Collective Bargaining Modernization Act of 2014 (Veto Overriden)

[Cranberry]

Maybe that's just me coming from a country where a national union of all workers in a sector bargain with a national "union" of all employers in a sector, but I've always preferred that kind of, or a similar, situation. We are of course taking "a man's right to bargain with his employer individually", but I guess Senator TNF can perfectly live with that situation
That said, I am supportive of this bill. I'm also interested to see Senator Windjammer's amendments.

[Cranberry]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I dislike the notion that a specific union can be granted exclusive authority to negotiate on behalf of every employee within an economic sector, even those represented by another union. For the sake of example, let's say "public primary education" is considered an economic sector, and 55% of public school teachers are members of the NEA while 45% are members of the AFT. Shouldn't the AFT get a seat at the table?

I would be fine with that, provided that both the unions in question are negotiating as a single unit. Allowing two separate bargaining processes would undermine the point of the bill.

Wouldn't the language in the bill establish that both unions, given they have a membership of more than 30% of employees in the sector, be regarded as "the union in question"? I would then assume that everything would apply to both unions in tandem.
But I would say, it would certainly not hurt to include a provision that if two or three unions have a sizeable membership, they should act in tan/tri-dem.

[Cranberry]

I guess Windjammer wanted to present an amendment here...

[Cranberry]

Well this has been here a while with virtually no debate.
Senator Windjammer's amendment is referring to a point most Senators and most of the public frankly don't care, the "big" question, in my eyes, whether or not unions exceeding membership of a certain part of employees should be allowed to bargain for their whole sector, remains untouched. The debate here seems to have slept in, so I wonder if it wouldn't be time to proceed to a final vote?

[Cranberry]

Well this has been here a while with virtually no debate.
Senator Windjammer's amendment is referring to a point most Senators and most of the public frankly don't care, the "big" question, in my eyes, whether or not unions exceeding membership of a certain part of employees should be allowed to bargain for their whole sector, remains untouched. The debate here seems to have slept in, so I wonder if it wouldn't be time to proceed to a final vote?

Well this is our duty to try to write the Best possible laws

But this is on weeks now, and the last real debate has happened I guess two days after this being brought to the floor. One could argue its also our duty to this a bit more efficiently
But as TNF said he would offer an amendment, forget everything I have said.

[Cranberry]

Well, I guess we shall wait for the other amendments too...

[Cranberry]

Woops, I didn't see this before.

Well, I guess this bill won't pass anyway, but I do like the spirit of this bill. The process of the union having to be approved to conduct bargaining is sensible, just I don't understand how that thing in 1a wouldn't work; though I doubt any union has such a high number of members at the moment. Anyway, it is I guess a bit too late now to start nitpicking, so I'll just cast my vote now.

I guess, AYE (?)

[Cranberry]

Motion for a veto override.

I second the motion, mainly because I don't like Presidential vetoes, same as Presidential pardons and most executive orders (but nominations, and in times like the Civil War)

[Cranberry]

Aye