Co-determination Act of 2014 (Passed)

[Lumine]

Slot: 11 (PPT Discretion - PPT Administered)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Senator TNF, as sponsor you have 24 hours to advocate for this bill.

[TNF]

The point of this bill is to allow workers to have more representation on the job.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Clearing up some odds and ends here.

[windjammer]

Thank you Senator TNF.

[Lumine]

Bump?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Are there any qualifications or expectations of the staff element?

[TNF]

Are there any qualifications or expectations of the staff element?

What do you mean?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Are there any qualifications or expectations of the staff element?

What do you mean?

Well if they're making decisions and votes on the operation and direction of the organisation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see the need for a sweeping mandate to reorganize litteraly every business structure in the country when we already have substantial protections enshrined in our labor laws.

[TNF]

Are there any qualifications or expectations of the staff element?

What do you mean?

Well if they're making decisions and votes on the operation and direction of the organisation.

I still don't think I understand what you're getting at.

I don't see the need for a sweeping mandate to reorganize litteraly every business structure in the country when we already have substantial protections enshrined in our labor laws.

Did you even read the bill?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In reality, only a few businesses are going to be affected by this. It's pilot program.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This is a further way to ensure labor union supremacy and deny management their rights to operate as they see fit within basic labor and consumer protections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Did you even read my post TNF? I said "Business structure" not "business". Even those that this does not apply to will be affected indirectly, even if not in the same manner.

[TNF]

Did you even read my post TNF? I said "Business structure" not "business". Even those that this does not apply to will be affected indirectly, even if not in the same manner.

I almost never read your posts because I find that, in general, they lack substance.

[windjammer]

I have a question,
In France, you can have more than 1 union for a company. I guess that's not the case in the  USA?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Did you even read my post TNF? I said "Business structure" not "business". Even those that this does not apply to will be affected indirectly, even if not in the same manner.

I almost never read your posts because I find that, in general, they lack substance.

They have become shorter lately, because I have less time. But I would hazard a guess you would have had the same opinion back when I used to bury people in text.

[TNF]

I have a question,
In France, you can have more than 1 union for a company. I guess that's not the case in the  USA?

Right, that's not the case here because the understanding is that having more than one union in a plant undermines solidarity.

[windjammer]

I have a question,
In France, you can have more than 1 union for a company. I guess that's not the case in the  USA?

Right, that's not the case here because the understanding is that having more than one union in a plant undermines solidarity.

Oh I completely agree TNF, unions in France are weaker because they're divided.

[Cranberry]

I guess "all public companies (..)" is a bit big a sample for just a test phase, isn't it?
But anyway, I am in principle quite supportive of more worker participation in companies, and in the public sector we can do things to get this done. This bill and the process to achieve this goal outlined seems quiet sensible to me, and I guess I will support this. However, as always, a slower implantation and especially a smaller sample is probably the best idea. Limit it totally to public companies, but not all, just, I don't know, all public power plants or whatever, and you have my vote.

[Lumine]

I just wanted to step in and state that I really don't see myself signing this bill. The fact that this bill envisions major changes in companies to be enacted in less than two months would be a major problem in any other bil, even if it is just a pilot program (and public companies are far too important to put them at risk). Beyond that, I don't think expanding the power of the unions over and over again to massive levels is really the road to move forward.

[Cranberry]

Particularly in response to your arguments, Mr. President, I want to affirm that I am in favour of this in principle. The timetable of course needed to be expanded, the pilot sample size reduced, yet still; I would support a bill that had those points in it. I don't see this as expanding the power of unions over and over, but more as an interesting, experiment in a way, to see what effects worker contribution can have on companies.

[Dr. Cynic]

I think this could be good legislation on the whole to experiment with. I believe there are several companies in Europe, particularly Germany, that operate in a manner similar to this. The size of the pilot program is probably a bit too large, but I think this is something that should be experimented. I don't see that it particularly expands union power, considering unions in Atlasia enjoy a good deal of influence already (some of which has been scaled back), this seems something worth trying.

Just my two cents on the matter.

[Cranberry]

There are a few examples for such a co-determination in Europe, yes; the whole economy of the country of Austria for example. (It's in fact a bit different from this proposal, yet still in principle the same idea)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'd be prepared to support a pilot program.

[TNF]

How would the President react to this being proposed as a pilot program?

[Cranberry]

Bumping this, too