The Public Sector Strike Curtailment Act (Voting on Amendment)

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Cassius


Senator, you have 24 hours to begin advocating for this.

[TNF]

Motion to table.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I do support giving enough bargaining power to public sector workers to make sure they are well paid and have safe conditions.

On the other hand, such positions by their nature often have a lopsided advantage since the service is something that cannot be done without and the political incentives often mean that the people sitting on the other side of the table are negotiating not based on what is best for the city or municipality, but based on what is based for their election. This has created the whole pension crisis as such officials gave away the store over the long term while keeping the current term budget looking good and of course attaining lucrative support from the various unions of the workers who receive the increased benefits. This process played out over and over again in the 1990's and was made worse by the rising stock market, which once removed, left the cities high and dry and much earlier than expected.

A company formed to make a private profit is one thing and the loss of such is not as critical as is the loss of public services and in such cases the negiotiating is not with the represenatives of capital but with that of citizens and taxpayers. The interests differ to such an extent that the relationship and structure of the worker organizations should likewise differ.

Also, I am pretty sure the PPT loses his authority to run the Senate after the new Senate starts until a new one is elected.

[DemPGH]

I will not support this because I believe in a right to strike.

Also, I am pretty sure the PPT loses his authority to run the Senate after the new Senate starts until a new one is elected.

Hmm. I guess it's muddy because it's up to the VP to do certain things and there is no VP. Plus we have a court case ongoing to decide some of this!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I will not support this because I believe in a right to strike.

Also, I am pretty sure the PPT loses his authority to run the Senate after the new Senate starts until a new one is elected.

Hmm. I guess it's muddy because it's up to the VP to do certain things and there is no VP. Plus we have a court case ongoing to decide some of this!

Public Sector employees do not have the right to strike. To quote Calvin Coolidge

There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

An amendment to propose

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Cassius


Senator, you have 24 hours to begin advocating for this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I need to read more on this - but I believe every employee should have the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike in certain circumstances. In relation to public sector workers, many deal with issues of life and death and it would be ridiculous to ignore that reality.

I will formulate a more concrete position soon.

[Simfan34]

I love this. It might not be legal or even wise, but I just love it.

[President Tyrion]

I will not support this because I believe in a right to strike.

Also, I am pretty sure the PPT loses his authority to run the Senate after the new Senate starts until a new one is elected.

Hmm. I guess it's muddy because it's up to the VP to do certain things and there is no VP. Plus we have a court case ongoing to decide some of this!

Yeah, we're in a bit of a grey area. Do we just let the Senate grind to a complete halt?

[Simfan34]

I will not support this because I believe in a right to strike.

Also, I am pretty sure the PPT loses his authority to run the Senate after the new Senate starts until a new one is elected.

Hmm. I guess it's muddy because it's up to the VP to do certain things and there is no VP. Plus we have a court case ongoing to decide some of this!

Yeah, we're in a bit of a grey area. Do we just let the Senate grind to a complete halt?

I think that is the law.

[Cassius]

First of all, I would say that this bill does not aim to completely ban public employees from striking (except in the case of the exceptions mentioned in 1d, but, if I recall correctly, that is simply reiterating the current legal situation there); instead, its more of an attempt to make it harder for them to do so. I think, personally, that the conditions laid out in 1a, b and c are perfectly reasonable; if we are going to have public sector strikes, then it should be made sure that there undertaken in an orderly fashion so as minimise the potential disruption caused (see 1c) and to protect the right not to strike by public employees (see 1b).

Secondly of course, this bill will put in place a system of penalties and rewards (the former to be imposed in cases where employees are found to have violated strike law and the latter for employees who choose not to go on a legal strike). I think that its in the interest of the public to have public services that run efficiently and effectively, and I do believe that this can best be achieved in an atmosphere where public sector strikes are relatively rare. Thus, I think that this rewards and penalties system will help to reduce the risk of strike action, and encourage the use of calmer methods to resolve any disputes that arise.

I need to read more on this - but I believe every employee should have the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike in certain circumstances. In relation to public sector workers, many deal with issues of life and death and it would be ridiculous to ignore that reality.

I will formulate a more concrete position soon.

I'll just reiterate the point that this bill does not ban collective bargaining, nor does it even ban strike action. The purpose of this bill is simply to reduce the likelihood of strike action, which can be very disruptive (and often rather useless).

[TNF]

I am going to go ahead and object to JCL's amendment. I will continue to operate as PPT in the interest of this place not completely grinding to a halt until we can elect a new PPT. If you don't like that, sue me. But I am not about to let this body fall into complete inactivity.

[TNF]

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


NAY

This amendment is illegal as per the Amendment to the Labor Rights Act of 2012. Scabbing is banned in Atlasia and should not be revived by our resident proto-fascist right-wing led by JCL and Simfan.

[bore]

Article VI clause 11 of the constitution reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm fairly certain what JCL is proposing is not only bad policy, but unconstitutional. So, Nay.

I don't actually think that requiring a ballot is that unreasonable, although I think that 1c is stupid, and the whole bill is a bit wordy, and thus open to interpretation. Section 2 is needlessly prescriptive-- if someone does something illegal then the punishment should be decided on a case by case basis. And there is no way I'll ever support anything with section 3. Also section 4 doesn't need to say unless otherwise stated, because nothing is stated.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

While I don't support mandatory union membership as part of employment, I also don't support the organisation bringing on replacement staff specifically because they are non-union staff.

To the amendment NAY

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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


NAY

This amendment is illegal as per the Amendment to the Labor Rights Act of 2012. Scabbing is banned in Atlasia and should not be revived by our resident proto-fascist right-wing led by JCL and Simfan.

I'll be addressing the Labor Rights Act of 2012 soon enough. I'm not any sort of fascist TNF. You cannot operate as PPT as we are in a new session. Motion to delay the vote on the amendment until we have a proper and legitimate PPT.

[TNF]

Again, I'm going to continue acting as PPT until we have an election and certify either myself as that position or Lumine or someone else, so you're just going to have to deal with it. If you're so upset about it, please file suit with me. Otherwise, quit wasting my time and the space allotted for debating and voting on your ludicrous amendment in this thread. Thank you.

[Adam Griffin]

I will not support this because I believe in a right to strike.

Also, I am pretty sure the PPT loses his authority to run the Senate after the new Senate starts until a new one is elected.

Hmm. I guess it's muddy because it's up to the VP to do certain things and there is no VP. Plus we have a court case ongoing to decide some of this!

Yeah, we're in a bit of a grey area. Do we just let the Senate grind to a complete halt?

It's not Labor's Senate to worry about anymore.

[Deus Naturae]

Aye. I fail to see how hiring replacement workers abridges the right to collectively bargain.

Also, scabbing is banned? What happens if the striking employees and can't come to an agreement with management?

[Deus Naturae]

As for the bill in general, I strongly dislike public-sector strikes as I view their participants as taking advantage of the fact that they're generally employed by government monopolies to extort taxpayers who are forced to rely on said monopolies for vital services. That said, I'm not sure what this bill is meant to accomplish. What's the point in reducing the pay of striking workers? Surely if the strike is successful, it will end with a net increase in pay? Also, increasing the pay of non-strikers strikes me (no pun intended) as somewhat self-defeating. Public-sector strikes aren't bad because they're strikes, they're bad because they involve the monopolistic extortion of taxpayers for the benefit of the strikers. My point is, it makes little sense to increase the pay of public-sector workers in an attempt to curtail strikes when the purpose behind the curtailment of said strikes would be to prevent public-sector workers from imposing excessive costs upon taxpayers.

[Dr. Cynic]

As to the amendment: Nay

I don't know if what's being proposed is legal, but even if it is, I don't like it. To call striking useless is also a bit of silliness. Employees shouldn't be punished for striking. See, I've always found this position so inconsistent. Conservatives say on one hand that a person's wages is between them and their employer. Ok, fair enough, but considering that one worker alone really has no bargaining power, they go and decide to form a union. Then, when the unions negotiate and possibly strike, they want to punish them for it with a bill like this. Help me understand this position. Just admit the bias towards the employer and move on or really examine your position for consistency, because I really don't understand it.

How does it abridge the right? Well, it undermines their ability to get a wage increase because a scab can come in and do the job for a cheaper price and let the striker out on their ear. Many people don't consider things like seniority. A guy's been on the job for 20 years, say. He goes on strike with his union. The company hires a scab to fill his job who is a young guy and will work for less. Well, that leaves that person out on their ear because they struck to bargain for a better wage. It's an awful practice that does nothing but benefit the employer and it leaves the worker with absolutely no ability to bargain at all.

[Cassius]

As to the amendment: Nay

I don't know if what's being proposed is legal, but even if it is, I don't like it. To call striking useless is also a bit of silliness. Employees shouldn't be punished for striking. See, I've always found this position so inconsistent. Conservatives say on one hand that a person's wages is between them and their employer. Ok, fair enough, but considering that one worker alone really has no bargaining power, they go and decide to form a union. Then, when the unions negotiate and possibly strike, they want to punish them for it with a bill like this. Help me understand this position. Just admit the bias towards the employer and move on or really examine your position for consistency, because I really don't understand it.

How does it abridge the right? Well, it undermines their ability to get a wage increase because a scab can come in and do the job for a cheaper price and let the striker out on their ear. Many people don't consider things like seniority. A guy's been on the job for 20 years, say. He goes on strike with his union. The company hires a scab to fill his job who is a young guy and will work for less. Well, that leaves that person out on their ear because they struck to bargain for a better wage. It's an awful practice that does nothing but benefit the employer and it leaves the worker with absolutely no ability to bargain at all.

I'm not sure as to whether your responding to JCL's amendment or the bill as a whole, because, again, the bill in question does not bar public sector workers from striking.

As to 1c Bore, why, in particular, do you think its stupid? The idea is to prevent strike ballots being called, won, and followed swiftly by strike action, as this, doubtless, would be more disruptive than if a two week interval was put in place, which would give more time for those affected by strike action to put in place contingency plans for any disruption.

As for the bill in general, I strongly dislike public-sector strikes as I view their participants as taking advantage of the fact that they're generally employed by government monopolies to extort taxpayers who are forced to rely on said monopolies for vital services. That said, I'm not sure what this bill is meant to accomplish. What's the point in reducing the pay of striking workers? Surely if the strike is successful, it will end with a net increase in pay? Also, increasing the pay of non-strikers strikes me (no pun intended) as somewhat self-defeating. Public-sector strikes aren't bad because they're strikes, they're bad because they involve the monopolistic extortion of taxpayers for the benefit of the strikers. My point is, it makes little sense to increase the pay of public-sector workers in an attempt to curtail strikes when the purpose behind the curtailment of said strikes would be to prevent public-sector workers from imposing excessive costs upon taxpayers.

The purpose of this bill, first and foremost, is to try and make disruptive strikes less common; because, after all, strikes can and do cause heavy disruption; those affected by them will have to make new arrangements, often at a very short notice (for example, the parents of kids affected by a teaching strike may, depending on the age of the child, either have to take a day off work or find someone to look after them for a day). The proposal to reward those who don't go on strike with a bonus to their wage (a temporary one, mind you) is in the bill so as to make it less attractive to strike. Don't forget also that a temporary pay increase on the part of some workers will add up to less than permanent wage increases for all workers.

[Cranberry]

I do not like this bill. Even if it does not completely prohibit striking for public employees, it does make it considerably hard, and puts quite a few obstacles for people that want to exercise their rights to strike. It takes considerable bargaining power from the workers, and I don't like that. Yes, public sector strikes are always bad, but nevertheless, they should be able to exercise their rights like every other worker, too.

As for the amendment, Nay of course. 

[bore]

Does atlasia have a version of ACAS? If so I can see the argument for their being some sort of cooling offf period after the balllot (maybe a week). My main problem with 1c is that strikes are a democratic right, and they shouldn't be banned and they shouldn't be completely neutered (the inverse, that they shouldn't be crippling is also true)

[DemPGH]

There's something in general I want to say about strikes. Of course I oppose the bill, but what we have to keep in mind is that there is substantial risk to calling a strike - public worker or not. One is, it may not work - or you may not get enough of what you want for it to be considered a success (siege mentality can take over); it may be an empty victory, in other words. Second and most importantly, there is financial risk to a strike - I know from my own white collar union experience. If you strike, you don't earn money. So what I'm saying is, strikes are for good reason (I never begrudge union members their benefits), and are necessary to ensure a certain balance of power, and I will not curtail strikes or introduce all these disincentives.

EDIT: I also can't tell you how frustrating it is to spend hours on a proposal, only to have the company side look at it for 15 minutes, say "Nah," and then just look at you.