Federal Employees Labor Relations Act of 2014 (Vetoed)

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsored by: TNF

[TNF]

Unless something has drastically changed that I missed (and trust me, I read just about every labor-related bill on the Wiki when I got sworn in), the status of collective bargaining rights for federal employees remains exactly as it does in real life: completely contingent on an executive order issued by President Kennedy in 1962. As such, I believe it prudent to codify the right of federal employees to collectively bargain, lest said executive order be rescinded by a right-wing President or thrown out by the bourgeois court system.

[Cranberry]

Although I don't think our court system is that "bourgeois", I still believe the rights mentioned in this bill are rights every worker should have. Make that a pinko European of me or not, I guess I support this act.

[windjammer]

Although I don't think our court system is that "bourgeois", I still believe the rights mentioned in this bill are rights every worker should have. Make that a pinko European of me or not, I guess I support this act.

[windjammer]

I motion for a final vote.

[TNF]

I second the motion, unless anyone has anything else they'd like to add here.

[Lief 🗽]

This seems like common sense legislation, and it has my support. I thank Comrade-Senator TNF for bringing this issue, specifically that this right currently exists only thanks to a decades old executive order, to our attention.

[Cranberry]

I third the motion.

[bore]

Senators a final vote is now open on this bill, please vote aye nay or abstain

[Lief 🗽]

Aye

[windjammer]

Aye

[TNF]

Aye

[SWE]

Aye

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Can someone explain to me why section 2 is common sense, then?

[Maxwell]

Can someone explain to me why section 2 is common sense, then?

Please?

And to those members who have been notably absent before voting began, come on guys. There's no point to having parties if the representatives of those parties don't represent their interests. Those who are upset by the message I am sending probably should be.

[TNF]

Can someone explain to me why section 2 is common sense, then?

Because workers know best how to do their jobs and have a better feel for who they'd want to work with than do employers. Besides that, workers should have more input on the job, and electing their direct supervisor would be a step toward that. Workers already elect shop stewards at a number of workplaces, it wouldn't be beyond the capacity of workers to elect a manager that manages the work that they do. Those workers that are most willing to work with others are naturally going to get the job and very likely do a better job than any handpicked lackey of management would.

[bore]

Honestly I'm more concerned that this bill allows people in any job to strike. Maybe this makes me a capitalist pig, but I don't think paramedics or A and E doctors should be allowed to not go to work. In those cases there are other ways of making grievances known.

[Cranberry]

As I read it, it doesn't require the Federal Government to do so, just that it may do so. And it's quite understandable that a government agency with a large part of unionized workers would not want other workers that work for a smaller wage or anything, that will threaten their position. I doubt that many workers refuse to get better pay and better bargaining conditions. But that is probably just the pinko European in me speaking, after all, it's common sense to protect workers from getting into a bad, bad union.

AYE

[bore]

This has enough votes to pass, senators have 24 hours to change their votes.


Nay

I would be completely supportive of enshrining collective bargaining in law if this were america, but it's atlasia, and I think we already have, in Article VI of the Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Besides, I can not read the first section as anything other than allowing all employees to strike, and in sectors like healthcare I can not support that.

[Lumine]

I am seriously considering a redraft or a veto, but I do want to inform the Senate that I will not sign the bill in its current form.

[Senator Cris]

I'm changing my vote to Nay.
I'll be honest. I don't know why, but I forgot to join the discussion on this act, and so the final vote was opened. As said, I don't like some parts of the bill, but at the same time there are elements that in my opinion are right.
For example, I like point 1 of Section 1 and point 2 of Section 2. But I don't like point 2 of Section 1 and point 1 of Section 2.
So, there are both good elements and bad elements. But considered that bad elements (point 2 of Section 1 and point 1 of Section 2) in this case are more relevant and can prejudice the whole bill, I'm changing my vote to Nay. I apologize with all of you for my early vote that wasn't so reasoned.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

I seem to recall having composed a post on Thursday, but for some reason it did not go through. I hope I am not the only one having trouble with the Atlas lately, because it is getting rather annoying.

Anyway, the first off I must make the same points as before that having people strike against the public interest is not the same as having them strike for a bigger stake of the returns from a private endeavor. Granted, public workers should be safe and have decent pay and some means to advocate for those, but to have teachers walk out of the classroom, to have doctors walk out of brain surgery, to have firefighters walk out of a burning house is not only a public hazard but it is also not a negotiation. In a private enterprize, the item at stake is profit and the strike is a bet against time that the owner will be hurt enough by the lost profits and productivity to negotiate. In the public sphere, it is not time being sacrificed but public interest and in some cases, public safety. In those circumstances, there is no middle ground, there is no negotiation and there is no evenly matched set of interests. Instead, one person has a gun and a hostage, the other a desperate desire to see the hostage survive. Who do you think will always win in that scenario?

Even with collective bargaining you run into the same problem, and even more so if the person on the other side of the desk was put there with donations from the very same advocacy group (teacher's/police unions). The negotiations become likewise one side and the public interest is not evenly negotiated with the teacher's interest, but instead the balance is heavily skewed in one direction. Often this has led to lavish pension promises that cannot possibly be kept by towns and municipalities too small to eat such high and long lasting costs, hency the debt problem so many of them are facing. This approach is prefereable because it has no impact on the budget in short term, the other side is pleased and taxes don't have to go up now to pay for them. Later on, the situation becomes apparent and the town essentially ends up walking dead financially speaking.

I don't know how to bridge this gap so that there is advocacy without this one sided relationship. I do know that it is in the publc's best interest to find a wy to bridge that gap because neither underpaid teachers, nor overwhelming pension liabilities (and in some cases we actually have both at the same time in many areas if not most ironically) are viable paths long term.

The shame of it is, my previous post was the closest thing to one my old style walls of text, approaching six paragraphs. I am pissed that it vanished into cyberspace when I hit post.

[TNF]

tl;dr Yankee

[bore]

By a vote of 5-3 this bill has passed the senate and is sent to the president for executive action

Aye: TNF, SWE, Lief, Windjammer, Cranberry

Nay: Bore, Yankee, Cris

Not Voting: BK, Polnut