SENATE BILL: Collective Bargaining Modernization Act of 2013 (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TNF

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours of course.

[TNF]

This is another pretty straight forward bill that allows unions to organize industry-wide. In a global economy, we need unions that are strong enough to bargain across whole sectors of industry, rather than small, piecemeal units that deal with employers on a plant-by-plant basis. This will lead to better results, too, in terms of standardizing wage rates across industry via collective bargaining agreement and ending a lot of labor strife by guaranteeing unionization in industries where these industry-wide agreements exist.

The Finns do this and it works out pretty well. I don't see why it can't happen here. The bill also establishes works councils, which allow the unions to have a very big role in the day-to-day management of the workplace, increasing democracy on the job and holding workers to account for their end of the collective bargaining agreement. Works councils work great in Germany and were established in the United States during World War II, so again, I don't think there's a reason why we can't use them here.

[President Tyrion]

I think this is great.

I worry that there's not an opt-out clause for certain workers. There will always be people who don't want to join the union, for whatever reason.

Also, here's an amendment. This way, if the local CBA has clauses which improve working standards (less hours, more vacation days, etc), those can also take precedence, since that can oftentimes be finagled as not a "benefit" but a standard.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

There isn't a chance I'll vote for this, but you already knew that. I'll see if I can't offer something as an amendment though.

[TNF]

The only circumstances under which I would deem an opt-out provision as friendly is if those workers who benefit from the union-negotiated contract have to pay at least a representation fee. They shouldn't be able to freeload.

[President Tyrion]

The only circumstances under which I would deem an opt-out provision as friendly is if those workers who benefit from the union-negotiated contract have to pay at least a representation fee. They shouldn't be able to freeload.

Hm, I intended the opt-out to be "complete", in that they won't receive any benefits from the CBA and must negotiate any non-federally mandated salary increases or vacation on their own. It's essentially a "lone ranger" provision, so they would not be allowed to freeload. How about this?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I'm not convinced that the companies in question won't just give those employees the same benefits anyway, even if they forgo the representation fee. I think this basically needs to say that you have to pay the representation fee if you aren't part of the union, period. Anything else leaves far too much wiggle room for corporate America to undermine the whole process.

[Maxwell]

I support the Opt-out option that Tyrion is bringing up.

[TNF]

I will only support opt-out if there's a required representation fee.

[President Tyrion]

I'm not convinced that the companies in question won't just give those employees the same benefits anyway, even if they forgo the representation fee. I think this basically needs to say that you have to pay the representation fee if you aren't part of the union, period. Anything else leaves far too much wiggle room for corporate America to undermine the whole process.

Well, I'm not sure I'm comfortable forcing people to be bound by union representation. Lots of people prefer to be without unions, regardless of how that might dilute negotiating power.

[TNF]

I'm not convinced that the companies in question won't just give those employees the same benefits anyway, even if they forgo the representation fee. I think this basically needs to say that you have to pay the representation fee if you aren't part of the union, period. Anything else leaves far too much wiggle room for corporate America to undermine the whole process.

Well, I'm not sure I'm comfortable forcing people to be bound by union representation. Lots of people prefer to be without unions, regardless of how that might dilute negotiating power.

The latter is far more important than the former, in my opinion. Like I said, I'll support opt-out but only if we require those covered by the contract to pay the fee. It's only fair that they contribute something in return for getting a whole slew of benefits from the union negotiated contract. I don't think that's too much to ask of anyone.

[President Tyrion]

I'm not convinced that the companies in question won't just give those employees the same benefits anyway, even if they forgo the representation fee. I think this basically needs to say that you have to pay the representation fee if you aren't part of the union, period. Anything else leaves far too much wiggle room for corporate America to undermine the whole process.

Well, I'm not sure I'm comfortable forcing people to be bound by union representation. Lots of people prefer to be without unions, regardless of how that might dilute negotiating power.

The latter is far more important than the former, in my opinion. Like I said, I'll support opt-out but only if we require those covered by the contract to pay the fee. It's only fair that they contribute something in return for getting a whole slew of benefits from the union negotiated contract. I don't think that's too much to ask of anyone.

Certainly. If they get the benefits, they should pay for representation.

I'm wondering if there's a way to keep those benefits from being conferred to nonmembers.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I, too, would favor an opt-out clause. I would not feel comfortable forcing people to join a union if they did not want to. If we can amend the bill to include that, I am ok with charging for representation.

[TNF]

I'm not convinced that the companies in question won't just give those employees the same benefits anyway, even if they forgo the representation fee. I think this basically needs to say that you have to pay the representation fee if you aren't part of the union, period. Anything else leaves far too much wiggle room for corporate America to undermine the whole process.

Well, I'm not sure I'm comfortable forcing people to be bound by union representation. Lots of people prefer to be without unions, regardless of how that might dilute negotiating power.

The latter is far more important than the former, in my opinion. Like I said, I'll support opt-out but only if we require those covered by the contract to pay the fee. It's only fair that they contribute something in return for getting a whole slew of benefits from the union negotiated contract. I don't think that's too much to ask of anyone.

Certainly. If they get the benefits, they should pay for representation.

I'm wondering if there's a way to keep those benefits from being conferred to nonmembers.

Not without enacting some kind of byzantine scheme. The best way to handle this is to simply require the representation fee for non-union members.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unclear
Status: Pending Clarification/Vote in 24 hours otherwise

[President Tyrion]

Ok, I withdraw Amendment 58:44 and instead put forward this amendment with clearer wording.

This amendment, however, does still allow for an opt-out, of which TNF has indicated he is not a fan. In my defense, I think this is the best way to protect the rights of individual workers (and also the best way to pass this bill).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I'm still very leery of allowing someone to opt-out of the representation fee. I do not trust the companies to negotiate with individuals and give them something radically different than those not party to the agreement. I think if you're going to enforce that you need to put a fine in there, or something, because otherwise they're just going to offer the same benefits to the non-union, non-fee paying worker; that's what happens in right-to-work states as is IRL

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: What I am suppose to do with this one now
STatus: Pending Clarification I guess/Vote in 24 hours without it.

[TNF]

Friendly for now, though I'll propose an amendment to clarify it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment 58:46 has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[President Tyrion]

Well, what do we think here?

This essentially forces workers in any unionized sector to pay a fee if they don't unionize. I'm trying to rack my brains for the ramifications of such a move.

But TNF's point is important; when you have 99% of the sector collectively bargaining or paying a representation fee, the 1% is likely just going to ride on those sector negotiations.