Northeast Assembly Thread

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nay

(My good colleague cinyc, 1 hour to vote?  c'mon)

[cinyc]

Nay

(My good colleague cinyc, 1 hour to vote?  c'mon)

As Speaker, I almost always wait until someone else has voted before casting a vote.

[Free Palestine]

I like Segway's proposed text.

I'll stop bothering you guys.  Carry on.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Alright, the Amendment fails unanimously with one abstention.



Now to vote on the final bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voting shall be open until 5:30 on Thursday, March 18, 2010, or until all representatives have voted.

[segwaystyle2012]

Aye

[cinyc]

Aye

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[The Age Wave]

Uhhh abstain. Sorry for the absence Midterms week.

[The Age Wave]

I want to change my vote to Aye after reading the GM report. The union is out of control.

[The Age Wave]

I don't consider myself anti-union. I don't want to vote in favor of this legislation. But if the unions think that now, in the midst of a budget crisis, is the right time to play petty political games with the government, at a time when everyone else is having to cut back and do more for less, at a time when we can't have things handed to us on a silver platter as they once were, that they can expect the same leniency they once had because our government entered an agreement without proper foresight of the critical times ahead, then they are wrong. I think what this threat is, is a demonstration that the unions are out of control, they are too powerful and they are unwilling to negotiate at the same table everyone else is sitting at. As for my table, there is less food on it. We all need to sacrifice at some point and grandstanding on an issue and causing further damage to the small improvements we've been able to make has made my decision for me. Sorry.

In these times of high unemployment people should be willing to do a job for any price they can get and unfortunately the money isn't there to go around like it once was. Those we appreciate their employment will not strike, those who are willing to give that up so easily deserve to be replaced.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Aye

[cinyc]

Richard Stern from the UNEPSE neither understands the Practical Labor Policy Act nor the plight of ordinary hard-working private sector Atlasians who are having hard times making ends meet.

The bill calls for contract renegotiations.  It does not mandate them.   Current contracts will be honored until their terms expire.  Any strike would be a breach of current union contracts - and this Assembly will take whatever action is necessary to stop any illegal UNEPSE strike. 

Nor does the bill MANDATE any penalty for strikes.  Instead, the Northeast will be asking that future public employee union contracts PROVIDE FOR a penalty for strikes in upcoming contract negotiations.  That requirement is waiveable if the Assembly and governor agrees.

What this bill does is set minimum standards for the upcoming contract renegotiations.

Richard Stern doesn't get it.  There are millions of unemployed Northeasterners who would LOVE to have a government job right now.  There are millions of Northeasterners who are struggling to make ends meet.  The Northeast Government can no longer afford to lavish public employees with salaries and benefits that are far in excess of what's available to Northeasterners in the private sector. 

[Purple State]

Richard Stern from the UNEPSE neither understands the Practical Labor Policy Act nor the plight of ordinary hard-working private sector Atlasians who are having hard times making ends meet.

The bill calls for contract renegotiations.  It does not mandate them.   Current contracts will be honored until their terms expire.  Any strike would be a breach of current union contracts - and this Assembly will take whatever action is necessary to stop any illegal UNEPSE strike. 

Nor does the bill MANDATE any penalty for strikes.  Instead, the Northeast will be asking that future public employee union contracts PROVIDE FOR a penalty for strikes in upcoming contract negotiations.  That requirement is waiveable if the Assembly and governor agrees.

What this bill does is set minimum standards for the upcoming contract renegotiations.

Richard Stern doesn't get it.  There are millions of unemployed Northeasterners who would LOVE to have a government job right now.  There are millions of Northeasterners who are struggling to make ends meet.  The Northeast Government can no longer afford to lavish public employees with salaries and benefits that are far in excess of what's available to Northeasterners in the private sector. 

Just for the record, "shall" implies mandating an action.

[cinyc]

Richard Stern from the UNEPSE neither understands the Practical Labor Policy Act nor the plight of ordinary hard-working private sector Atlasians who are having hard times making ends meet.

The bill calls for contract renegotiations.  It does not mandate them.   Current contracts will be honored until their terms expire.  Any strike would be a breach of current union contracts - and this Assembly will take whatever action is necessary to stop any illegal UNEPSE strike. 

Nor does the bill MANDATE any penalty for strikes.  Instead, the Northeast will be asking that future public employee union contracts PROVIDE FOR a penalty for strikes in upcoming contract negotiations.  That requirement is waiveable if the Assembly and governor agrees.

What this bill does is set minimum standards for the upcoming contract renegotiations.

Richard Stern doesn't get it.  There are millions of unemployed Northeasterners who would LOVE to have a government job right now.  There are millions of Northeasterners who are struggling to make ends meet.  The Northeast Government can no longer afford to lavish public employees with salaries and benefits that are far in excess of what's available to Northeasterners in the private sector. 

Just for the record, "shall" implies mandating an action.

Yeah - the Northeast is going to review and renegotiate public employee union contracts.   That's what the bill says.  But any renegotiated agreement needs support from both sides.  Nothing in the bill says that the Northeast would breach our obligations under existing contracts if the unions don't wish to renegotiate.   Nothing in the bill says the Northeast will unilaterally impose its demands on public employee unions.

What the bill really does is set forward this Assembly's clear guidelines on what we'd expect in new union contracts, whether renegotiated or negotiated because of expiration.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nay

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

By a vote of 6-1, the bill PASSES.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Next up:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. segwaystyle 2012

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 7:15PM Eastern on Saturday, March 20, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative segwaystyle2012, has the floor.

[Badger]

My proposed changes are in red below:

Practical Labor Policy Act

1. The Northeast Government shall review and re-negotiate existing public employee contracts, benefits and pensions and work towards making more realistic and cost-effective contracts. The Northeast Government shall not enter into any contract that does not expire after a two-year period, measured from the date the contract enters into effect.

2.  Any new contract shall specify a mechanism for negotiating renewals, and shall provide that Northeast employees receive the same salary and benefits as during the last period of any current expired contract while a new contract is being negotiated.  Pay raises and benefit levels in subsequent contracts may be applied retroactively, as negotiated.

3.  Any new contract shall contain a penalty provision requiring any Northeast public employee who strikes or engages in a major work stoppage against the Northeast Government to pay two days' salary for every one day of such strike or stoppage, unless permanently replaced.

4. If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike interferes with the ability of the Northeast Government to carry out its basic daily functions, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.

5. All new contracts shall provide that any Northeast employee who does not wish to join the relevant public employee shall have the right not to, and shall not be required to pay any dues to the union.  Such contract shall provide that union must provide any union-provided negotiated fringe benefit to any employee who opts out at the same out-of-pocket cost to the opting-out employee as union members.

6.  All new contracts shall provide that no union dues withheld by the Northeast Government be set aside for political activity.  Such contracts shall provide that Northeast public employee unions may not penalize any Northeast employee who refuses to voluntarily contribute to any union political activity fund.

7.  Any provision of this law may be waived in a particular contract negotiation by a majority vote of this Assembly and actual or deemed consent of the Governor.  If the Governor vetoes any waiver passed by the Assembly, that veto may be overridden in accordance with the usual veto override process.

8. If any provision of this law is declared unconstitutional, all provisions of this law not expressly declared unconstitutional shall remain the law of the Northeast.
------------
I don't see how this is unconstitutional.  Our public employees have the right to collectively bargain, but the Northeast as employer, has the right to set our terms, too, as part of that bargaining process.  Given the constraints of the game, we can't do this on a contract -by-contract basis.  This puts our employees on notice about what those terms will be for future contracts.  

Section 3 is patently unconstitutional. Assessing a day's wage's penalty  (as opposed to merely not paying a salary) is assessing a fine for constitutionally protected organizing and striking. regardless of whether one penalizes striking with life in prison or a $100 fine, that still makes conduct illegal. And the fact it's being done as a contract makes no difference whatsoever. Even private agencies are SEVERELY limited in allowing employees to validly contract away their constitutional and legal rights. For the government, as a state actor, to attempt doing so makes such provisions not worth the paper they're printed on.

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

[cinyc]

Section 3 is patently unconstitutional. Assessing a day's wage's penalty  (as opposed to merely not paying a salary) is assessing a fine for constitutionally protected organizing and striking. regardless of whether one penalizes striking with life in prison or a $100 fine, that still makes conduct illegal. And the fact it's being done as a contract makes no difference whatsoever. Even private agencies are SEVERELY limited in allowing employees to validly contract away their constitutional and legal rights. For the government, as a state actor, to attempt doing so makes such provisions not worth the paper they're printed on.

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

Really?  New York's Taylor Law does just that REGARDLESS of what it says in public employee contracts - and is perfectly constitutional.  It also takes away future dues withholding for public employee unions that strike.

Of course, the leftist, activist Atlasian Supreme Court may see things otherwise.  But in my view, the Northeast as employer can negotiate whatever we want into our union contracts.

Your assumption that nobody on this forum being in a union household is wrong, I'm sure.  In states that aren't right-to-work states (like many in the U.S. Northeast), people are FORCED to join unions or pay useless dues for no benefit against their will as a condition of employment.    Talk about the ultimate violation of freedom of association - the right not to associate with or pay tribute to union thugs with whom you vehemently disagree.  People in union households don't necessarily like unions.

[The Age Wave]

My mother is a teacher-- I'm in a union household.

[Sam Spade]

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

In the NYC area, that would generally require me to engage in a certain amount of criminal activities I'd prefer not to. 

[Badger]

Section 3 is patently unconstitutional. Assessing a day's wage's penalty  (as opposed to merely not paying a salary) is assessing a fine for constitutionally protected organizing and striking. regardless of whether one penalizes striking with life in prison or a $100 fine, that still makes conduct illegal. And the fact it's being done as a contract makes no difference whatsoever. Even private agencies are SEVERELY limited in allowing employees to validly contract away their constitutional and legal rights. For the government, as a state actor, to attempt doing so makes such provisions not worth the paper they're printed on.

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

Really?  New York's Taylor Law does just that REGARDLESS of what it says in public employee contracts - and is perfectly constitutional.  It also takes away future dues withholding for public employee unions that strike.

Of course, the leftist, activist Atlasian Supreme Court may see things otherwise.  But in my view, the Northeast as employer can negotiate whatever we want into our union contracts.

Your assumption that nobody on this forum being in a union household is wrong, I'm sure.  In states that aren't right-to-work states (like many in the U.S. Northeast), people are FORCED to join unions or pay useless dues for no benefit against their will as a condition of employment.    Talk about the ultimate violation of freedom of association - the right not to associate with or pay tribute to union thugs with whom you vehemently disagree.  People in union households don't necessarily like unions.

But unlike the Taylor Law this act doesn't mandate mediation and (key here) binding arbitration as an alternative for resolving the strike, potentially in the strikers favor. Without such recourse legally binding the regional government to resolve a labor dispute, this simply (and, again, arguably unconstitutionally) criminalizes striking by public employees.

EDIT: Here's a thought. Why not amend the law to include any and all state government administrators with authority--including shared authority--to negotiate and/or resolve a particular labor dispute on the state's behalf, and fine them 2 days pay for every day a strike lasts? Hey, it takes two to tango.

[cinyc]

But unlike the Taylor Law this act doesn't mandate mediation and (key here) binding arbitration as an alternative for resolving the strike, potentially in the strikers favor. Without such recourse legally binding the regional government to resolve a labor dispute, this simply (and, again, arguably unconstitutionally) criminalizes striking by public employees.

EDIT: Here's a thought. Why not amend the law to include any and all state government administrators with authority--including shared authority--to negotiate and/or resolve a particular labor dispute on the state's behalf, and fine them 2 days pay for every day a strike lasts? Hey, it takes two to tango.

I disagree with your analysis.  Even if I agreed, we don't need to amend the bill.  Again, all most of the bill does (well, at least the provisions I drafted) is set minimum standards for future public employee union contracts.  Any binding arbitration or other provision can be built into future contracts in the negotiation process.  By the way, almost all minimum provisions are waiveable by another Assembly vote on a case-by-case basis.

[cinyc]

Does Rep. segwaystyle seek to speak on behalf of the bill on the floor?