MA: Amendment to the Labor Relations Act (Statute)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

[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%

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Where is the independent mediator language?

It is in the same section (different clause, obviously) as the clause you posted in response to my claim that right-to-low-wages language created a free-loader problem (though obviously it is a different clause).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Would there be support for the establishment of a Labor Relations Board?

I would much prefer to simply remove the right to work language altogether.  That seems like both simplest and the best solution.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I motion for a vote, it is clear how everyone intends to vote and I don't see that changing with further debate at this point.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye