The Public Sector Strike Curtailment Act (Voting on Amendment)

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Deus Naturae]

Nay

[Cassius]

Aye

[DemPGH]

We appear to be in a systematic process of watering down, watering down, watering down. I think this talk of public workers striking and demolishing the bank, so to speak, is just fluff, but I'll do a little research. Like I said earlier, I know a little bit about that process, and no one ever goes in with unreasonable demands. I was on a committee that logged hours on top of hours culling data, putting together charts, and everything asked for was reasonable and supportable.

This is on pace to be vetoed or pared way, way back in a rewrite.

The conditions described in section 1 are odd or already existent. What is the meaning of 1B?

I don't see the connection between your committee membership and public-sector unions.

The problem with public-sector unions is that they're often employed by government monopolies, and based on my understanding of the current situation it's currently completely illegal to replace striking workers under any situation, no matter what their demands are. Your really think that's going to create an environment where unions limit themselves to "reasonable" demands?

Generally, I do, because it costs money to go on strike and because believe it or not, union people really do want fair treatment.

If you guys want to establish some protocol or "hoops" as it were, which is what I think Section 1 aims to do, that's a starter. But "strike busting" is not, IMO.

And I still, for e.g., have concerns about 1B.

[Lumine]

A majority has been reached here, and Senator Bore's amendment has passed.

Aye (6) President Pro-Tempore Lumine, Senator Bore, Senator Yankee, Senator Cynic, Senator Polnut and Senator Cassius.
Nay (3) Senator TNF, Senator JCL and Senator Deus.
Abstained (0)

Not Voting (1) Senator Cranberry.

[TNF]

Motion to table this bill.

[bore]

Proposing another amendment to follow through the implications of the last amendment on section 2, and to clarify the role of ACAS. I know many senators have a problem with the idea of the government intervening in private sector labor disputes, but this amendment makes clear that companies will only use ACAS if they want to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Cassius, your take on the proposed amendment?

[TNF]

I object to the proposed amendment.

[Cassius]

Cassius, your take on the proposed amendment?

The amendment's friendly.

[Lumine]

An objection has been filed by Senator TNF and 24 hours have passed.

Senators, a vote is now open on the proposed amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[bore]

Aye

[DemPGH]

This ABAC is not binding, correct? Is there a timespan on that process? ABAC approval to strike, for example, would not be acceptable to me.

Also, do we have laws that prohibit management from interfering in the voting and debating process leading to a strike? This is a major RL problem. Major. At least in the USA.

[Deus Naturae]

Nay

[Cassius]

Aye

[bore]

This ABAC is not binding, correct? Is there a timespan on that process? ABAC approval to strike, for example, would not be acceptable to me.

Also, do we have laws that prohibit management from interfering in the voting and debating process leading to a strike? This is a major RL problem. Major. At least in the USA.

ABAC is just a conciliation service. It just provides a place for both sides to talk with each other and helps them to reach a settlement.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE guess

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Nay

[Lumine]

Aye.

[DemPGH]

Okay, with 1B modified or removed and ABAC specified as non-binding, this looks pretty reasonable. In every situation there is protocol and process before a strike can be called, and if that's what we're establishing, which is what it looks like, then this honestly isn't that big a deal. Or, if it passes I may likely tweak a few things like I mentioned, but carry on, guys.

[TNF]

Nay