The Public Sector Strike Curtailment Act (Voting on Amendment)

[Cassius]

By the way, I'm planning (once this amendment has been voted upon) to introduce an amendment of my own to the present bill, to address some of the concerns raised here, so don't table it just yet.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

WRONG

It is not law that the Senate has to grind to a halt.
 
I opened dozens of PPT elections as Dean back when the VP could not even be bother to do that much or had resigned.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain for now

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Firstly, the suggestion that public-spirited emergency/front-line service workers would willingly risk lives is a bit of an insult. Secondly, the only thing I will support is ensuring that there is a proportion of the work-force, say 15-20% who must remain on duty, even during a strike. However, maybe some restrictions during times of war or significant natural disasters.

Really? Two-weeks notice for a strike ballot?

[TNF]

With five votes against, no votes in favor, one abstaining, and four not voting, the amendment has been rejected.

Aye(s): None
Nay(s): President Pro Tempore TNF, Senator bore, Senator Polnut, Senator Cynic, Senator Cranberry
Abstaining: Senator North Carolina Yankee
Not voting: Senator JCL, Senator Cassius, Senator Lumine, Senator Deus

[Lumine]

Abstain, FTR, since I'm concerned with the constitutionality of the amendment.

[Cassius]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is getting better.

I'm not sure I see the point of the 20% rule. For instance, if 20% of a school stays on, no classes can go ahead, whereas in a hospital there should be much stricter conditions.

[Dr. Cynic]

What determines an illegal strike? Just what's laid out in this bill? This is getting close to something I can vote for, but I'd like to know the scope of what constitutes illegality.

[windjammer]

Sorry for interrupting,
But, the idea that 20% of the work-force shouldn't be able to go on strike is uncommonly silly. That would simply KILL the public sector unions. Do you realize that???

[Cranberry]

Sorry for interrupting,
But, the idea that 20% of the work-force shouldn't be able to go on strike is uncommonly silly. That would simply KILL the public sector unions. Do you realize that???

I shall think Cassius would not be the saddest person if that happened

Anyway, this version I like far better than the first version. I would like to see the one week in 1c possibly reduced to three days; and I really don't like the 20% rule.. As Windjammer said, what would be the point of striking in the first place, and secondly, how would these people be determined?

I really like the new clause 3. Such a board is a great idea, as appropiate measures of talking are very succesfull in lowering the number of strikes. In Austria we have an institution called the "social partnership", which is basically like a union of employers in one sector talking with/against a union of employees in one sector. We never have strikes, I cannot remember a single strike in Austria in my lifetime, but one teachers and students protest march on the afternoon last year (which I proudly participated in )

[Cassius]

With regards to the 20% rule, I think in hindsight its a good idea to be more specific as to which services would be covered by this rule. You're quite right Bore about the pointlessness of such a rule in the education sector for example. Polnut, given that you first raised the idea outlined in 1d, do you have any thoughts on that particular passage? Also, Windjammer and Cranberry, such a bill wouldn't destroy the public sector unions (after all, if 80% of the workforce is on strike, then that's still plenty of incentive to get management to come to the table), but I think, as I've said before, we have to balance the interests of public employees with those of the population at large who often depend upon these services, and I don't think that its unfair or bad policy to try and maintain some level of service, even during strikes.

Cynic, Section 1 outlines how a legal and an illegal strike is constituted, thus that which constitutes illegality is that which directly violates the provisions of a, b, c, d and e.

[windjammer]

Cassius, the goal of a strike is to bother everyone. Because if it doesn't bother anyone, no one would care about the strike, so the strike would fail. That's how it works. So yep, it would indeed seriously weaken the unions if there is a such limit like 20%.

Because indeed, no one would care at all about this strike, so this strike would have no consequence, so it would basically destroy the goal of the union.

[DemPGH]

If this would pass I would definitely strike 1D if I did not veto it altogether.

A strike is a last resort, and it needs to have teeth. You can't force 20% of the workforce to come to work while everyone else is on strike. That's forcing people to cross a picket line, essentially.

[TNF]

I object to the proposed amendment.

Senators, a vote is now open on the amendment proposed by Senator Cassius. Please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.


NAY

[bore]

Aye

I wouldn't vote for the bill as is, but it's a big improvement.

[Cranberry]

I still have problems with 1d, and with the week long duration in 1c. I very much like 3 however, and this version of the bill is a great improvement in my opinion.

Aye

[Cassius]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

I'll take my chances that if this bill passes, I'd rather see this version than the first pass. Though I think it still needs some changes.

[Deus Naturae]

Nay. I'm opposed to any government interference in private labor contracts. I thought the purpose of this was to deal with public-sector strikes; why is the bill now aiming to establish a Federal labor board to regulate private industry?

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain pending response to Deus's concerns


Though I do thing it is heading in the right direction. I would ask Windjammer and the others who raised the concern, whether the think there is any risk to lacking any competing force against public sector unions and their demands. I think they should exist, but I think in the absence of an equilibrium of some sorts, the risks I stated at the beginning of the thread are present and it should be remembered that while these people should be well compensated and protected, they also serve the public, not private capital. This has the dual effect not only of making the work more important, but also the interests they work for and at the same time removes the competing interest by and large because of the nature of the employer producing one sided negotiations usually. I think the public is served by a fair equilibrium between the public sector workers and the representatives of the public good.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm going to look at some further amendments - but I'll vote AYE on this one.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Due to Deus's concerns I must Abstain on this amendment

[TNF]

With six votes in the affirmative, the amendment has been adopted.

Aye(s): Senator Lumine, Senator Cynic, Senator Cassius, Senator Cranberry, Senator bore, Senator Polnut
Nay(s): Senator Deus, Senator TNF
Abstaining: Senator JCL, Senator North Carolina Yankee