Present Employee Representation Act (VETOED)

[Clark Kent]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Potus

[Potus]

A lot of these  unions were voted on to represent workers from 30-40 years ago. Today's employees should be able to have a say in their unionization just like those workers did.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A lot of these  unions were voted on to represent workers from 30-40 years ago. Today's employees should be able to have a say in their unionization just like those workers did.

     It's true, we're really talking about binding people by decisions of a bygone era here.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A lot of these  unions were voted on to represent workers from 30-40 years ago. Today's employees should be able to have a say in their unionization just like those workers did.

     It's true, we're really talking about binding people by decisions of a bygone era here.

By that argument, we should hold a revote on the Declaration of Independence every 10 years - after all, the nation formed in 1776 is the oldest Union of all.

[Potus]

A lot of these  unions were voted on to represent workers from 30-40 years ago. Today's employees should be able to have a say in their unionization just like those workers did.

     It's true, we're really talking about binding people by decisions of a bygone era here.

By that argument, we should hold a revote on the Declaration of Independence every 10 years - after all, the nation formed in 1776 is the oldest Union of all.

But the people consent to that union through voting. We're looking to reinforce "consent of the governed" among union representation. Your ilk support "workplace democracy."

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Your ilk support "workplace democracy."

Oh no, democracy! What next - equal rights?

Seriously, though, I'm not sure what you mean by my "ilk," unless you're referring to the communist firebrands you teamed up with to start ANUSTART last summer. For the record, I do not support attempts to institute 'collective management' (or whatever it is Cynthia McKinney-types support these days) - I merely oppose transparent attempts to weaken organized labor by allowing non-union members to decertify labor unions and disenfranchising older employees.

[pikachu]

I agree with Truman in that this just seems like an attempt to weaken organized labor... With that being said, I'm curious to know how much this works with the sprawling amounts of laws that have been passed to promote unionization in Atlasia. Especially before the seemingly half the left decided to abandon the game, I remember a lot of stuff was passed.

[Potus]

Your ilk support "workplace democracy."

Oh no, democracy! What next - equal rights?

Seriously, though, I'm not sure what you mean by my "ilk," unless you're referring to the communist firebrands you teamed up with to start ANUSTART last summer. For the record, I do not support attempts to institute 'collective management' (or whatever it is Cynthia McKinney-types support these days) - I merely oppose transparent attempts to weaken organized labor by allowing non-union members to decertify labor unions and disenfranchising older employees.

I'm fairly certain we have no right to work laws, so shops are closed when they are unionized. Everyone in the workplace is represented by the union upon unionization of the workplace. That's just how it works. So the union that people are forced into upon taking a job was not chosen by them and they have never consented to its governance. This legislation will allow employees to call for reauthorization votes, which good unions should have no problem with.

You know as well as I that there was no "communism" behind A New Start. McCarthyism is a bad fit for you. In fact, there were incredibly distinguished players and decade old Atlasians who supported ending Atlasia in its current form and allowing a replacement to grow organically. You're misleading people if you are telling them that A New Start had any non-meta policy platform. Be careful about misleading, Truman, you might tarnish that "Nice Guy " brand you've tried so desperately hard to promote.

You should also be careful dismissing some Atlasian giants like oakvale, Hashemite, Dallasfan, Barnes, BaconKing, Matt, SWE, Cranberry, Maxwell, TNF, Sjoyce, Flo, and Talleyrand. You might remind people just how much of a guppy you are.

I'm also not entirely sure how a workplace rights bill led to a conversation about my prior political affiliations. As a matter of fact, I think this is basically what has pushed the game to the stressed point it is. For whatever reason, this conversation can't be about what it supposed to be about because you have some sort of political agenda involved. Your rhetoric is full of overreach and fence-swinging that it really does make me yearn for days when your ilk made rhetorically effective, albeit left-wing, speeches and campaigns that actually moved the needle in this game.

The irony is also not lost on me that you have apparently to chosen me to grind your political hatchet against when I explicitly ran on, and received the overwhelming approval of the people, removing personalities and pettiness from our politics. Perhaps you could do with reading my campaign thread to learn how the people want a Senator to conduct themselves. Maybe that promise is how a commie-loving, INACTIVE, mean, too-old-for-this-game secessionist won a landslide victory against a respected incumbent senator. It's time to get back to work. I'd appreciate your thoughts and constructive criticism of the Present Employee Protection Act.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You know as well as I that there was no "communism" behind A New Start. McCarthyism is a bad fit for you.

I never meant to claim that ANS was a communist outfit - my apologies if that's how it sounded. I was merely pointing out that, while you are eager to wed the current generation of Laborites to the overreaches of last generation's radicals, you have closer ties to those people than I do (I opposed the agenda of TNF & co. as a member of TPP and joined Labor only after he had left office). I have no interest in grinding hatchets, but if you're going to play the guilt-by-association card against me and my "ilk" (what does that even mean?), you need to be prepared to answer for the skeletons in your own closet. I'm sure you see how attacking Labor as an "enemy" second only to ISIS in the "damage" it has inflicted on the game is not exactly consistent with your vision for an issues-based policy game.

In any case, I am happy to debate this bill on its own merits.

I'm fairly certain we have no right to work laws, so shops are closed when they are unionized.

Not even at the Regional level? A quick scan through the Statute didn't reveal any federal laws that would prohibit the Regions from adopting RTW, though it's possible I missed something (the Wiki is such a mess, even with the work DemPGH put in). In any case, I still contend that this bill disenfranchises older workers by limiting voting in the proposed referendums to those workers who were not employed at the time of unionization. This could prove particularly harmful in (relatively) new businesses/workplaces, where it would effectively disenfranchise older workers in favor of new hires.

[Potus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's exactly how it sounded because you said this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're doing the Trump thing. Reach out there, say something that isn't entirely defensible but makes for a punchy comparison and creates a "moment." Then, when your obviously implied meaning gets called, you walk it back.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a matter of fact, this is just patently false. If you read my quotes on New Labor, you'll see that I have respect for you and your peers and view your leftism as a different beast entirely. Here is a quote from my communications thread:

Let me be clear, I do not believe that Labor Party officials, office holders, and activists are of equal threat to our Republic as Islamic extremism. Men like Senator Truman are upright, honorable, and well-intentioned. However, the Labor Party of the past has bequeathed a nation fundamentally divided, an economy in shambles, and institutions too weak to influence the course of events.

I assume you're talking about the latter part in which I say that the old Labor Party bequeathed the "upright, honorable, and well-intentioned" people like yourself a disaster. I'm not sure where you think I to play "guilt by association" with you, but the connection you attempt to make between me and "communist firebrands" is a clear exercise in that logical fallacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll absolutely answer for what you consider my "skeletons." When you asked a question about my supposed radical ties and something about secession, I clearly answered your question and you promptly moved on. I would be interested in hearing your advise on how I can better "answer" for my past if you feel that is necessary.

I'd be willing to sit down for an interview with your newspaper, if you'd like. Ask me anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This argument has two points to it. The first is misleading. I don't say that Labor is an enemy. I referred to the "self-styled vanguards of the revolution" as enemies.

Now, I'm no fan of ISIS. I wrote the bill to strengthen the President's powers to kill them. But ISIS, when taken as part of Atlasia's meta, is a rhetorical device that Enduro can use to shape what's going on in the country we simulate and give our Senate something to do. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the game has sustained more damage from the radical, radical departure from the mainstream, egged on by the old Labor Party, than from Enduro's GM headlines.

I've also introduced all legislation from the freshman class and there is more on the way.

Perhaps my vision of a more policy-oriented game would be be more tenable if I wasn't force to combat misleading, personality-centric attacks in a thread on the rights and freedoms of employees. I'm glad we've at least managed to constraint this particular strain of cultural toxin to this thread rather than allowing it to poison my criminal conduct legislation as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The new workers have the power to initiate a reauthorization vote, not to be the only ones to vote in it. If the language of the bill suggests that I don't want older employees voting, then please propose an amendment to clarify that language because I'm not finding it.

This legislation is simple and straightforward, there is no underhanded anti-union, anti-collectivization behind it. This allows employees that did not get a vote in union authorization the opportunity to initiate a workplace-wide vote to reauthorize or decertify the union in question. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[Clark Kent]

So if I understand this bill correctly, it would take 50% of employees who for whatever reason were not members of the union at its founding to initiate the vote, but all employees would be able to vote on whether to maintain or abolish said union?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So like anybody remember the days when fights like that would lead to ten page threads?

[Blair]

So like anybody remember the days when fights like that would lead to ten page threads?

I remember the police reform bill that I worked on in the Senate-and that seemed like nothing compared to the healthcare bill- so many graphs!

[pikachu]

The legislation does seem fairly simple, and tbh I'm not sure if it's possible for the optics of one of the game's leading conservatives to propose a law loosening labor laws to be seen as anything but an attempt to lower unionization in Atlasia (even if this is not the Senator's intent). Regardless, this doesn't seem to be inspiring much more debate policy-wise, so can I motion for a final vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A lot of these  unions were voted on to represent workers from 30-40 years ago. Today's employees should be able to have a say in their unionization just like those workers did.

     It's true, we're really talking about binding people by decisions of a bygone era here.

By that argument, we should hold a revote on the Declaration of Independence every 10 years - after all, the nation formed in 1776 is the oldest Union of all.

It can be amended though through two approved processes. Is it unreasonable to think that there should be at least some method to reconsider parts of an arrangement, particularly after several decades. The constitution originally included some stuff that we would not stand for today (3/5ths for instance and others), in the economy things change and thus an arrangement that work in 1956 might not work the same way in 2016.

[Potus]

We also get a chance to "reauthorize" the Oldest Union at the ballot box. This extends that right of the people to the newer unions.

I hope the Senators don't make a vote on "optics" like pikachu suggested. The bill does what the bill says, not whatever made-up "sinister" motives you assign to me or my ideology. I hope you'll vote for final passage.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would like to propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, this amendment aims to ensure that the people participating in these referendums are the people who will be directly affected by the outcome, as opposed to Super PACs or political parties.

[Potus]

I would like to propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, this amendment aims to ensure that the people participating in these referendums are the people who will be directly affected by the outcome, as opposed to Super PACs or political parties.

Am I to interpret that this means the union will be unable to campaign for reauthorization?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I can see the point in keeping various groups out, but if the union were to be allowed to advocate for its continuance, there should be some provision to allow for the opposition to organize and not be banned from doing so.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would like to propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, this amendment aims to ensure that the people participating in these referendums are the people who will be directly affected by the outcome, as opposed to Super PACs or political parties.

Am I to interpret that this means the union will be unable to campaign for reauthorization?

     I would surmise that the union could encourage its officers in the workplace to organize proponency for maintaining unionization, but they would be forbidden from supporting those efforts directly.

     I am concerned about the usage of the word "support", since I expect that mere statements for or against unionization would tend to fall under protected free speech. I think we are on more solid ground merely prohibiting "aid", which would imply actions taken to assist either side directly.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would like to propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, this amendment aims to ensure that the people participating in these referendums are the people who will be directly affected by the outcome, as opposed to Super PACs or political parties.

Am I to interpret that this means the union will be unable to campaign for reauthorization?

     I would surmise that the union could encourage its officers in the workplace to organize proponency for maintaining unionization, but they would be forbidden from supporting those efforts directly.

This is correct. One must be both an employee and a union member to directly campaign for/against reauthorization.

Likewise, I'm fine with striking "or support" if y'all think it necessary from a Constitutional standpoint.

[Potus]

Will management be able to organize an effort to reject unionization within the workforce?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Will management be able to organize an effort to reject unionization within the workforce?

No. Only those represented by the union (the employees of the workplace in question) will be eligible to organize or aid efforts to sway their fellow employees.

My biggest concern with this Act as it currently stands is that the proposed referendum process would be easily susceptible to influence by outsiders. It's all too easy to imagine a scenario wherein management and/or the union bribe or bully workers into voting their way, or else turn what should be a dialogue within the workforce into a high-caliber battle between labor bosses on one hand and corporate executives on the other, leaving the workers to pick up the pieces. The only people who should have a say in this process are those who are represented by the union in question, a state of affairs this amendment seeks to achieve by limiting participation to unionized employees.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think PiT has a a point on the support language being a free speech matter.

[Clark Kent]

Senator Potus, I'd like you to answer my question, please.

So if I understand this bill correctly, it would take 50% of employees who for whatever reason were not members of the union at its founding to initiate the vote, but all employees would be able to vote on whether to maintain or abolish said union?