NE1: Right to Unionize Act (Failed)

[SWE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Any business engaging in the subversion of the workers' right to unionize shall lose all funding from the Northeast government.[/quote]

Sponsor: Governor Sawx

Debate on this bill will last for 72 hours, or until 10:17 AM on Friday, November 19, unless otherwise modified or extended. The sponsor has 36 hours to advocate for this proposed legislation. If he does not, this bill will be tabled as there is other pending legislation in the queue.

[SNJ1985]

What constitutes infringement here?

[Barnes]

I obviously support this in principle, but the wording is far too vague, and the infringement provisions are too fast and loose.

I move the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Any business engaging in the subversion of the workers' right to unionize shall lose all funding from the Northeast government.

[/quote]

The provisions of my amendment are drawn directly from the Constitution of South Africa, one of the most progressive national documents in the world.  It strongly enshrines the right of the worker while allowing for the internal process of negotiation between workers and employers.  The Assembly shall be empowered to regulate collective bargaining and to ensure equal, fair, and transparent negotiations.  

I believe my amendment clarifies the noble intentions of the original legislation and removes any possibility of confusion over interpretation - a problem that beguiles much of our current constitution.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

OK.

For a libertarian, I'm actually pretty pro-union. I think that the right to organize goes hand-in-hand with freedom of association. That being said, this seems more a question of policy than a question of constitutional amendments.

Barnes' amendment is a bit better but I'm not sure that there's anything in the Northeast constitution as is that specifically prohibits collective bargaining or unionization. (The Northeast passed some equivalent to right-to-work in 2010 but most of it was gutted by the Supreme Court of Atlasia.)

[free my dawg]

I obviously support this in principle, but the wording is far too vague, and the infringement provisions are too fast and loose.

I move the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Any business engaging in the subversion of the workers' right to unionize shall lose all funding from the Northeast government.

The provisions of my amendment are drawn directly from the Constitution of South Africa, one of the most progressive national documents in the world.  It strongly enshrines the right of the worker while allowing for the internal process of negotiation between workers and employers.  The Assembly shall be empowered to regulate collective bargaining and to ensure equal, fair, and transparent negotiations.  

I believe my amendment clarifies the noble intentions of the original legislation and removes any possibility of confusion over interpretation - a problem that beguiles much of our current constitution.
[/quote]

Friendly.

[SWE]

The debating period is now over. Representatives will now vote on this bill, as written:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Voting will last for 48 hours or until all representatives have voted.

[SNJ1985]

Present

[SWE]

Aye

[Barnes]

Aye

[SWE]

The voting period is now over. By a vote of 2-0, this amendment fails.

[Napoleon]

No, a constitutional amendment needs at least 3 affirmative votes to pass. This fails.

[Barnes]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would appear to be the case.  Though I will say the absolutely ridiculous wording of this section is just one more reason why we need to re-write this constitution.

[Napoleon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would appear to be the case.  Though I will say the absolutely ridiculous wording of this section is just one more reason why we need to re-write this constitution.

what is ridiculous about the wording?

[Barnes]

It's needlessly cumbersome and verbose. That whole section could read: "Constitutional amendments shall be forwarded to a referendum if passed by an absolute majority of all seats in the Assembly."

[Napoleon]

It's needlessly cumbersome and verbose. That whole section could read: "Constitutional amendments shall be forwarded to a referendum if passed by an absolute majority of all seats in the Assembly."

maybe but the wording on this amendment you just voted for is worse and more redundant, dont you think?. :/

[Barnes]

It's needlessly cumbersome and verbose. That whole section could read: "Constitutional amendments shall be forwarded to a referendum if passed by an absolute majority of all seats in the Assembly."

maybe but the wording on this amendment you just voted for is worse and more redundant, dont you think?. :/

I don't think so. The reason for my amendment was to give the language real definition and teeth. As I said before, what I put forward was taken from the Constitution of South Africa, one of the most progressive and modern constitutions in the real world. Of course, it's all academic debate anyway, seeing as the amendment didn't pass.