MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[🐒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).

one time

still this is an arbitrary figure considering some unions have members pay dues monthly, some annually, etc. 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Seriously? no amendments after all this fuss?

Call me out of the loop, stupid, inactive, but what was the major issue people had with this? That would help in trying to craft an amendment or a response to this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What is your point with section D?  And can workers who want to bargain collectively choose who they're collectively bargaining with?  Or can they pick and choose who is in their group?

[California8429]

What is your point with section D?  And can workers who want to bargain collectively choose who they're collectively bargaining with?  Or can they pick and choose who is in their group?

First off, I'm not sure I understand the difference between those two questions.

The point is for a collective bargaining group to be created at the company, by whomever, and they have complete control (over fees, negotiations, how they use their money, how high the fee is, etc). Anyone would be given the ability to join the group. It's something to discuss and propose, allowing the collective bargaining group to vote secret ballot (by say 2/3 vote or something) to kick someone out of the group that truly hinders the entire group.

[Badger]

What is your point with section D?  And can workers who want to bargain collectively choose who they're collectively bargaining with?  Or can they pick and choose who is in their group?

First off, I'm not sure I understand the difference between those two questions.

The point is for a collective bargaining group to be created at the company, by whomever, and they have complete control (over fees, negotiations, how they use their money, how high the fee is, etc). Anyone would be given the ability to join the group. It's something to discuss and propose, allowing the collective bargaining group to vote secret ballot (by say 2/3 vote or something) to kick someone out of the group that truly hinders the entire group.

So....a union then?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What is your point with section D?  And can workers who want to bargain collectively choose who they're collectively bargaining with?  Or can they pick and choose who is in their group?

First off, I'm not sure I understand the difference between those two questions.

The point is for a collective bargaining group to be created at the company, by whomever, and they have complete control (over fees, negotiations, how they use their money, how high the fee is, etc). Anyone would be given the ability to join the group. It's something to discuss and propose, allowing the collective bargaining group to vote secret ballot (by say 2/3 vote or something) to kick someone out of the group that truly hinders the entire group.

Then that IS a union, and portions of Section D are unnecessary.

[California8429]

What is your point with section D?  And can workers who want to bargain collectively choose who they're collectively bargaining with?  Or can they pick and choose who is in their group?

First off, I'm not sure I understand the difference between those two questions.

The point is for a collective bargaining group to be created at the company, by whomever, and they have complete control (over fees, negotiations, how they use their money, how high the fee is, etc). Anyone would be given the ability to join the group. It's something to discuss and propose, allowing the collective bargaining group to vote secret ballot (by say 2/3 vote or something) to kick someone out of the group that truly hinders the entire group.

So....a union then?

yes, but it gives the protection of them not having to join an existing organization or form out of them

[Badger]

What is your point with section D?  And can workers who want to bargain collectively choose who they're collectively bargaining with?  Or can they pick and choose who is in their group?

First off, I'm not sure I understand the difference between those two questions.

The point is for a collective bargaining group to be created at the company, by whomever, and they have complete control (over fees, negotiations, how they use their money, how high the fee is, etc). Anyone would be given the ability to join the group. It's something to discuss and propose, allowing the collective bargaining group to vote secret ballot (by say 2/3 vote or something) to kick someone out of the group that truly hinders the entire group.

So....a union then?

yes, but it gives the protection of them not having to join an existing organization or form out of them

But union members already can vote to decertify a collective bargaining unit at any time, A-Bob. Or vote to form a new one.

It seems like in addition to numerous other problems, this proposal is trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So then, we're talking about multiple unions in one company?

[Badger]

So then, we're talking about multiple unions in one company?

It certainly sounds that way. I can't imagine even businesses would like the complications involved here.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Furthermore, are these "non-union" collective bargaining groups paying taxes?  Unions are tax exempt... creating these non-union collective bargaining groups seems like it opens a HUGE can of worms.

If they want to go off and form their own union, they can do so through the proper channels and then work with the company.

[California8429]

I'm not talking about multiple unions in one company. I'm talking about the employees setting up their own union opposed to joining a larger union like Teamsters for example, a large union already in place.

Alright, I get your points but my point was to see this protected. I mean if you guys believe the law adequately covers these types of negotiations then great, we can move on.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

They should already have the right to form a union.  But if we create a law that enables unions without the "union" name, we get into complexities that affect tax status, among other things.

I think the law is fine without that part of section D.

[California8429]

Question to everyone, if we remove section D, will you support the passage of this bill?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Question to everyone, if we remove section D, will you support the passage of this bill?

if you removed section D completely, then I'd suggest a minor amendment to section E that I think would be noncontroversial, and then support passage. (I'd still prefer section C to revert back to it's original form, but I imagine that's probably a non-starter)

Of course what really needs to be done to get support, which hasn't sufficiently, is for someone to really make the case why the status quo is not acceptable and how this bill fixes it.

[California8429]

Question to everyone, if we remove section D, will you support the passage of this bill?

if you removed section D completely, then I'd suggest a minor amendment to section E that I think would be noncontroversial, and then support passage. (I'd still prefer section C to revert back to it's original form, but I imagine that's probably a non-starter)

Of course what really needs to be done to get support, which hasn't sufficiently, is for someone to really make the case why the status quo is not acceptable and how this bill fixes it.

this bill gives the freedom for workers to choose to be in a union or not instead of forcing them one way or another. This is absolutely necessary for a well being economy and region. And what's your non-controversial amendment E amendment?

[Badger]

Question to everyone, if we remove section D, will you support the passage of this bill?

if you removed section D completely, then I'd suggest a minor amendment to section E that I think would be noncontroversial, and then support passage. (I'd still prefer section C to revert back to it's original form, but I imagine that's probably a non-starter)

Of course what really needs to be done to get support, which hasn't sufficiently, is for someone to really make the case why the status quo is not acceptable and how this bill fixes it.

this bill gives the freedom for workers to choose to be in a union or not instead of forcing them one way or another. This is absolutely necessary for a well being economy and region.

But. They're. Already. Not. Forced.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't have the specific wording for the amendment. I admit I don't know that much about union proceedings, but my thought is that because they are prohibited from striking, the union will need another mechanism in order to force negotiations.

[Badger]

I don't have the specific wording for the amendment. I admit I don't know that much about union proceedings, but my thought is that because they are prohibited from striking, the union will need another mechanism in order to force negotiations.

Binding arbitration if either side certifies negotiations are at an impasse after "x" weeks after lapse of contract?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't have the specific wording for the amendment. I admit I don't know that much about union proceedings, but my thought is that because they are prohibited from striking, the union will need another mechanism in order to force negotiations.

Binding arbitration if either side certifies negotiations are at an impasse after "x" weeks after lapse of contract?

it looks like we have something like that
Section E(2)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

but the obvious question that this wording brings up to me is "within two months of what?" i would think if left vague as to what event signals the beginning of the time frame, you would have additional court disputes over that every time you have a disagreement between employer and union.

[Badger]

I don't have the specific wording for the amendment. I admit I don't know that much about union proceedings, but my thought is that because they are prohibited from striking, the union will need another mechanism in order to force negotiations.

Binding arbitration if either side certifies negotiations are at an impasse after "x" weeks after lapse of contract?

it looks like we have something like that
Section E(2)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

but the obvious question that this wording brings up to me is "within two months of what?" i would think if left vague as to what event signals the beginning of the time frame, you would have additional court disputes over that every time you have a disagreement between employer and union.

Good point. I suppose it could be from the end of the previous contractual period, but regardless that needs to be specified here.

[Junkie]

Sorry I have not been around for a bit, but work has been killer.  A good point on the "two months."  I was thinking two months from the beginning of contract negotiations.  While Badger's points are valid about the run of the last contract, that might not be feasible.  When dealing with local governments, often negotiations don't start for quite some time after the end of the previous contract.  For example, our union just started negotiating with the State in regards to a contract period that started 18 months ago.  The delay had to do with the budget, the end of the fiscal year, elections, and a number of other sundry reasons.  However, once both sides enter into negotiations, that is when the time should start running, in my opinion.

Additionally, in regards to D, i still think workers should have the option of not being a member of the union, so long as they still pay for any negotiated benefits that the union gets them.

[California8429]

Sorry I have not been around for a bit, but work has been killer.  A good point on the "two months."  I was thinking two months from the beginning of contract negotiations.  While Badger's points are valid about the run of the last contract, that might not be feasible.  When dealing with local governments, often negotiations don't start for quite some time after the end of the previous contract.  For example, our union just started negotiating with the State in regards to a contract period that started 18 months ago.  The delay had to do with the budget, the end of the fiscal year, elections, and a number of other sundry reasons.  However, once both sides enter into negotiations, that is when the time should start running, in my opinion.

Additionally, in regards to D, i still think workers should have the option of not being a member of the union, so long as they still pay for any negotiated benefits that the union gets them.

Both would be good amendments to have.