Talk Elections

Sponsored by: 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I believe it prudent to codify the right of federal employees to collectively bargain, lest said executive order be rescinded by a right-wing President or thrown out by the bourgeois court system.

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.

I motion for a final vote.

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

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.

I third the motion.

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

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

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.

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.

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.

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

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:


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.

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.

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.

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.

tl;dr Yankee

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

Mission Accomplished! :P

I hope that the President offers a redraft, and not simply issues a veto. I am more than willing to discuss probable changes of a redraft, but I will of principle never support a veto, that might again be the pinko European in me. (in the sense of "muh legislative decisions be left alone by executive!!1!!)

blah blah blah checks and balances blah.

Oh snap, I just stole TNF's material. ;)

Do you really want a reply to this? ;)

Right, I've taken my time to meditate and I will take action on this bill later today.

I tried my best to issue a redraft, but the more I tried the more I realized that Section 2 was always going to go and all my attempts to change Section 1 ended destroying the purpose of the original sponsor.

I cannot and I will not support the idea of giving some unions enough power to bring down the federal government and interrupt crucial services (some of them involving lives at stake). I prefer to stand up for what I believe, and so I issue a presidential veto.

Motion to overturn the veto.

But no checks and balances means tyranny something something.

Europe also has quite a bit of examples of tyrannical assemblies, particularly just to the South back in the good ole days.

Though I should note this nortion is hardly European. NC had no veto for over a century until it was restablished in the early 1990's (redistricting exempted because whilst a Republican may get Governor, Dems will never lose the assembly. That's just crazy!!!). Though that situation wasn't motivated by pinko Europeanism but racism. ;)

I will support upholding the veto. Some arrangement might be possilbe, but certainly not allowing striking by critical gov't employees.

I will of course be voting to overturn the veto. Federal workers deserve the same basic rights as every other worker in this great country.

Senators a vote is now open on overriding Lumine's veto, please vote aye nay or abstain

AYE

Aye

Aye

NAY

There is no way for any negotiation between gov't and doctors or police threatening to go on strike can end in a balanced result that works not just for the police but also for society and taxpayers. The relationship is different and thus it is impossible to take the same approach with them as you would with workers in a private enterprize.

Nay

For the reasons I gave for voting against this originally.

Nay

Aye

NAY

This Bill needs a total re-write

Does the 72-hour period apply here as well?

If not, well, AYE

Hate me for it, but I oppose the process of vetoing bills in principle. Probably that's just as I come from a parliamentary democracy, a country where that single figure outside the legislative that we call President has just no power whatsoever (understandable when you know our history), where all legislative decisions are completely left to the Legislative. Well, yeah.

The Pinko European strikes again, I guess.

The Hapsburgs created and preserved Austria (indirectly). Without them Merkel would be your Chancellor. ;)

By a vote of 4-4 (Cranberries vote was a little too late), the veto override has failed, and, consequently, the bill has failed.

Aye: TNF, Windjammer, Lief, SWE

Nay: Yankee, Cris, Bore, Polnut

Not Voting: BK, Cranberry

Well, yeah. SWE voted for the override, though; so it's 4-4 I believe.


We all know I meant that ;)

Thanks, that's corrected now :)

It's funny, because in part the history of my country plays a large role in my belief in a strong executive (given that Chile has been presidentialist during most of its time, and I happen to admire the politician who consolidated that system in the consitution). Presidents can make awful mistakes here, but every time the Legislative power gains the upper hand things really go downhill, xD

Either way, excellent news!

Well, it was just the other way round in Austria :P The beginning of Austrofascism happened just when the Parliament was "deactivated" by Dollfuß, and how the system that followed afterwards came into place is I believe well known...

Which politician was this you admire for consolidating the presidential system?

That would be Diego Portales, a conservative politician that ended a decade of civil unrest and coups and, in my opinion brought real stability to Chile, all of that as a minister (never holding the Presidency until he was assassinated). The man was very flawed and quite authoritarian, but he is partly why Chile was comparatively more stable than our neighbors through most of the 20th Century. And indeed, he believed that a presidential system was exactly what the country needed.

If one makes a comparison with later times we did try to have something loosely resembling a parliamentary government from 1891 to 1925, with a very weakened President and a cabinet that could easily be brought down by Congress, called the Parliamentary Republic. The result was that most of the cabinets lasted three to four months only to be brought down again and again, causing major gridlock for years.

Okay, thank you for your answer. I have to admit, I know nothing about Chile pre-Allende/Pinochet, and even after that, my knowledge is extremely limited. It is always interesting though to learn new things about countries, even though they might be far away from home, they still have a story to tell, if you want so.