*ACTUAL* S1: Southern Right to Work Act.

[fhtagn]

So thanks to my snafu with trying to figure out Atlas-ing on my phone, and trying to sort out when and what was actually legislation introduced and what wasn't bickering, let's try this again.

My bad, guys.



Southern Right to Work Act.

Given that - States across the south have passed right to work in their economies, every southern state now has it.

Given that - the South has made considerable employments and industry gains over the rest of the country.

Given that - allowing workers to set their own wages is better for both the employee and the employer.

Given that - we don't want to become like Detroit.

Be it resolved that:

All labor unions are henceforth voluntary. Employers cannot require an employee to join a union in order to maintain employment. This includes employees in the public and private sectors.

Labor unions may not withdraw funds from paychecks before they are deposited. Any employee currently belonging to a labor union may withdraw at any time by submitting a letter of intent.

sponsor: Ben Kenobi

[JustinTimeCuber]

In my most humble opinion, this is a terrible idea. Actual argument coming tomorrow sometime because I have to sleep.

[Wisconsin+17]

Again, bills have to be passed in order.

[Wisconsin+17]

S1:

Bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Per the Order Paper.

[JustinTimeCuber]

This is your bill, which you tabled BEFORE spamming introducing the others. I think it's correct that this be first.

[fhtagn]

Restoration of the IDS was introduced after you announced re-introducing the Southern Right to Work Act, and after JustinTimeCuber introduced the Southern Right to Unionize Act.

March 04, 2017, 03:46:39 pm »   
I am reintroducing the Southern Right to Work Act.

March 08, 2017, 11:23:42 am »   
Southern Right to Unionize Act (looking for another Southern citizen to cosponsor under Article IV, Clause 7 of the Southern constitution)

March 13, 2017, 12:04:43 am »   
Bill:
Quote
Restoration of the IDS

[JA]

Ben Kenobi,

I have a few questions pertaining to this legislation and your reasoning underpinning your support for it.

1. What evidence do you have to support what seems to be your assertion that Southern states, all of which are right-to-work, "have made considerable employment and industry gains over the rest of the country"?

2. How can you demonstrate that those gains are caused by right-to-work legislation?

3. Is it not true that non-unionized employment pays considerably less than unionized work and offers less worker benefits?

4. Assuming what is implied in question 3 is true, then why should workers accept lower pay, less benefits, and greater employment insecurity?

5. How can you prove that "allowing workers to set their own wages is better for both the employee and the employer"?

6. What criteria are you using to judge the supposed evidence?

7. Is it fair to say that an employee, who faces a more precarious financial situation, wields far less negotiating bargaining power when discussing their employment contract when working independently rather than collectively? If that is so, then why should workers be placed at an institutional disadvantage compared to their already financially secure, more powerful employer or potential employer?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are incorrect. Tabled bills are taken off the order paper entirely, and may be reintroduced at a later time.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Southern Right to work was already introduced and taken for a vote. The vote, prior to tabling was split 2:2.

Prior to the closure of the vote, I tabled the bill. This has the effect of closing the vote. Southern Right to Work is dead until someone reintroduces it, (as I did), by relisting it on the order paper.

Now, you're welcome to do that, but until that's done, this motion is out of order.

S1: is the IDS bill.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look at the GDP per capita of American states from 1950, onwards, not a single southern state was in the top half of US states. Since 1950, Texas and Virginia have broken into the top half, and other states, Tennessee, South Carolina and North Carolina in particular have made considerable gains.

In short - the economic backwardness of the South persisted long after the Civil War. That has changed. I would argue that Right to Work has had a significant benefit to the South as a whole in terms of attracting employment and boosting the economies of southern states, particularly in Texas.

I have no issues with unions - provided that they are voluntary. I myself am a teacher who does not belong to a union. It bothers me greatly that many of my compatriots are required to join the union in order to find employment within the public sector.

Most unions these days, around 70 percent of them are public sector. This is a problem, as they are not constrained by market forces, but rather taxpayer dollars. This is why even FDR banned public sector unions fearing that they would enrich themselves at the expense of the public.

2. How can you demonstrate that those gains are caused by right-to-work legislation?

Yes, I'm happy to lay out the entire argument as to the gains induced since Southern States passed right to work.

3. Is it not true that non-unionized employment pays considerably less than unionized work and offers less worker benefits?

This depends on the employer, on the position, etc.

4. Assuming what is implied in question 3 is true, then why should workers accept lower pay, less benefits, and greater employment insecurity?

Quite simply, private sector unions have been in freefall since the 50s, going from 40 percent of the sector to 5. If unions were actually contributing to the employment of their members, why have private sector unions collapsed? It's pretty clear to me that unions are not providing benefits to justify their costs, and that workers feel more secure in bargaining for themselves rather than letting unions price them out of the market.

5. How can you prove that "allowing workers to set their own wages is better for both the employee and the employer"?

The fact that nonunion workers are more likely to find employment than unionized workers.

6. What criteria are you using to judge the supposed evidence?

Again, I'm happy to provide the numbers.

7. Is it fair to say that an employee, who faces a more precarious financial situation, wields far less negotiating bargaining power when discussing their employment contract when working independently rather than collectively? If that is so, then why should workers be placed at an institutional disadvantage compared to their already financially secure, more powerful employer or potential employer?

How are we helping increase the bargaining power of the employee by forcing them to join a union where they actually lose control over their own bargaining power? Unions do not have the best interest of the worker at hand, by demanding pay raises and benefits far in excess of the market value of the work. If the business ends up folding because of union demands, then how does the worker benefit?

[JustinTimeCuber]

Alright, now I'm (shockingly) in agreement with Ben, partly. I don't believe this Act is in order, but I think that the Right to Unionize Act is technically next. However, I have to admit that that bill should have had more thought put into it, so I hereby withdraw the Right to Unionize Act.

[JA]

Ben Kenobi,

1. But how can you demonstrate that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between right-to-work laws and high economic development? Stated another way, how can you prove that the South would not have made equal or greater progress without right-to-work laws?

2. I'd like evidence demonstrating how a worker in the same position, in the same industry, does not make considerably less in a right-to-work state compared to a unionized state.

3. Perhaps the free fall of unionization rates is attributable to companies pursuing lower labor costs in right-to-work states, overseas, and increased automation, thereby displacing unionized workers who were earning living wages. Is that an unsubstantiated conclusion?

4. Is it wrong to desire living wages that may be higher than what the market may determine is appropriate for that position?

5. Doesn't implementation of right-to-work laws violate union-shop contracts by having the government interfere and nullify contracts signed by unions and private businesses? What, then, is stopping the government from setting wages and/or breaking other private contracts?

After you answer these questions I'll let you know my position on the legislation after considering your arguments.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Can I co-sponsor?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well. Ok. I can reintroduce southern right to work then. It'll go back to the end of the queue though.

[fhtagn]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261633.0

Third time's a charm.

[JustinTimeCuber]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261633.0

Third time's a charm.

okay that has to be correct

[fhtagn]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261633.0

Third time's a charm.

okay that has to be correct

I might actually flip a table if there's another issue.

[fhtagn]

too late

[JustinTimeCuber]

So basically Ben's mission here is to whine and scream as much as possible so that everyone gets into a flame war and we all forget to do anything about it, and then boom, it's May!