MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[California8429]

I will bring this forward for a vote to override the Governor's veto. It is up to you Assemblymember to decide what you want to do with your vote. I bring up this vote to bring up options to the table. You can vote Aye to pass it, or you can vote Nay because you hate it or Nay because you want to consider it in the next session or I suppose you can Abstain.

I know many Atlasians have expressed concern over Section D. The reason I created it was to give collective bargaining rights to all workers without forcing them to pay union dues to a union that doesn't represent them. This section allows them to set their own fees, it allows them to decide how to spend their fees, and it allows them to disband if they would like at times when they don't feel there is a need to collect fees for their future uses. I'm sorry if you don't like big unions being involved, but it is the exact same thing people criticize big corporations of being, corrupt. Why would we not give workers another option on the table to their benefit. This forces them to do nothing, but only protects their right to create their own company wide collective bargaining group for however short period, or extended, maybe even permanent period of time. That's why I wrote the amendment, it's unfortunate you weren't all available when it was written, debated, and voted on to question it until now, but that is my case. It's freedom and safety of that freedom, to choose to use or not to.


And with that note, I know open voting to overturn the Governor's veto on the final bill. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting will last for 48 hours or until every Assemblymember has voted.

[tmthforu94]

My friends in the Mideast, this bill is not evil. This bill is not poorly composes. This bill, though, isn't that great either, and the Mideast region deserves greatness. In the recent hours and days, amendments, concerns, and suggestions have been brought forth, and the public has shown extreme dissatisfaction in this bill. The current version is quite simply wrong for the Mideast Region. I ask the Assembly to please vote NAY on the veto override, and let's get back to work on this bill and give the people what they deserve - a good piece of legislation.

[Junkie]

Is the whole problem here D?  Unless I am reading what we created wrong, this bill does not destroy unions.  It provides people with the option to leave unions, but does not allow for the free rider that Badger was worried about.  Before I decide, I would like to understand the arguements against it.  I am sorry, but I am just not seeing it? But then again maybe I am missing something.

Oh, and Badger, could it be that people are not leaving unions because they are just complacent or don't have the option to leave?  I would admit that this probably only applies to public employee unions, but you must admit that it is a possibility.

[California8429]

Concerns were also over section E, however I wrote, and you amended Section D which I would like to explain my reasoning behind, which parallels with the comment you just posted.

[Junkie]

Concerns were also over section E, however I wrote, and you amended Section D which I would like to explain my reasoning behind, which parallels with the comment you just posted.

I thought my amendment was a pretty good compromise.  Even Badger appeared to agree.  As far as E, we have not deprived these groups of employees the right to collectively bargain.  In an impasse they go to binding arbitration and even have the right to appeal that decision.  Again, I wrote that to try and steer as a center a course possible.  These employees are essential to a well run society and disruptions by strike can seriously impact safety and order. 

I am not seeing a reason to vote nay here, but am willing to here other arguements.   

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

NAY

[Badger]

Oh, and Badger, could it be that people are not leaving unions because they are just complacent or don't have the option to leave?  I would admit that this probably only applies to public employee unions, but you must admit that it is a possibility.

Certainly that may apply to a minority of members, but it doesn't change my point. Undermining the ability of employees who want to organize or maintain their union isn't for the benefit of union members who need "saved" from their leaders supposed widespread incompetence or self-serving.

Out of the millions of union members I have no doubt there are useless and self-serving leaders, just as there are in private businesses as well. If members aren't leaving out of complacency, then their union leaders must not be that bad, otherwise most members would hardly remain complacent if their dues were being wasted for nothing. As you note members who can't leave are very much in the minority (in fact, doesn't federal law allow an employee to leave a union even in non-right to work states?).

Regardless, even in cases where members are too complacent or "stuck" to outright leave the union, they can readily replace incompetent or corrupt leaders via democratic elections. Sure some bad officials--like bad politicians--can remain entrenched despite substandard performance, but I submit like any democracy those are the exception rather than the rule. The principle of one person, one vote governing unions can remove self-interested officials much more readily than shareholders can remove self-interested directors or executives from a corporation.

My objection was to rhetoric about eviscerating unions "for their own good", but my argument is moot as A-Bob happily conceded this bill isn't about "saving" unions from themselves.  Besides, what's political debate without a little rhetoric?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As of now, I am unsure and am changing from my previous "Aye", which used to be in this post.

[California8429]

Without a doubt employees are pressured to stay in unions when the entire company is under their thumb, in some situations. The evidence of this is RL where unions want card check and open ballots to vote for unions (in order to pick out those opposed to them and pressure them into supporting a union) since often times employees decide they don't want to form a union. This gives employees freedom to relax and have the true ability to choose to be in a union or not instead of having to worry about what might happen if they leave a union that every single person in their company is a part of. If the employees want to have fees and create or join a union, that's great, but they shouldn't have to fear deciding (group or as an individual) to not join a union.

[Junkie]

Aye

[afleitch]

So there is a vote to override without taking into consideration the concerns raised by the Governor in his veto or any other opposition to the text of the original bill?

[California8429]

So there is a vote to override without taking into consideration the concerns raised by the Governor in his veto or any other opposition to the text of the original bill?

Junkie has stated how the free rider is not an issue here and I have once again stated how section D is another option, not anything forced, for employees to use freedom in the work place to the best of their benefits.

[tmthforu94]

I must say, as Governor, I'm deeply disappointed in this Assembly for not even trying to consider changing any of my concerns, and instead moving straight to a vote. This certainly isn't the right way we should be handling things, especially on a bill that's very important to many Mideasterners.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd like to vote soon, but I'm being pressured to vote "Nay". I'd like to know specifically why I should vote "Nay". I read through the bill and I didn't find anything majorly dis-satiasfactory about it.

[California8429]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

Junkie can best answer this question, however I believe the fee is the amount paid for the specific negotiation outcome if the nonunion members is going to get the benefits that the union negotiated with the company. So nonunion members only have to pay a fee (up to 75%) for the benefits of the negotiation if they so choose to do so.

[California8429]

I vote Aye in order to see this bill through. I am open to amendments with the next Assembly, however I view this as a good bill for employers, employees, and unions, and thus I will support it. I do not want to see this fail and then put on a back burner that is never brought up again. This is one of the best solutions we could ever have for these three groups, giving everyone the ability to choose to be in a union, not be in a union, create a union and have the ability to control how their fees are spent, and making sure there is a balance between worker's rights and business growth and productivity.

Edit: After much threatening and thinking, I will Abstain my vote on this bill in order for this bill to have a chance to eventually be turned into law. I believe very firmly this is a genuine good bill for the people of the Mideast, however if the people want to deprive themselves of this, that is their choice.

[tmthforu94]

I generally consider this a waste of time. We have two options. Either A) We keep working on this bill, make some compromises, and pass a final version that is approved by a majority of the region. Or, we can do it how some people want and go B) Override the veto, where this then goes to a regional vote. This bill has bi-partisan opposition against it, with really only certain members of the Assembly being vocal supports. I don't believe one Mideast citizen has risen in support of this bill, yet the Assembly is still insistant on it's passage. Anyways, this bill can fail on the regional vote, then we'll start all over. So A-Bob, you're saying you don't want this to take a backburner, but I think it has a much better chance of being worked on still and taking center stage now when it's a top priority, than in a month or so, after this version fails the regional vote.

Once again, I urge all members of this chamber to vote NAY, and let's start working for the region again.

[California8429]

Voting is closed on the override. The vote has failed to gain 2/3 majority of the Assembly (4/5 votes).

Aye-1
Nay-1
Abstain-1

Not Voting- Cathcon, True Conservative

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm glad that this is done, so we can go back to working out the parts that people really didn't want in this.

[Junkie]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

I know this failed, but I think I should still answer you question.  Badger's main problem with this bill was the "free-rider" issue.  Basically, unions negotiate for benefits for all employees most of the time.  He was concerned that non-union employees would still get those benefits and not have to pay, thus leading to a destruction of the unions.  As that is not something I wanted to see happen, I wrote the 75% section.

Thus, if an employee is in a situation where they would benefit from union negotiations (for example fixed salary structures, more time off, better working conditions, enviromental safeguards) those non-unon members have to pay up to 75% of the union dues.  The remaining portion they do not have to pay, as that goes to union representation that they would not enjoy.  Hope that answers the question.

[California8429]

Are there any amendments Assemblymembers would like to bring up for a vote after all this criticism to do so?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

I know this failed, but I think I should still answer you question.  Badger's main problem with this bill was the "free-rider" issue.  Basically, unions negotiate for benefits for all employees most of the time.  He was concerned that non-union employees would still get those benefits and not have to pay, thus leading to a destruction of the unions.  As that is not something I wanted to see happen, I wrote the 75% section.

Thus, if an employee is in a situation where they would benefit from union negotiations (for example fixed salary structures, more time off, better working conditions, enviromental safeguards) those non-unon members have to pay up to 75% of the union dues.  The remaining portion they do not have to pay, as that goes to union representation that they would not enjoy.  Hope that answers the question.

that clears it up a little, but I still don't understand if the 75% of union dues is a one-time payment (such as 75% of the dues for that year) or an ongoing payment (75% of the dues for as long as the union-backed benefits continue).

[California8429]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

I know this failed, but I think I should still answer you question.  Badger's main problem with this bill was the "free-rider" issue.  Basically, unions negotiate for benefits for all employees most of the time.  He was concerned that non-union employees would still get those benefits and not have to pay, thus leading to a destruction of the unions.  As that is not something I wanted to see happen, I wrote the 75% section.

Thus, if an employee is in a situation where they would benefit from union negotiations (for example fixed salary structures, more time off, better working conditions, enviromental safeguards) those non-unon members have to pay up to 75% of the union dues.  The remaining portion they do not have to pay, as that goes to union representation that they would not enjoy.  Hope that answers the question.

that clears it up a little, but I still don't understand if the 75% of union dues is a one-time payment (such as 75% of the dues for that year) or an ongoing payment (75% of the dues for as long as the union-backed benefits continue).

one time

[California8429]

Seriously? no amendments after all this fuss?