SENATE BILL: Workers' Liberation Amendment (Failed)

[Redalgo]

With the provision in question, my intent was not to suppress involvement or set up provisions that are not readily enforceable. Would my colleagues look favorably upon the following change? Are there any other concerns to iron out here before I actually propose an amendment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The provisions are targeted toward the ends of ending forced labor in prisons, more thoroughly suppressing the risk of the draft than prior legislation, expand wartime labor rights and the body of both eligible voters and candidates, and implicitly inject humanistic themes into government's responsibilities in a handful of other areas of internal and external policy. Provisions (b), (h), and (k) are expendable if it will increase support for the legislation. All the other points are negotiable.

[Redalgo]

Do you have alternative participation requirements in mind? I am willing to compromise if you have a proposal softer than the standards currently in place.

[Redalgo]

My proposal is imperfectly worded given my neglect to examine previously-passed amendments. Nonetheless, the current language in Article VI of the constitution only protects citizens against discrimination along lines of nationality, race, religion, sex, sexuality, age or political affiliation. My use of less ambiguous language eliminates any residual risk for future sessions of the Senate to find a sly work-around in voter registration that would erode the original intent of this.

I need to amend into my amendment an... er... amendment of Article V, Section 2, Clause 1, which presently states: "A person may become a registered voter if they have attained fifty posts and have been registered at the forum for at least fourteen days. In registration, the person must state their name and State of fantasy residence; In addition, they may optionally state a political affiliation," which I'd like to see changed to seven days with the post count left where it is. My language for the amendment of Article VI would be adjusted to avoid creating any contradictions betwixt the provisions.

Part of my beef with the current requirements was that I reached fifty posts and then lost the initial burst of enthusiasm I initially had before the two week waiting period had expired, and then out of habit kept ignoring the game for awhile thereafter. If a poster is sufficiently active there isn't really any good reason to hold them back from being in the game. If people are still suspicious of them, it is not as if the more experienced members of the community will be forced to vote for them in elections. And if the person in question is a sock, the extra seven days is not going to make a difference in determining that if the fifty post count is left as an unchanged constant, ya?

[Redalgo]

Then I will strip out the related provisions and tilt at that windmill another day. To avoid making three or four amendments, however, I'm going to wait a bit longer to see what else people are objecting so I can get a sense of what needs to change.

[Redalgo]

Senator Scott, your response, please?

At this time what I am hearing from y'all is that the conscription provisions need to be removed and the suffrage adjusted from the current stipulations. Are there no other objections or concerns for any of you to voice before I amend the legislation?

[Redalgo]

Alright then, for the time being I am proposing this amendment to the amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are any of the the other stipulations controversial to y'all?

[Redalgo]

Are any of the the other stipulations controversial to y'all?

Does D mandate that such a system be provided or does it simply give the Senate to enact such a system if they so choose?

E seems to say that all actions must be of mutual benefit to all their peoples; it seems to be rather restrictive language. What is to be the effect of changing the language from the current language?

On G, does this mean that the government must provide such things effective immediately or is it sort of like the UDHR?

Of course, my issues with F are obvious.

I am a fan of having constitutional flexibility in terms of political-economy. Provision (d) is already satisfied by certain social programs in Atlasia, though in the future I would like to see our system of social insurance broaden considerably, and (g) deliberately avoids using the word "guaranteed" so as to allow the People leeway in deciding whether their most basic necessities of life should be obtained within the mechanisms of a liberal (i.e. capitalist), social, or socialist democracy. These moves are not entirely symbolic however; I'm laying the groundwork for future legislation to be proposed without the threat of it being considered unconstitutional.

Given the current layout of the Senate, mind you, none of these stipulations pose a serious threat in practice to the established political-economic order. The leftist bloc in this Senate holds only 20% of its seats, and I fully expect Liberals will err toward the right on many reform-related issues, eh?

The provision (e) is relatively restrictive and is actually part of my triple-pronged thrust to enshrine humanist values in Atlasian policies abroad. Our country has a long history of nationalist agendas, imperialist aggression, and expansionism in international relations. Yes, in many instances ours is a country which has done a heroic, noble deed to the benefit of humanity, but one of my highest priorities is to nudge Atlasia toward a more consistent, stable doctrine of promoting human development around the world - something our great superpower is in a uniquely advantageous position to achieve. I think countries should be doing more to collaborate for mutual gains instead of competing in a cutthroat manner to "win" relative to the others at all costs, and by gaining in a mutual fashion I want to be sure it is the common folk who benefit - not the oftentimes detached, corrupt, and/or authoritarian elites of the countries we oft do business with for strategic reasons.

Then again, the language used is still ambiguous enough that it does not oblige you or any other official in our federal government to share my interpretation of it. Gradual steps are an important part of my overarching strategy though. Every little triumph counts for something.

If this amendment passes, I will no longer have a reason to pursue the Good Neighbor Resolution and will be inclined to scrap it rather than wasting time with it as a separate, comparatively problematic (approaching the matter via a procedural amendment) issue.

As for (f), you are the first person to actually say anything about it on the floor of the Senate. Given the extreme unlikelihood of my preferences prevailing on the matter, would you and your colleagues prefer the current flag be substituted and the anthem changed to something of our agreement in this thread pending further deliberation, or is any institutionalization of national symbols going to be a deal-breaker?

[Redalgo]

Also add in that no individual can be forced or compelled to join a union as a condition of employment in any busisness. [sic]

The power of unions and organized labour, just like that of firms and richly moneyed persons, needs to be checked lest it pose a latent threat to the masses. It is in the interests of all the workers in the long run for each individual to have the prerogative to choose whether or not to join a union. Not being allowed the option one way or another runs against the grain of my ideals, some of which actually make me staunchly opposed to allowing interest groups (e.g. unions and firms) to significantly undermine our respective measures of personal autonomy.

If any of the Senators believes this is a good idea I will seriously consider adding it to another amendment once the current one is finished with. I supported that provision in my Economic Democratization Act, which was initially designed to have provisions interlocking with those of this legislation. It is not an item I would be opposed to bringing back, so long as it wouldn't be costing me more votes than it nets. There are conditions under which I would be far more idealistic - but in this specific situation I must tread carefully or risk walking away with nothing.

Can you simply explain what problems you aim to address why such language is necessary to be added?

I've discussed my goals in earlier posts but was perhaps not succinct and to-the-point. I want:

1. ...to abolish forced labor at prisons, feeling it is an excessive affront to individual liberties.
2. ...to grant labor organizing rights that also apply to gov't workers and in wartime.
3. ...to grant the state a role in ensuring public access to more forms of critical infrastructure.
4. ...to shift in the direction of a more comprehensive, social democratic welfare regime.
5. ...to shift in the direction of a foreign policy doctrine more infused with moral considerations.
6. ...to shift in the direction of a more multiculturalist, live-and-let-live doctrine on social issues.

Some of these have "progressive," forward looking aims while some of the others are looking back in time and are designed to ward off repetition of historic human rights abuses in Atlasia.

The stricken items were included with intentions to permanently do away with conscription, which I consider an authoritarian practice, and expand the suffrage of the vote to share the fruits of democratic participation with a broader base of people than in the past.

Although I believe no particular policy is ever truly necessary, per se, I think these changes would make ours a more perfect union.

He is going after wage slavery, and by extention, the capitalism system that encourages it.

I wouldn't call it Communist, but more like an agressive form of Socialism/Social Democracy.

But the flag choice miscontrues his intentions though in my opinion.

I actually wasn't going after wage slavery, though I would add that I do not believe the wage system is an actual form of slavery. My thinking is influenced by Marx but his ideas are tinkered with in concert with those of several other noteworthy contributors to certain fields of philosophy and the social sciences. My direct attack on the capitalist system was in my earlier, withdrawn legislation, whereas this amendment is entirely focused - through one method or another - on expanding the rights enjoyed by the individual.

The flag choice is presently ill-suited since, as mentioned a moment ago, this amendment was supposed to be the drop of the other shoe following my push for economic democratization. If that amendment had passed Atlasia would on its way to becoming a federation of socialist republics - obviously making the symbolic adjustments in question more appropriate. Without such an economic shift underway I am merely pushing for a more social democratic or welfare capitalistic Atlasia in the short-term. Incidentally, I'm a much better critic of what is wrong with society than I am a legislator adept in effective methods of righting those wrongs!

Anyway, hopefully this helps a bit.

[Redalgo]

I like We Shall be Free. Trouble is, am not sure if the music accompanying the lyrics can easily be made into something more formal and hymnal in tone. Unfortunately, I probably would not be of much help finding a suitable alternative, seeing as my next four or five ideas are so ideologically charged that they could not possibly pass muster, given the circumstances. Perhaps the tune of a piece like Adeste Fideles, Amazing Grace, or Greensleeves would be suitable if they were to be given modified or entirely new lyrics?

[Redalgo]

If this amendment were passed, what changes to the system can you see resulting from the change in wording in (b)?

I would anticipate public workers being able to go on strike in response to austerity measures and unions in general still being able to pressure for workers' interests during wartime when it is not rare for popular support to surge for authoritarian measures meant to put "nation first."

Also add in that no individual can be forced or compelled to join a union as a condition of employment in any busisness.

Then unions should be allowed to negotiate two-tiered wages for non union workers.

I respectfully disagree, feeling such a measure would be excessively corporatist. I do think it would be fair though for the unions to be able to negotiate for rights and privileges within the workplace which only apply to union members, thereby mitigating the risk of workers avoiding dues but still getting to reap the benefits of the unioners' activities.

Also we should consider making no strike clauses illegal, and strikes without an official union should enjoy the same protection as unionized strikers.

I'll strongly consider language to this effect in my pending amendment.

[Redalgo]

Alright, it's time for another amendment. If there are still any changes to be made I'll wait until this one either passes or fails. Is the new language relatively satisfactory? Are there other concerns?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Redalgo]

If I just say Amazing Grace it implies using its original, strongly Christian lyrics, which would be a very horrible idea, and at the same time I figured it'd take us several days if not weeks to decide what the replacement lyrics and/or title should be. So I saved everyone involved a bit of trouble by specifying the tune and leaving the rest to be decided at a later date or the be figured out by some private party on their own to subsequently become widely embraced and later legitimized.

Usually I'd consider it an entertaining challenge to do on my own, but I've been far too stressed out and exhausted lately to care at this point. xD

[Redalgo]

Alright, wonderful. If there is anyone left still leaning against the fence, now is the time to let me know what needs to be changed for this piece of legislation to work for you. Otherwise I will call for a vote on this in 24 hours' time, seeing at this time there are no ongoing discussions over its continents.

[Redalgo]

I am disallowing closed union shops, yes, but at the same time nothing will be preventing the unions from only negotiating with employers on the behalf of their own members, ya? Changes made to workplace environs on account of union activity would benefit many people who do not pay dues I suppose, yet at the same time unions would not be obliged to negotiate for any improvements in the compensation and benefits received by any non-union personnel. Workers who are not in unions and prefer to deal with their employer on a one-on-one basis should not be compelled to forfeit a share of their wages to a labor organization from which they neither expect nor desire any patronage. To do otherwise, I fear, would be excessively corporatist.

If this is not a satisfactory response, could you please elaborate on what it is you object to and how you think it best ought to be resolved? I'm not entirely sure that I am following your line of thought here quite yet.

[Redalgo]

Ya. Upon further review of the article in question and a couple of others I have decided to back the "right-to-work" position and think unions ought to partake in members-only collective bargaining. Labor unions are interest groups. Just as we are not all expected to cough up periodic contributions for political parties we do not support, and just as we are not expected to pay fees to groups lobbying for the modification of certain areas of public policy, I would not force workers to pay dues to a union. In all of these instances we might observe the problem of there being free riders benefiting from the extraordinary labors of a group of people who contribute disproportionately to social causes.

I see how this could hurt union membership, weaken the leverage union members have against their employers, and possibly lead to a loss of at least some benefits but these union security agreements seem needlessly restrictive of individual liberties and market competition. If we can regulate the working conditions of businesses and establish a strong enough safety net via the state I fail to see how things could turn out badly in the long-run. Incidentally, I do not consider this particular position anti-union so much as pro-freedom of association.

If union members want more leverage in negotiations with employers they should seek to recruit non-members into their organizations by making the benefits of union membership seem to be worth the cost in dues to be paid. If they fail, just as in the case of a party or special interest group seeking funds, they must choose whether to continue on - driven by principle or self-interest (either of which can be noble) - or they can decide their efforts are too costly relative to the general level of interest their constituents have in contributing to their political maneuvers and respond accordingly. It is not as if workers cannot reorganize at a later date if a sufficiently large number of them feel they are not getting a fair shake. Unless you convince me it is a dreadful mistake, I have no reservations about my amendment.

Then again, perhaps in doing this I've foolishly managed to alienate members of all parties assembled. O.o

[Redalgo]

For the time being there is little to persuade me to change course posted here. Being in Labor does not mean I should conform to an orthodox interpretation of social democracy, democratic socialism, or progressivism either, incidentally. Sometimes my stances are well off to the left of what is typical of the party membership. Sometimes the opposite is true, as well. As a trustee occupying this seat, it is my responsibility to pursue courses of action I deem to be in the public's best interests. These perceptions don't always align my political objectives with those of unions.

At this time I would like to call for a final vote.

[Redalgo]

Oh dear, a call for a final vote containing debate about the bill itself.

Anything I can do to make your job more interesting! ^^

[Redalgo]

Aye