Railway Labor Act of 2014 (Law'd)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator TNF

[TNF]

The Railway Labor Act is a weird thing from the 1920s that colossally s up collective bargaining for railroad workers, because it effectively creates different rules for collective bargaining for them and every other kind of worker. This corrects that by repealing the Railway Labor Act and giving railroad workers the exact same collective bargaining rights as every other worker.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

As long as union membership is not mandated I could back this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wht was the motivation for the 1926 bill?

[TNF]

Wht was the motivation for the 1926 bill?

In 1926 it was to establish collective bargaining procedures for railway workers. Of course, a completely separate procedure was established for most of the industrial workforce in 1935, and no one ever got around to integrating the railway workers under the framework of the Wagner Act. This does that, once and for all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What kind of transitional issues can we expect from a sudden changeover?

[DemPGH]

Good research, TNF. I'll just say here that I support your efforts to repeal a lot of these old laws on the books that are now either no longer needed or are not compatible with our current status.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Could you give some examples of the differences between the two procedures and which one is objectively superior from the perspective of the workers?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Must straight forward always be boring?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

As long as union membership is not mandated I could back this.

I've always like the Rand Formula in Canada. You don't have to join but you do have to pay. I mean, surely you can admit that free-riders are a problem in RTW jurisdictions...?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

As long as union membership is not mandated I could back this.

I've always like the Rand Formula in Canada. You don't have to join but you do have to pay. I mean, surely you can admit that free-riders are a problem in RTW jurisdictions...?

Forcing folks to pay union dues who don't want to join is something I'm firmly against.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So when a union fights for and wins safer equipment for fire fighters, I suppose the boss should force non-members to wear substandard gear and put their lives in jeopardy? Not to mention the lives of the other people in that person's crew?

Obviously not.

So non-members will reap the benefits of the union without paying dues. And then everyone at work will see that they can get the same stuff for free and quit the union too. And then suddenly the union will find itself with no resources to fight for this equipment and fire fighters will have to face unnecessary risks in the line of duty. The public will be less safe.

Have you ever opted out of taxes, JCL?

[TNF]

Could you give some examples of the differences between the two procedures and which one is objectively superior from the perspective of the workers?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As secondary boycotts and intermittent strikes are already legal under Atlasian law (thanks to the repeal of Taft-Hartley), I see no reason as to why we shouldn't go forward with streamlining our collective bargaining process.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Could you give some examples of the differences between the two procedures and which one is objectively superior from the perspective of the workers?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As secondary boycotts and intermittent strikes are already legal under Atlasian law (thanks to the repeal of Taft-Hartley), I see no reason as to why we shouldn't go forward with streamlining our collective bargaining process.

Taft-Hartley will be coming back. You can bank on that.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Could you give some examples of the differences between the two procedures and which one is objectively superior from the perspective of the workers?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As secondary boycotts and intermittent strikes are already legal under Atlasian law (thanks to the repeal of Taft-Hartley), I see no reason as to why we shouldn't go forward with streamlining our collective bargaining process.

Taft-Hartley will be coming back. You can bank on that.

You're not going to entertain my scenario?

[Deus Naturae]

So when a union fights for and wins safer equipment for fire fighters, I suppose the boss should force non-members to wear substandard gear and put their lives in jeopardy? Not to mention the lives of the other people in that person's crew?

Obviously not.

So non-members will reap the benefits of the union without paying dues. And then everyone at work will see that they can get the same stuff for free and quit the union too. And then suddenly the union will find itself with no resources to fight for this equipment and fire fighters will have to face unnecessary risks in the line of duty. The public will be less safe.

Have you ever opted out of taxes, JCL?

So, workers who choose not to pay union dues are moochers who are taking advantage of unions for free stuff, but if the unions decide to stop negotiating for this free stuff on their behalf, they become oppressed victims who are being "forced" to use lower-quality equipment?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So when a union fights for and wins safer equipment for fire fighters, I suppose the boss should force non-members to wear substandard gear and put their lives in jeopardy? Not to mention the lives of the other people in that person's crew?

Obviously not.

So non-members will reap the benefits of the union without paying dues. And then everyone at work will see that they can get the same stuff for free and quit the union too. And then suddenly the union will find itself with no resources to fight for this equipment and fire fighters will have to face unnecessary risks in the line of duty. The public will be less safe.

Have you ever opted out of taxes, JCL?

So, workers who choose not to pay union dues are moochers who are taking advantage of unions for free stuff, but if the unions decide to stop negotiating for this free stuff on their behalf, they become oppressed victims who are being "forced" to use lower-quality equipment?

Yes. Maybe it's okay if you were taking the risk on lower-quality equipment just for yourself, but in a field like fire fighting there's no such thing as an individual. You're put on a crew of four (it would be less if unions were not involved) and those four people rely on each other. Two-in, two-out: You send two fire fighters into a burning building and two remain outside in case something happens to the others. If even one of those people has shyte equipment, the entire crew is at risk.

I mean, it's easy to talk all this smack about unions, and I agree that they are not angels, but let's not forget that organized labour doesn't just stand for inflated wages and pouring money into politics. It's not that easy. Some conservatives like to talk in broad strokes about unions, but the intricacies matter.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Anyway, I'm distracting from the current debate. I like this proposal, TNF.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I suppose I am satisfied as well, now that we had the Hagrid-JCL exchange in here and a few other responses it is not as dead as it was.

[TNF]

I motion that we proceed to a final vote.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A final vote is now open.
Please senators, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[bore]

Aye

[TNF]

Aye

[Goldwater]

AYE

[Lumine]

Aye.