Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 18, 2019, 03:26:05 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  The Federal Unionization and Competitive Contracting Bill
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print
Author Topic: The Federal Unionization and Competitive Contracting Bill  (Read 7976 times)
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 06, 2004, 06:28:26 pm »

I hereby propose the following legislation, and implore the Senate to debate this and offer suggestions for modification.

Clause 1.

Members of the Atlasian military, as well as all federal employees whose job functions are vital for the national security and peaceable order of the nation, are exempt from the provisions of this act in its entirety.

Clause 2.

All federal government employees of Atlasia are hereby granted the right to form a union for the purposes of advocating for their interests and for negotiating contracts with management.

Clause 3.

The President shall have the power to appoint, subject to Senate approval,  members of an Atlasian Competitive Contracting Committee. The Committee will be comprised of 9 members, though the number may be increased by appropriate legislation by the Senate as is deemed necessary. The purpose of this Committee will be to conduct regular performance reviews of all federal government departments to determine if privatization of these functions is feasible in full or in part. They will do this in accordance with established performance standards for each department, which will be determined by performance reviews of all Atlasian Federal employees, the standards of which will be determined by the managers of each federal department. The federal employee unions shall have the right to review these standards, and if they do not find them agreeable, present their own standards if they so choose. If the two cannot come to a mutally agreeable set of performance standards, both sides will present their proposals to the Competitive Contracting Committee at a public hearing, which will then be required to choose which proposal of the two that they feel is most appropriate.

Clause 4.

Employee reviews of all federal employees shall be conducted from time to time, but must be conducted for each employee at a minimum of once every 365 days, starting at their date of hire. These reviews will be conducted by managers according to standards approved of by both management and unions as detailed in Clause 3.

Clause 5.

The Competitive Contracting Committee will review the functions of each department and a summary of the performance reviews, conducted as detailed in Clause 4 and presented to them by the managers of each department, at a minimum of once every 365 days, and determine if performance standards are being met. If it is determined that they are not, the functions of that department may be opened for contract bids from the private sector, either in whole or in part at the discretion of the Committee. Sealed bids will be accepted from contractors, and will be reviewed by the Committee, and 5 will be chosen to present a presentation of their bid to the Committee at a public hearing. The Committee will then choose which to accept. Federal employee unions will be permitted to present a bid to the Committee, and if submitted, must be given the same consideration as bids from private contractors in the review process.

Clause 6.

Functions of the federal government that are privatized and outsourced to a private contractor by the above procedures will be required to be reviewed by the Committee at least once every 365 days, in accordance with procedures detailed in the contract with the contractor. Yearly performance reviews of the contractor must be conducted by the Committee to determine if it is in the best interests of the federal government to change to a different contractor, including but not limited to the federal employees union.
Logged
TG
texasgurl24
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,351
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -6.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2004, 06:30:44 pm »

Clause 1 stinks.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,445
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2004, 06:32:43 pm »

If this bill fails, the Supreme Court will strike! Tongue
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,459
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2004, 06:33:09 pm »

If this bill fails, the Supreme Court will strike! Tongue

King, please stop doing that!
Logged
Peter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,031


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2004, 06:36:17 pm »

If this bill fails, the Supreme Court will strike! Tongue

Do you not understand the concept that Judges do not prejudice themselves on cases that they might hear in the future. Because you just prejudiced yourself. If that (or anything similar) comes before the Court you will have to recuse yourself.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,445
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2004, 06:36:51 pm »

If this bill fails, the Supreme Court will strike! Tongue

King, please stop doing that!

Sorry, I just had this urge to be like Al.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2004, 06:37:00 pm »


It is designed only to exempt the military and other vital security functions, such as the FBI or CIA for example. It can be slightly reworded to remove any ambiguity as to whom is covered, if that is the concern. The provisions of Clause 1 are definitely negotiable, but I anticipated a backlash against including the military and other such groups under these provisions.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,445
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2004, 06:39:07 pm »

If this bill fails, the Supreme Court will strike! Tongue

Do you not understand the concept that Judges do not prejudice themselves on cases that they might hear in the future. Because you just prejudiced yourself. If that (or anything similar) comes before the Court you will have to recuse yourself.

It was a joke! It was a joke!

I have no real opinion on this matter.
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,459
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2004, 06:41:58 pm »

If this bill fails, the Supreme Court will strike! Tongue

Do you not understand the concept that Judges do not prejudice themselves on cases that they might hear in the future. Because you just prejudiced yourself. If that (or anything similar) comes before the Court you will have to recuse yourself.

It was a joke! It was a joke!

I have no real opinion on this matter.

King, please stop posting any polticial opinions regarding potential court rulings.  It is improper and threatens your impartiality.  Thank you.
Logged
TG
texasgurl24
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,351
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -6.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2004, 06:44:03 pm »

Maybe if you spell out exactly which workers would be exempt.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2004, 06:46:59 pm »

Maybe if you spell out exactly which workers would be exempt.

I'll consider it. As it is now it is open to some degree of interpretation by the courts if someone challenged one's inclusion or exclusion; may be good or may be bad depending on how you look at it.

We'll get some more opinions first.
Logged
StevenNick
StevenNick99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,899


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2004, 06:47:57 pm »

Overall, I think this is a great bill.  However, I will not vote for it unless Clause 2 is removed.
Logged
TG
texasgurl24
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,351
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -6.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2004, 06:48:15 pm »

Maybe if you spell out exactly which workers would be exempt.

I'll consider it. As it is now it is open to some degree of interpretation by the courts if someone challenged one's inclusion or exclusion; may be good or may be bad depending on how you look at it.

We'll get some more opinions first.
Do you really want this court to determine anything? Tongue
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2004, 06:53:01 pm »
« Edited: November 06, 2004, 07:21:04 pm by Senator Nym90 »

Overall, I think this is a great bill.  However, I will not vote for it unless Clause 2 is removed.

The unions are subject to yearly performance reviews, with the threat of losing their jobs to outsourcing to private contractors if they don't meet those standards.

What other objections do you have to unions that aren't addressed by that?

The rights of workers are protected, but they are still forced to compete with the free market on a regular basis. Seems fair to me.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2004, 06:53:41 pm »

Maybe if you spell out exactly which workers would be exempt.

I'll consider it. As it is now it is open to some degree of interpretation by the courts if someone challenged one's inclusion or exclusion; may be good or may be bad depending on how you look at it.

We'll get some more opinions first.
Do you really want this court to determine anything? Tongue

Good point, although I wanted to avoid being too pedantic. If I have to, I can be.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,445
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2004, 07:30:44 pm »

If this bill fails, the Supreme Court will strike! Tongue

Do you not understand the concept that Judges do not prejudice themselves on cases that they might hear in the future. Because you just prejudiced yourself. If that (or anything similar) comes before the Court you will have to recuse yourself.

It was a joke! It was a joke!

I have no real opinion on this matter.

King, please stop posting any polticial opinions regarding potential court rulings.  It is improper and threatens your impartiality.  Thank you.

Sorry, I forgot that as a justice, I have to keep an independent mind. If this bill ever makes it to the court, I will still preside at the case, but abstain my vote.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37,478
United States


P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2004, 07:40:26 pm »

I have some concerns with this bill, but mostly pendantic ones for now.  The language of the bill implies, altho it does not seem to require, that there will be a single union for all federal employees.  Also since there are already federal employee unions, I fail to see what, other than providing for the outsourcing of Federal jobs. this bill is supposed to accomplish, and given the author I find it difficult to believe that is its sole intent.
Logged
PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,543


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2004, 07:47:06 pm »

So all this is is allowing government officials and workers to form unions and then appointing an organization to check that they are working efficiently. That's the jist of it isn't it?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2004, 07:51:52 pm »

So all this is is allowing government officials and workers to form unions and then appointing an organization to check that they are working efficiently. That's the jist of it isn't it?

Correct. It guarantees the right of all federal employees to unionize, but ensures that if they are failing to perform their job, the job duties that they perform may be contracted out to private businesses. It is designed to ensure competition between unions and private industry on a fair and equitable basis, with neither side having an unfair advantage.

Privitzation would still be done under contract from the government, so private industry that performs formerly government functions is still subject to review, and these services could be "unoutsourced" back to the government if the contractors aren't doing their job, either.

It will ensure that all services are provided as efficiently as possible for the people, with proper accountability.
Logged
PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,543


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2004, 07:54:39 pm »

No one is being forced to join a Union to be in government, correct?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2004, 07:55:52 pm »

I have some concerns with this bill, but mostly pendantic ones for now.  The language of the bill implies, altho it does not seem to require, that there will be a single union for all federal employees.  Also since there are already federal employee unions, I fail to see what, other than providing for the outsourcing of Federal jobs. this bill is supposed to accomplish, and given the author I find it difficult to believe that is its sole intent.

No, there could be more than one union; that would be up to the employees, to have just one union or seperate unions. It's at their discretion, though I assume there would be one main union, with each individual department under its own branch that would negotiate contracts individually.

Does Atlasia already have federal employee unions?  While I am a strong supporter of unions, I also support accountability, and this bill is designed to balance these. It ensures that the people get the best service possible, whether that comes from government itself or from private industry under government oversight.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2004, 07:57:17 pm »

No one is being forced to join a Union to be in government, correct?

No, this bill does not require this, although the unions could, at their behest, negotiate this as terms of their contract with management. It would be up to the unions and management to decide; the federal government would not be requiring all employees to be unionzed, however.
Logged
PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,543


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2004, 07:59:28 pm »

So all this is is allowing government officials and workers to form unions and then appointing an organization to check that they are working efficiently. That's the jist of it isn't it?

Correct. It guarantees the right of all federal employees to unionize, but ensures that if they are failing to perform their job, the job duties that they perform may be contracted out to private businesses. It is designed to ensure competition between unions and private industry on a fair and equitable basis, with neither side having an unfair advantage.

Privitzation would still be done under contract from the government, so private industry that performs formerly government functions is still subject to review, and these services could be "unoutsourced" back to the government if the contractors aren't doing their job, either.

It will ensure that all services are provided as efficiently as possible for the people, with proper accountability.

It seems you've done your home work Nym. I am no Union hater and it seems that this would just help free enterprise.

My only reservation is that this seems to be just another way to increase fantasy government. Appointing 5 people to oversee that they are efficently ran. Why not just let the Secretary of Forum Affairs do that?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2004, 08:05:18 pm »

So all this is is allowing government officials and workers to form unions and then appointing an organization to check that they are working efficiently. That's the jist of it isn't it?

Correct. It guarantees the right of all federal employees to unionize, but ensures that if they are failing to perform their job, the job duties that they perform may be contracted out to private businesses. It is designed to ensure competition between unions and private industry on a fair and equitable basis, with neither side having an unfair advantage.

Privitzation would still be done under contract from the government, so private industry that performs formerly government functions is still subject to review, and these services could be "unoutsourced" back to the government if the contractors aren't doing their job, either.

It will ensure that all services are provided as efficiently as possible for the people, with proper accountability.

It seems you've done your home work Nym. I am no Union hater and it seems that this would just help free enterprise.

My only reservation is that this seems to be just another way to increase fantasy government. Appointing 5 people to oversee that they are efficently ran. Why not just let the Secretary of Forum Affairs do that?

That would be fine. I guess the idea of a committee was more of a way to try to make it a "real world" bill. We don't actually need a committee comprised of real Atlasians, seeing as we don't have any "real" employee union members either.

So I was looking at it in terms of since we don't have a "real" union since we have no "real" federal employees (other than the cabinet members, but I'm just assuming for a minute that there really is a federal bureacracy and all, made up of people who aren't on this forum, you know, regular Atlasian citizens) we wouldn't need a "real" committee either, it would just be sort of assumed that you appointed committee members and the Senate approved them or what not. Of course, as the Presidency changes, so could the members of the committee, thus perhaps causing it to have a slant towards one side or the other, but that would be part of the democratic process.

So that was the idea there.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37,478
United States


P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2004, 08:18:23 pm »

Does Atlasia already have federal employee unions?

The usual default is to assume that unless we've done something to make Atlasia different from America its the same, and considering that  The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has some 600,000 members and that The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) has some 150,000 plus there are probably others as well, I think it is safe to say that Atlasia has federal employee unions.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC