HOUSE BILL: Prioritizing Our Workers' Employee Rights (POWER) Act (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: VPH
House Designation: HB 1147

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to commence an advocacy for this bill. All other members shall have an additional 48 hours to respond with their initial comments, questions and concerns.

[VPH]

I believe that in light of Labor Day, the POWER Act is what Atlasia needs to strengthen the position of working families. Expansion of workplace democracy is crucial to better outcomes in terms of wages, job protection, and safety. This act increases freedoms for workers and directly combats workplace abuse. Additionally, it has safeguards to prevent vague wording from becoming an issue in these petition drives for unionization.

[JGibson]

I second the points made by my fellow colleague VPH. It's time to get this bill passed!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am all in favor of increasing freedoms of workers and protecting them from abuse. However I am rather skeptical about card check. At present the decision to form a union is done with a secret ballot, which I think is far safer and secure in terms of the establishment process than something as open ended as card check.

Most of the problems, occur not with the selection method, but the campaign for or against and I worry that there would be intimidation by both employers and labor representatives, even with protections that would be hard to counter in the absence of a secret ballot.

As an alternative I think we could have some of the same regulations established to keep the process free of these unsavory practices, while at the same time still preserving the secret ballot.

[VPH]

I am all in favor of increasing freedoms of workers and protecting them from abuse. However I am rather skeptical about card check. At present the decision to form a union is done with a secret ballot, which I think is far safer and secure in terms of the establishment process than something as open ended as card check.

Most of the problems, occur not with the selection method, but the campaign for or against and I worry that there would be intimidation by both employers and labor representatives, even with protections that would be hard to counter in the absence of a secret ballot.

As an alternative I think we could have some of the same regulations established to keep the process free of these unsavory practices, while at the same time still preserving the secret ballot.

I think the secret ballot as a function of principle is a good idea, but the drawn out elections we often see for unions are where intimidation may happen from both sides. Making the process easier is a priority of mine.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I am all in favor of increasing freedoms of workers and protecting them from abuse. However I am rather skeptical about card check. At present the decision to form a union is done with a secret ballot, which I think is far safer and secure in terms of the establishment process than something as open ended as card check.

Most of the problems, occur not with the selection method, but the campaign for or against and I worry that there would be intimidation by both employers and labor representatives, even with protections that would be hard to counter in the absence of a secret ballot.

As an alternative I think we could have some of the same regulations established to keep the process free of these unsavory practices, while at the same time still preserving the secret ballot.

I think the secret ballot as a function of principle is a good idea, but the drawn out elections we often see for unions are where intimidation may happen from both sides. Making the process easier is a priority of mine.

I also agree with the spirit of this legislation to give freedom to allow workers to protect themselves from abuse by their employers. In an effort compromise the debate between the use of cards vs. a secret ballot, I propose allowing workers to secretly obtain union cards outside of the premises of the workplace until over 50% of workers in a company have those cards. Then the union and the workers can call for an immediate and swift secret ballot election over whether or not to turn it into a union shop. The company should not be informed about any attempts at unionizing in order to prevent them from using intimidation to crush such a movement. In order to control the ability for unions themselves to use unsavory tactics, workers should be allowed to report any aggressive behaviors from union organizers to the police for acts including but not limited to stalking, harassment, bribery, physical violence, threats, and the release of workers' sensitive private information, as well as any threats to do any of these actions. If a union is convicted of a crime that aims toward intimidating workers into joining a union, then they wouldn't be allowed to try to unionize in that shop ever again. The appropriate punishment for a company that is convicted of suppressing unionization is already in the bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am all in favor of increasing freedoms of workers and protecting them from abuse. However I am rather skeptical about card check. At present the decision to form a union is done with a secret ballot, which I think is far safer and secure in terms of the establishment process than something as open ended as card check.

Most of the problems, occur not with the selection method, but the campaign for or against and I worry that there would be intimidation by both employers and labor representatives, even with protections that would be hard to counter in the absence of a secret ballot.

As an alternative I think we could have some of the same regulations established to keep the process free of these unsavory practices, while at the same time still preserving the secret ballot.

I think the secret ballot as a function of principle is a good idea, but the drawn out elections we often see for unions are where intimidation may happen from both sides. Making the process easier is a priority of mine.

Well like I said the selection method (secret ballot) is not the problem, the problem is that there is a long period, I guess it could be called "The campaign" phase to use lingo we are all familiar with, prior to the balloting and that is when the intimidation is occurring.

I like LT's idea. I think if you coupled that with an expedited campaign with a hard limit on the length of time and stiffer penalties for intimidation by either side, would solve the problem and not sacrifice a fundamental principle of democracy, the secret ballot.

Whether or not we think it is a good idea or not, or what people should be, at the end of the day this is a majority rule (democratic) process. We saw back prior to the mid to late 1800's the impact when people didn't have a secret ballot, and people could very well question the legitimacy of many elections during that period. It also made disenfranchisement and vote suppression a whole lot easier. I think it is therefore right to say that the secret ballot is the most democratic means of holding an election, and historically is less threatened or at risk by intimidation.

Yes when it comes to union selection we have intimidation occurring, there is little to no doubt about that. Yet we find ourselves seeing the removal of the secret ballot as the best solution to that problem? I think it is backwards and despite present day opposition to it, I think long term the ones who will most celebrate the removal of the secret ballot, are the employers, sweatshop owners and wage slavers.  

[RFayette]

I am all in favor of increasing freedoms of workers and protecting them from abuse. However I am rather skeptical about card check. At present the decision to form a union is done with a secret ballot, which I think is far safer and secure in terms of the establishment process than something as open ended as card check.

Most of the problems, occur not with the selection method, but the campaign for or against and I worry that there would be intimidation by both employers and labor representatives, even with protections that would be hard to counter in the absence of a secret ballot.

As an alternative I think we could have some of the same regulations established to keep the process free of these unsavory practices, while at the same time still preserving the secret ballot.

I share this sentiment.  Removing the secret ballot is the wrong way to go, but I very much approve of restrictions on intimidation tactics and shortening time until a vote in order to help protect workers.

[VPH]

I absolutely understand those concerns and would like to hear from more colleagues about the notion of "card check" that garners over 50% of employees resulting in an immediate election. I don't know what that time frame would have to be, but I would be willing to work on an amendment for this. At the same time though, we also need to ensure that the Department of Labor does not take years upon years to validate election results and that they cannot unnecessarily stall the workplace democracy process.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I am all in favor of increasing freedoms of workers and protecting them from abuse. However I am rather skeptical about card check. At present the decision to form a union is done with a secret ballot, which I think is far safer and secure in terms of the establishment process than something as open ended as card check.

Most of the problems, occur not with the selection method, but the campaign for or against and I worry that there would be intimidation by both employers and labor representatives, even with protections that would be hard to counter in the absence of a secret ballot.

As an alternative I think we could have some of the same regulations established to keep the process free of these unsavory practices, while at the same time still preserving the secret ballot.

I share this sentiment.  Removing the secret ballot is the wrong way to go, but I very much approve of restrictions on intimidation tactics and shortening time until a vote in order to help protect workers.

I agree with my fellow colleagues, but a new amendment for that would be nice, I would be able to support this then!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I absolutely understand those concerns and would like to hear from more colleagues about the notion of "card check" that garners over 50% of employees resulting in an immediate election. I don't know what that time frame would have to be, but I would be willing to work on an amendment for this. At the same time though, we also need to ensure that the Department of Labor does not take years upon years to validate election results and that they cannot unnecessarily stall the workplace democracy process.

You could mandate the Dept act within X days. Of course when it comes to any department acting on anything, it becomes a matter of resource availability and funding as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Illiniwek and Peebs have just 24 hours left to talk.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I absolutely understand those concerns and would like to hear from more colleagues about the notion of "card check" that garners over 50% of employees resulting in an immediate election. I don't know what that time frame would have to be, but I would be willing to work on an amendment for this. At the same time though, we also need to ensure that the Department of Labor does not take years upon years to validate election results and that they cannot unnecessarily stall the workplace democracy process.

My thoughts precisely. Yankee's idea of setting a deadline for certification seems to me a good one.

[VPH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: VPH
House Designation: HB 1147


In italics are the amendments I'm making to the bill. I hope these changes adequately address peoples' concerns!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd prefer a more specific standard than "fairness" be applied to the proposed Section 3(iii), or else the existing term defined. As it is, I worry there is too much room for maneuvering by the DoL to block unions they don't want established.

[VPH]

I'd prefer a more specific standard than "fairness" be applied to the proposed Section 3(iii), or else the existing term defined. As it is, I worry there is too much room for maneuvering by the DoL to block unions they don't want established.

I see what you mean, but I took it to mean that an election was conducted without abuse-the DoL's authority to do this already exists and I would imagine that the process exists within the DoL as is.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I also suggest that instead of using paper cards distributed by labor unions, they can allow workers to sign up and announce support for the union online in the privacy of their own homes. Any labor union should have a right to a list of the employees' personal email addresses of a company, so they can send their one standard email so they can announce who they are and their intention to form a union in their workplace, and a link to an online sign up page. The workers should not be forced to reveal their intentions to their employer. That will help prevent intimidation from the business they work for, and the ban on abuse from both sides will still apply to this.

[VPH]

I also suggest that instead of using paper cards distributed by labor unions, they can allow workers to sign up and announce support for the union online in the privacy of their own homes. Any labor union should have a right to a list of the employees' personal email addresses of a company, so they can send their one standard email so they can announce who they are and their intention to form a union in their workplace, and a link to an online sign up page. The workers should not be forced to reveal their intentions to their employer. That will help prevent intimidation from the business they work for, and the ban on abuse from both sides will still apply to this.

Not every employee, especially in the service industry and on manufacturing lines, has a company email. Also I could see complaints arising about the personal email thing too. That's a privacy issue oftentimes.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It's been a while since I was in Congress — has the amendment been adopted?

[VPH]

Not quite sure-I would assume because I sponsored the bill? Idk though

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]


Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Representatives have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's been a while since I was in Congress — has the amendment been adopted?

No it has not.

Not quite sure-I would assume because I sponsored the bill? Idk though

while I would just modify the text for minor changes, I think all substantive change should go through the normal process, even if the sponsor is the one offering the amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has an hour remaining.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted.