MA: Labor Relations Act (Statute)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Labor Relations Act

Section 1

A. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any company or organization to require an employee to join a union (or labor organization) or pay union dues in order to be employed or to maintain their employment.

B. It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to join a union. Any attempt to destroy a union organization by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

C. Punishments for companies may include large fines totalling no more than twenty five percent of their annual income for that year that the union was affected by the afformentioned practice.

D. Employees shall have the right to collective bargaining without having to join any union or organization to do so. Employees will be responsible for their own negotiations and group fees they decide to pay for.  When collective bargaining by a union/labor organization materially benefits nonmembers of the union/organization in areas of salary, benefits, health care, or safety, those nonunion members must pay a percentage of the union/labor organization fees that are representative of that negotiation, not to exceed 75% of the fee.  Nonmembers of the union/labor organization are thus not entitled to union representation in times of disciplinary proceedings.  It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to not be part of a union, but join the company's collective bargaining group. Any attempt to destroy a nonunion collective bargaining group by an employer is also deemed unlawful.
E.  (1) "Emergency public service employee" is defined as employees of local or regional government employees employed within the Mideast Region whose employment directly effects the security and safety of the citizens of the Mideast Region.  This defintion applies to local and regional law enforcement officers and command staff, correctional officers and command staff, prison guards and command staff, emergency medical personnel, local and regional prosecutors, regional public defenders, local and regional firefighters, and local and regional employees of departments dealing with road repair, snow removal, trash collection, and disaster relief.

(2) As Emergency public service employees are essential to protecting the public and providing security for all citizens of the Mideast region, unions/labor organizations representing emergency public service employees are prohibited from striking to resolve disputes in contract negotiations.  If no contract has been agreed to within two months, either the union/labor organization or the local or regional government can declare that negotiations are at an impasse.  Negotiations are then sent to binding arbitration before the Mideast Superior Court Judge.  After such arbitration, either side has two weeks to seek review before the Supreme Court of Atlasia for final binding arbitration.

Section 2

A. The Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue is hereby repealed.

Sponsor: Agooji

[afleitch]

It returns

I have no issue with Section 1a and 1b and 1c. You know where I stand on 'd' and 'e' namely that it does not make any sense to differentiate between unions and 'small collective bargaining groups' which are by their very definition unions. Writing a non existant distinction in labour law does not make any sense. Neither, for that matter does infringing on the rights of unions (by which the writer of the bill presumably meant the 'big unions') to make their own rules by saying that non-union members are not entitled to representation. Unions can offer benefits to non-union members if they wish.

Again, it's a bill not only allowing for the provision of what is already permitted (ie, forming unions) but also bogged down with trying to make distinctions in what constitutes a union that simply does not exist.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Do we like Section D minus the first 2 sentences?

[afleitch]

Do we like Section D minus the first 2 sentences?

I dislike Section D entirely.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I too don't see the necessarity with 1.d. If you want to bargain collectivly you join a union. If you're disatisfied with the unions that already exist, start a new one. I believe that's a pretty simple concept.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm afraid that "English as a second language" unfortunatley means that I'm not sure of what disciplinary proceedings means. I'd be very happy if someone could explain it to me.

[afleitch]

I'm afraid that "English as a second language" unfortunatley means that I'm not sure of what disciplinary proceedings means. I'd be very happy if someone could explain it to me.

Basically it's when your employer may take action against you for breaking rules, being off sick etc.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I'm afraid that "English as a second language" unfortunatley means that I'm not sure of what disciplinary proceedings means. I'd be very happy if someone could explain it to me.

Basically it's when your employer may take action against you for breaking rules, being off sick etc.

I see, thank you. In that case I do oppose all of the D part of section 1 of this bill. I'm pretty fine with the rest. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm with Afleitch and Swedish Cheese on removing section D.
The rest I'd support as well, though I'd like to see section E cleaned up a bit as we had started to discuss in the previous thread - namely, making the start of the non-strike alternative process described in E2 a little clearer. 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129651.msg2791313#msg2791313

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

For what it's worth, part of section D was included because some feard that unions would gain benefits for all employees, including employees who didn't have to pay union dues... just throwing that out there, since some of the liberal Mideasterners raised that point earlier.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

For what it's worth, part of section D was included because some feard that unions would gain benefits for all employees, including employees who didn't have to pay union dues... just throwing that out there, since some of the liberal Mideasterners raised that point earlier.

is there something in the previous law that makes this not an issue currently, that would be changed by the bill if section D were not included?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would be the current legislation that this is suppouse to replace.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So no, not really.

I can see why people might think it's a problem though. As I understand it a lot of workplaces have standard contracts for all their emplyees. So if there's a company with 80 employees, of which 60 are in a union, and the unions bargin for a contract for their members, chance is that the 20 employees get the benefits of said contract without being members of the union. I don't think that anything in D offers a good solution to that however. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In that case, does anybody have an amendment(s)

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Sure

I propose we amend the text to say:

Labor Relations Act

Section I

1) It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any company or organization to require an employee to join a union (or labor organization) or pay union dues in order to be employed or to maintain their employment.

2) It is hereby unlawful in the Mideast Region for any employer to refuse to hire or maintain the employment of an employee because the employee desires to join a union. Any attempt to destroy a union organization by an employer is also deemed unlawful.

3) Punishments for companies may include large fines totalling no more than twenty five percent of their annual income for that year that the union was affected by the afformentioned practice.

Section II

1) "Emergency public service employee" is defined as employees of local or regional government employees employed within the Mideast Region whose employment directly effects the security and safety of the citizens of the Mideast Region.  This defintion applies to local and regional law enforcement officers and command staff, correctional officers and command staff, prison guards and command staff, emergency medical personnel, local and regional prosecutors, regional public defenders, local and regional firefighters, and local and regional employees of departments dealing with road repair, snow removal, trash collection, and disaster relief.

2) As Emergency public service employees are essential to protecting the public and providing security for all citizens of the Mideast region, unions/labor organizations representing emergency public service employees are prohibited from striking to resolve disputes in contract negotiations.  If no contract has been agreed to within two months, either the union/labor organization or the local or regional government can declare that negotiations are at an impasse.  Negotiations are then sent to binding arbitration before the Mideast Superior Court Judge.  After such arbitration, either side has two weeks to seek review before the Supreme Court of Atlasia for final binding arbitration.

Section III

The Mideast Anti Union Busting Statue is hereby repealed.

[California8429]

I would like to bring up to debate adding the word "person" with  "company or organization". We need to protect employees from being threatened by unions and the company, as well as individuals.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I propose the text be amended to read, in part, as follows:
 
2) As Emergency public service employees are essential to protecting the public and providing security for all citizens of the Mideast region, unions/labor organizations representing emergency public service employees are prohibited from striking to resolve disputes in contract negotiations.  If no contract has been agreed to within 60 days of the start of negotiations, either the union/labor organization or the local or regional government can declare that negotiations are at an impasse.  Negotiations are then sent to binding arbitration before the Mideast Superior Court Judge.  After such arbitration, either side has two weeks to seek review before the Supreme Court of Atlasia for final binding arbitration.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I would like to bring up to debate adding the word "person" with  "company or organization". We need to protect employees from being threatened by unions and the company, as well as individuals.

Fair point. I know of cases in Sweden where people have been harrassed by union members for not joining the union. Not sure that it would be suitable in this bill though as it's not Labor Relations per see, since it's individuals harrassing other individuals. I'm questioning wether that shouldn't actually get its own bill, or at least its own section.

   

[California8429]

I would like to bring up to debate adding the word "person" with  "company or organization". We need to protect employees from being threatened by unions and the company, as well as individuals.

Fair point. I know of cases in Sweden where people have been harrassed by union members for not joining the union. Not sure that it would be suitable in this bill though as it's not Labor Relations per see, since it's individuals harrassing other individuals. I'm questioning wether that shouldn't actually get its own bill, or at least its own section.

   

I don't care how you guys decide to handle writting up the matter, as long as in the end, people are protected from individuals. Union members, non-union members, harassing others, just to be safe that employees are protected from all forms of harassment.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

what sort of harrassment do we need to legislate against that wouldn't be covered by general laws regarding criminal conduct?

[California8429]

what sort of harrassment do we need to legislate against that wouldn't be covered by general laws regarding criminal conduct?

This would specifically protect workers from being protected in their choice to join or not join a union, that's why we have this bill up for debate in the first place, to make sure this particular decision is protected.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

*cough*

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sorry, I must've missed these.  We'll do this amendment first.  This will be a 48 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

Aye on the amendment

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye

[afleitch]

Aye

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Aye