NE2: Northeast Right to Work Act

[DKrol]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Debate will last for 72 hours, ending at 8PM EST on Friday, May 8th.

I have 36 hours to advocate for my bill.

[DKrol]

This bill is only a further extension of a citizen's God given right to freedom of association. If someone wants to be in a union, that's great for them. If someone doesn't want to, they shouldn't be forced to. To require hard working Northeasterners to pay a portion of their pay checks to an organization they have no desire to be a part of is just crazy. Passing this bill will end the practice of repressing people's rights and over-inflating the minds of egos.

[pikachu]

Though I'm a bit more skeptical of labor/unions than the average Atlasian, from what I understand, RTW states tend to have lower average wages than unionized state in real life America. Also, there might an issue of conflicting with this law: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=165622.0.

[Dr. Cynic]

I don't support this. Not only could it be in conflict with a federal law, but also there are no protections in there for workers who could be intimidated into working without the benefits of a union. An employer can always bring pressure to bear on a worker when it comes to a decision such as that.

While it may seem a no-brainer that a worker shouldn't join a union if they don't want to, there are practical concerns involved that lead me to oppose this. If I was a newly hired worker on the fence, I could be pressured by management under a law like this that would prevent the union from engaging in a similar sales pitch. There has to be some kind of guarantee that the playing field is going to be level and this bill ain't it.

[free my dawg]

[SWE]

This bill is only a further extension of a citizen's God given right to freedom of association. If someone wants to be in a union, that's great for them. If someone doesn't want to, they shouldn't be forced to. To require hard working Northeasterners to pay a portion of their pay checks to an organization they have no desire to be a part of is just crazy. Passing this bill will end the practice of repressing people's rights and over-inflating the minds of egos.

So why are you trying to limit their ability to do that?

[windjammer]

Sorry for the interruption but,
I just inform you that trying to pass this is simply non sense because the federal laws has strong pro unions laws and right to work is not permitted, so it will change nothing about unions.

This bill is only a further extension of a citizen's God given right to freedom of association. If someone wants to be in a union, that's great for them. If someone doesn't want to, they shouldn't be forced to. To require hard working Northeasterners to pay a portion of their pay checks to an organization they have no desire to be a part of is just crazy. Passing this bill will end the practice of repressing people's rights and over-inflating the minds of egos.

And this kind of argumentation is just bullsh**t. If someone doesn't want to be a part of a union, he simply doesn't try to be hired for a job where unions are established. A worker isn't retarded you know. 

[Prince of Salem]

OK, I have conflicted views on this. Let's see...

I'm generally pro-union. I think unions have, more than any other organization, the potential of being the voice of workers, who are the backbone of our economy.

Now let's talk about this bill.

I see the good intention in favoring the worker over "big labor", without hurting worker's right to form unions. That sounds great by itself. It'd be the freedom we've long offered on social issues, now extended to the workplace.

However, I feel concerned that this could also hurt our economic diversity. I think that in order to have a stronger economy, we should be willing to welcome different types of job creation. To achieve this kind of economic diversity would require us to allow all kinds of workplaces: union-only, non-union and mixed.

But there's another thing: the federal law. I strongly believe that in the context of Atlasian federal law, Section 1 Clause 4 of the Labor Rights Act should die a painful death. It's an overreach of federal power because it hurts region's possibility to handle the issue differently, which also hurts the chances for bigger debate that would do so good to Atlasia. Unfortunately, that's not what we're debating here...

[Dr. Cynic]

Even if this bill passed and was inexplicably signed, it would be in violation of the federal law so the court would surely toss it out.

Motion to table.

[Prince of Salem]

Motion not seconded. (High on regionalism )

(Though I'd not necessarily vote for it).

[DKrol]

So let's take it to court and make the case for the rights of the worker over the rights of the union. I don't see the base for the argument that Right to Work hurts workers - It advances their personal liberties and rights of association.

[windjammer]

So let's take it to court and make the case for the rights of the worker over the rights of the union. I don't see the base for the argument that Right to Work hurts workers - It advances their personal liberties and rights of association.

[Insert vague non sense argument in order to avoid debatting]

[free my dawg]

So let's take it to court and make the case for the rights of the worker over the rights of the union. I don't see the base for the argument that Right to Work hurts workers - It advances their personal liberties and rights of association.

That would be a frivolous lawsuit. You can't sue to change a constitutional amendment you don't like.

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm going to use a real life analogy for this sort of legislation. Several times over the years, professional wrestlers have attempted to form a union in Vince McMahon's WWF/WWE. However, each time, they were ratted out by someone else and promptly fired because Vince doesn't want to face that kind of leverage from his workers, so as to keep their wages relatively low.

This kind of law protects businessmen like that and it protects those who will rat on their co-workers. One of the guys goes to Vince and says "So and so is trying to get them organized". Vince fires the ringleader or ringleaders and uses a law like this as justification. "These were just some troublemakers trying to force everyone to unionize".

Those are the sort of people a law like this protects. I can't possibly support something like that. It may not be your intent, but it's the kind of thing that happens and would happen if this law were passed.

[Prince of Salem]

So let's take it to court and make the case for the rights of the worker over the rights of the union. I don't see the base for the argument that Right to Work hurts workers - It advances their personal liberties and rights of association.

That would be a frivolous lawsuit. You can't sue to change a constitutional amendment you don't like.

He'd not be challenging an amendment, but a "regular law". That'd be perfectly normal.

[free my dawg]

So let's take it to court and make the case for the rights of the worker over the rights of the union. I don't see the base for the argument that Right to Work hurts workers - It advances their personal liberties and rights of association.

That would be a frivolous lawsuit. You can't sue to change a constitutional amendment you don't like.

He'd not be challenging an amendment, but a "regular law". That'd be perfectly normal.

Except federal supremacy is a clause in the Atlasian Constitution. And there's nothing wrong with the Labor Rights Act.

[DKrol]

Time for debate has ended. We will now move to a 48 hour vote.

Aye

[Clyde1998]

Nay - I think it contradicts the Federal law.

[pikachu]

Nay- doesn't work with federal law.

[Dr. Cynic]

Nay

[Prince of Salem]

Abstain

Still conflicted on it

[Türkisblau]

Which side are you on, boys?

[DKrol]

With 1 Aye, 1 Abstention, and 3 Nays the bill fails.