through collective bargaining, while not having to pay the costs (such as union dues) that were necessary to obtain such agreements. This sets up a version of the prisoner's dilemma where the best scenario for the group would be to cooperate (maintaining the union and keeping higher wages and benefits), but the best scenario for each individual is for them to not cooperate and the others to cooperate (meaning they get higher wages but don't have the costs associated with being in a union) and the worst scenario for each individual would be to cooperate while others don't (leading to them having to pay union costs but have wages go down anyway). This creates an incentive for all workers to avoid cooperation, which leads to the second-worst possible outcome for each individual and the worst possible outcome for the group as a whole.

Not to mention that people can be legally required to do many things as part of the contract they sign for a job. They can be required to undergo drug tests (in most states), wear certain clothes, work certain hours, etc. If that is legal, then why shouldn't requiring someone to join a union as part of their contract be?

This seems like a conservative position, to allow for maximum freedom of contract. Right-to-work is the government outlawing a specific type of contract freely entered into by two private-sector individuals or organizations. That seems like a pretty strange thing for a free-market, laissez-faire person to support. It's a big government, not small government, type of law.

From a more leftist perspective, I don't think that most contracts are really "freely" entered into given socioeconomic pressures on most workers to find a job, and so I support government intervention to level the imbalance of power between employer and employee. Right-to-work legislation doesn't do anything to relieve that imbalance though, in fact it does the opposite, so I don't support it. Supporting right-to-work isn't a conservative position, but it's not a liberal/leftist one either. It's a big government corporatist position, an example of using the power of the government to intervene in private matters in support of business.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And why the removal of right to work?

Because it has been consistently shown to lead to lower wages everywhere it is passed.

But it offers people the choice not to join a union.  If they so choose to do so, why should they not be allowed to do so?

Because it creates a free-loader problem, they get the benefits of being in a union without paying membership dues.

How so?

"4. It is hereby illegal in the Mideast Region for any non-union employee to take advantage of any benefit or perk that was gained or provided to employees by a union.This includes wages, health care, vacation, pensions and any other benefit provided by the union. The non-union employees will have to deal directly with their employer in order to set their own wages and benefits."

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And why the removal of right to work?

Because it has been consistently shown to lead to lower wages everywhere it is passed.

But it offers people the choice not to join a union.  If they so choose to do so, why should they not be allowed to do so?

Because it creates a free-loader problem, they get the benefits of being in a union without paying membership dues.

How so?

"4. It is hereby illegal in the Mideast Region for any non-union employee to take advantage of any benefit or perk that was gained or provided to employees by a union.This includes wages, health care, vacation, pensions and any other benefit provided by the union. The non-union employees will have to deal directly with their employer in order to set their own wages and benefits."

The tiebreaker on the commission is an "independent mediator."  I don't know if you are familiar with binding arbitration's effects on lawsuits, but what often happens is that legitimate lawsuits are usually thrown out and the arbitrators (despite their theoretical independence) generally do whatever the company wants them to.  The reason is that they make their money from repeat customers, so companies don't hire people if they rule against a company (arbitrators who do so are essentially blacklisted).  As a result, the arbitrators have a major financial incentive to side with the company regardless of the facts of the case.  I worry that the same thing would happen with an "independent mediator."  Companies will simply "encourage" them to find that no employees violated section 4, regardless of the whether or not they did so.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Then let's work on fixing that problem, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Then let's work on fixing that problem, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Getting rid of the right to lower wages language is the best way to fix the problem, imo.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Where is the independent mediator language?