The Public Sector Strike Curtailment Act (Voting on Amendment)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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 )

My issue is that I don't believe that public sector employees should be excluded from their rights as workers. But at the same time, balance the need for those public sector employees who are essential front-line workers to respond in times of crisis.

The 20% number was just thrown up to see if there's a way to cover both concerns.

[bore]

I'd rather not have an absolute number and just have a prohibition in certain essential areas (police, fire service, a and e, etc)

[Cassius]

I'd rather not have an absolute number and just have a prohibition in certain essential areas (police, fire service, a and e, etc)

So, perhaps chop out 1d and add those to 1e?

[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 )

My issue is that I don't believe that public sector employees should be excluded from their rights as workers. But at the same time, balance the need for those public sector employees who are essential front-line workers to respond in times of crisis.

The 20% number was just thrown up to see if there's a way to cover both concerns.

Surely public sector employees strikes will have a greater impact in our lifes, to say so, but still, we should not prohibit them what is allowed to every other worker. Possibly the board Cassius proposed helps with keeping strikes limited to the worst cases? Then there should be no need for the 20% "rule", as then the strikes would have no impact, I guess. If everything runs, not smoothly, but it runs, then public sector employees practically loose their bargaining power. Additionally, the 20% of workforce "rule" wouldn't work everywhere, best example schools...

I guess I won't vote for this unless we scratch that as well.

[bore]

Proposing an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Simfan34]

As we saw in this region with the BART strike a few months ago, public sector unions have the unique capacity to hold the public hostage to their demands, no matter how unreasonable.  It is an imbalance of power, since the government lacks any sort of profit motive, meaning that they're willing to "absorb" the costs- either by debt or by passing it on to the taxpayer.

We all know that labour unions have seen a vast increase in powers, perogatives, and liberties in this country in recent years. Something must be done to correct this power imbalance between labor unions and the rest of us before the situation gets of hand.

[Dr. Cynic]

I like Senator Bore's amendment, though I beg to ask what forms of redress these individuals can use with regards to bargaining for better pay? We all agree that those institutions going on strike would be catastrophic, so maybe we should create some kind of arbitration board to handle pay disputes for the medical field and the armed forces?

[Cranberry]

We could possibly expand the board in 3) to all sectors? That would cover soldiers, doctors, nurses and so too?

[Cassius]

Amendment is friendly. However (and I should really have thought of this sooner), I'd like to clarify that I intended for ABAC to work on a purely public-sector basis. Not that the option of extending it throughout the economy should not be considered, but I think that the public sector provides an adequate testing ground for such a proposal.

[TNF]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the proposed amendment.

[TNF]

I object to the proposed amendment. No amount of amending will make this bill worth passing. It has to be killed or the public sector unions will be. There's no middle ground here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I object to the proposed amendment. No amount of amending will make this bill worth passing. It has to be killed or the public sector unions will be. There's no middle ground here.

There has to be a middle ground or the local gov'ts will be bankrupted and then the courts will dictate even more horrendous terms to the workers.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have to try to get out of the habit of leveraging my vote to obtain information. Especially, since that kind of helped to leave us without a Vice President.

But after 5 years of

"I'll be here, I'll always be here" - Horatio Caine

it takes getting use to, not being able to get on every day.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment is friendly. However (and I should really have thought of this sooner), I'd like to clarify that I intended for ABAC to work on a purely public-sector basis. Not that the option of extending it throughout the economy should not be considered, but I think that the public sector provides an adequate testing ground for such a proposal.

Private unions have a vested interest in cooperating because if the private business fails, they lose too.

Public unions have no limitations, the politicians have only short term interest and the consequences take decades to manifest themselves. Therefore, treating them differently makes some sense I would think.

[bore]

I don't really see what's wrong with letting private sector firms use ABAC if they want to. It's in everyone's interest to avoid strikes, and if the private sector management and unions want to negotiate, the government should provide a place where that can happen.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't really see what's wrong with letting private sector firms use ABAC if they want to. It's in everyone's interest to avoid strikes, and if the private sector management and unions want to negotiate, the government should provide a place where that can happen.

As the nations legislature, I'm comfortable with us making calls on public sector unions, but I'd prefer that any kind of private union issues be handled in a separate Bill if required.

The amendment recognises that the elements of the public sector workforce have a role in ensuring public order, health and security.

[bore]

The ABAC is based on this, and I don't see any reason why it should only apply to public sector disputes, if only because it would be completely voluntary. If private sector companies really felt that they didn't want it then they don't have to use it, but I'd imagine most would want to use it.

Speaking more generally, I wouldn't mind applying section 1 across the board as well. Although in that case it wouldn't be prohibited for private sector employees, but instead a private sector worker striking illegally wouldn't get the legal protection that striking entails.

[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?

[TNF]

A vote is now open on the amendment proposed by Senator bore. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


NAY

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't really see what's wrong with letting private sector firms use ABAC if they want to. It's in everyone's interest to avoid strikes, and if the private sector management and unions want to negotiate, the government should provide a place where that can happen.

I am not passing judgment on the system in question, just stating there is a legitimate reason to take a different approach between the public and private sectors in this regard.

If it is deemed appropriate for private as well, then fine, but like polnut said, probably best in a separate bill then for the reasons I stated before. The purpose of this bill is to address the special contingencies created by public unions as a result of their very nature representing public servants.

[bore]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Nay

[Deus Naturae]

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?