IDS2: Freedom of Contract Act

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This legislation would guarantee the fundamental freedoms of contract and association by removing restrictions the current law imposes on bargaining between unions and businesses - namely, the right of employers to choose to conclude specific forms of contracts with unions.

[Supersonic]

There have been no issues with industrial relations in the south thus far, so am I reluctant to change our current laws.

[Enderman]

I definitely support this, why? See Elysium.

[CatoMinor]

If the employer is willing to agree to union membership being required, then that is their choice. I don't really see a pressing need for this at the moment, but while it is up we might as well pass this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The thing that concerns me is that the prerogative of business owners to run their business as they see fit is protected. Employers should be able to engage in whatever contracts they want with unions, as well as engage in no contracts. If business owners can be protected from union interference if they so wish it, then I would be inclined to sign it.

     EDIT: I read a little bit about the issue, and it seems to me that the Right to Work law just prohibits union security agreements? I would be willing to sign this if it stipulates that only the employer can offer a contract including such an agreement and that unions cannot strike over refusal to include such an agreement. Basically so businessowners don't get held up by attempts to turn their businesses into union shops against their will.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I have been speaking with one of the Legislators and I am pleased to state that we should be seeing an amendment soon to make this more palatable to my distinctly right-wing tastes.

[Donerail]

     EDIT: I read a little bit about the issue, and it seems to me that the Right to Work law just prohibits union security agreements? I would be willing to sign this if it stipulates that only the employer can offer a contract including such an agreement and that unions cannot strike over refusal to include such an agreement. Basically so businessowners don't get held up by attempts to turn their businesses into union shops against their will.

I can't find it at this point, but given the composition the Senate has had for so long I feel as if there's a right to strike enshrined somewhere in federal law that we can't make carve outs to.

[CatoMinor]

I introduce the following amendment to this bill.

Freedom of Contract and Public Sector Unions Bill

1. "Emergency responders" shall be defined as police officers, firefighters, and any form of ambulance crew.

2. Emergency responders are hereby forbidden from striking.

3. Should more than 5% of the workforce in any subcategory of emergency responder report in sick on a given day, the Emperor shall have cause to declare a local or regional state of emergency as relevant.

4. The government of the Imperial Dominion of the South shall sign no employment contract that will increase the sum value of the salary and benefits earned by employees under said contract by more than 4%*(number of years for which the contract is valid).

5. The Return of the Right-to-Work Initiative is hereby repealed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I notice that nobody has commented on Jbrase's amendment. I am guessing that this is pretty uncontroversial stuff then?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm okay with most of the bill, but section 4 seems a tad restrictive.  Can we amend it so that it's more lenient and unions have more wiggle room for collective bargaining negotiations?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm okay with most of the bill, but section 4 seems a tad restrictive.  Can we amend it so that it's more lenient and unions have more wiggle room for collective bargaining negotiations?

     I'm not in love with that section. My goal with it was to discourage unions from making demands that were too aggressive. We had a recent kerfuffle with BART workers in the Bay Area. I don't know where they started, but at some point I remember them demanding a 23% raise over the next four years.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm okay with most of the bill, but section 4 seems a tad restrictive.  Can we amend it so that it's more lenient and unions have more wiggle room for collective bargaining negotiations?

     I'm not in love with that section. My goal with it was to discourage unions from making demands that were too aggressive. We had a recent kerfuffle with BART workers in the Bay Area. I don't know where they started, but at some point I remember them demanding a 23% raise over the next four years.

That's obviously not a realistic request, but negotiations are suppose to allow for flexibility on both ends.  If the unions ask for too much, I doubt they'll get the deal in the first place.  I've yet to hear of a case where a union got everything it wants, anyway.

How do you feel about giving the municipalities more autonomy over collective bargaining matters?  That way the unions will still have representation, but municipal governments will be held accountable for the way tax dollars are spent.  They make the majority of the decisions on these things, anyway.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A bit of horse-trading? Expanding it to more sectors while establishing a mandatory level of service for those sectors. 5% seemed a bit restrictive, and I'd rather the upper bound on increases be higher - with the current wordings unions would start at 4% and employers at 0%, which doesn't leave that much room to negotiate. I doubt unions will be able to press for exorbitant raises like BART did. 15% (well, 14.76%) was also the inflation rate in March of 1980, so it'd allow pay raises to match inflation under all circumstances.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think I can support this amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Should change "emergency responder" to "essential personnel" in Section 3. I wrote that part to discourage blue flu among the covered groups, but I'm not actually sure what percentage of absences is to be expected with the blue flu. Overall, I'm fine with this change.

     4%*4 years would mean a 16% total raise, which is somewhere close to what BART ended up agreeing on. At this stage, 60% over 4 years would be a ludicrous amount and I'm not sure any union would start that high. How about we leave it lower, but just suspend that provision if inflation grows too large? If we have 15% inflation, then the region is facing much bigger problems than unreasonable demands from the police union.

[Donerail]

     Should change "emergency responder" to "essential personnel" in Section 3. I wrote that part to discourage blue flu among the covered groups, but I'm not actually sure what percentage of absences is to be expected with the blue flu. Overall, I'm fine with this change.

     4%*4 years would mean a 16% total raise, which is somewhere close to what BART ended up agreeing on. At this stage, 60% over 4 years would be a ludicrous amount and I'm not sure any union would start that high. How about we leave it lower, but just suspend that provision if inflation grows too large? If we have 15% inflation, then the region is facing much bigger problems than unreasonable demands from the police union.

Got it - changed it to 6% with an inflation clause.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Looks good to me.

[Donerail]

24 hours before I call a final vote here then.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I was thinking and it occurred to me, we should specify that the cap returns once inflation goes low enough. As is, it might be interpreted to permanently remove the cap when inflation hits 6% once.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

     I was thinking and it occurred to me, we should specify that the cap returns once inflation goes low enough. As is, it might be interpreted to permanently remove the cap when inflation hits 6% once.

How low do you feel would be appropriate?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I was thinking and it occurred to me, we should specify that the cap returns once inflation goes low enough. As is, it might be interpreted to permanently remove the cap when inflation hits 6% once.

How low do you feel would be appropriate?

     SJoyce actually edited his amendment to meet that concern of mine. I'm happy with how this bill has turned out.

[Supersonic]

I move for a final vote on the Speakers recommendation (erm, three days ago).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Members, a final vote is now open.  Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Bump.