HB 1195: Atlasian Workers' Restoration Act (Failed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
People's Regional Senate
Passed 5-1-0 in the Atlasian Senate assembled

[/quote]

Sponsor: AZ

     I hereby open the floor for debate.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I will sponsor this bill.

[fhtagn]

As stated in the Senate discussion, the important issues that this would resolve have already been taken care of when I signed the POWER Act:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272198.msg5845011#msg5845011

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Representatives have 24 hours to object to Representative AZ assuming sponsorship of this bill.

[The Govanah Jake]

Support, Taft-Hartley has nothing but damaged Worker Organization and Power.

[fhtagn]

Another bit that was ignored in the Senate discussion that I truly hope the House will actually discuss:

Since, as has been stated, we passed the Power Act not too long ago, will this bill have any additional meaningful impact?

This bill would legalize union shops nationwide, thereby rolling back right-to-work laws. Another provision of Taft-Hartley limits the liability of employers toward supervisors who engage in harassment of union members.

Union shop is basically just the compromise to unions in exchange for requiring them to represent non union members at the bargaining table. Since the POWER act removed that requirement, repealing right to work anyway is literally just blatant rent-seeking. If the benefits of a union are so great, people will join.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Another bit that was ignored in the Senate discussion that I truly hope the House will actually discuss:

Since, as has been stated, we passed the Power Act not too long ago, will this bill have any additional meaningful impact?

This bill would legalize union shops nationwide, thereby rolling back right-to-work laws. Another provision of Taft-Hartley limits the liability of employers toward supervisors who engage in harassment of union members.

Union shop is basically just the compromise to unions in exchange for requiring them to represent non union members at the bargaining table. Since the POWER act removed that requirement, repealing right to work anyway is literally just blatant rent-seeking. If the benefits of a union are so great, people will join.

Plus removing the ban on wildcat and political strikes while maintaining NLRA bans on firing striking workers, means that employees could go on strike demanding the employer donate 1 million dollars to donald trump but employer could not fire those employees. Thats lunacy.

If you are going to say employers cant fire employees for striking, you likewise have to have reasonable rules on when they cannot strike. Otherwise this is literally  1 sided cartel style regulatory capture monopolization .

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections Representative AZ is now the sponsor of the bill. I encourage him to make a statement in favor of the bill.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I will post something on this tonight.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I would like to first thank Spiral for introducing this bill in the Senate. I will first off say I expect the President will probably sadly veto this legislation if it passes the house however I don’t think we should simply give up on passing this. Over the last century we have seen our countries labor unions being under attack by governments who aim to weaken labor power to the determinate to the middle class. Further we continue to see labor unions under attack by right to work legislation. This bill will strengthen the rights of unions to strike and make it harder for government and big businesses to union bust. With declining wages our workers are in desperate need for a strong labor movement to fight for livable wages and good working conditions.

[fhtagn]

AZ, I truly hope that you and others who support this in the House are willing to at least address and answer to the very valid concerns that were ignored in the Senate when it comes to passing this legislation.

None of the people who are opposed to this are anti-union or want to harm the working class, in fact the reasons we support this is because long term this isn't in the best interest of workers.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Should employers be allowed to fire workers who go on strike solely to demand their employers donate 1 million dollars to the Westboro Church?

Because employers would not be able to fire such striking workers if this bill passes.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

AZ, I truly hope that you and others who support this in the House are willing to at least address and answer to the very valid concerns that were ignored in the Senate when it comes to passing this legislation.

None of the people who are opposed to this are anti-union or want to harm the working class, in fact the reasons we support this is because long term this isn't in the best interest of workers.

Can you please just quote the questions here and I will answer them.

We have heard the same old rhetoric from government on unions but it hasn’t proven to work for the majority of Atlasia workers or citizens.Once again we see policies that help big businesses being passed off as beneficial for everyday citizens. Workers are tired of being talked down to about how conservative polices are good for them and they should just shut up and quit complaining.

Edit: Fhtagn can you please explain specifically  how right to work actually helps everyday workers?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Should employers be allowed to fire workers who go on strike solely to demand their employers donate 1 million dollars to the Westboro Church?

Because employers would not be able to fire such striking workers if this bill passes.

That’s an extreme example that simply isn’t that common. Workers certainly should be free to strike and quite frankly workers won’t hold out for very long because they won’t be paid well striking; so I trust that workers will only strike on realistic issues.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Should employers be allowed to fire workers who go on strike solely to demand their employers donate 1 million dollars to the Westboro Church?

Because employers would not be able to fire such striking workers if this bill passes.

That’s an extreme example that simply isn’t that common. Workers certainly should be free to strike and quite frankly workers won’t hold out for very long because they won’t be paid well striking; so I trust that workers will only strike on realistic issues.

As a lawyer, if a client asked me whether or not they could proceed with a certain activity, and I told them "well the law says its illegal, but its not like they will ever find out", I would be being a bad lawyer. This repeal bill is an answer in search of a problem, and will only serve to destabilize 70 years worth of process. It's just rent-seeking.

 

[fhtagn]

The main issues that people have with this legislation have already been resolved under the POWER Act. Workers are protected should they choose to join a union, and unions are no longer forced to represent those who are not members.

As for the right to work bit, this ties back to earlier concerns outlined that if the benefits of joining a union are as good as supporters want to claim, then it should be completely optional for the worker to decide themselves, not forced on them by their employer (which would happen if right to work is rolled back). When workers are not given a choice, unions can charge higher dues because they know if someone wants to keep their job, they will pay it. It also forces employees to have their money go towards representation and political activities that they may not want. By making sure right to work isn't rolled back, and combining that with protections under the POWER Act, unions have to actually work to earn support from the working class, keep their dues more affordable, and are likely to take on less extreme political stances. Not passing this ensures that our workers have more control of their earnings, and have a say on how it is spent. 

I realize that not all unions are bad, nor am I anti-union, but it is completely reasonable to want to make sure that their power is limited, especially given the history of unions abusing it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Debate on this bill was going strong and then suddenly died. I can open a final vote in 24 hours if there is nothing more to be said.

[Oakvale]

I'm inclined to agree with the President's view on this bill.

The POWER Act of 2017 already far exceeds what I'm comfortable with in terms of the generous protections granted to labor unions and this represents a further step in that direction.

I am not inherently opposed to employees organising as a matter of principle. But, as with any powerful institution, whether it be corporate or labor, we must be careful not to too heavily tilt the scales in any one direction. Atlasia has regularly seen its representatives throw caution to the wind and prostrate themselves on the altar of "Worker's Rights". It is not clear to me that in any of these cases that such legislation did squat for actual workers instead of the vested interests of the unions as institutions.

I cannot see a circumstance in which I would vote for this legislation, and I hope to introduce a bill in the new session to address the issues caused by the ill-advised POWER Act of last year.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm inclined to agree with the President's view on this bill.

The POWER Act of 2017 already far exceeds what I'm comfortable with in terms of the generous protections granted to labor unions and this represents a further step in that direction.

I am not inherently opposed to employees organising as a matter of principle. But, as with any powerful institution, whether it be corporate or labor, we must be careful not to too heavily tilt the scales in any one direction. Atlasia has regularly seen its representatives throw caution to the wind and prostrate themselves on the altar of "Worker's Rights". It is not clear to me that in any of these cases that such legislation did squat for actual workers instead of the vested interests of the unions as institutions.

I cannot see a circumstance in which I would vote for this legislation, and I hope to introduce a bill in the new session to address the issues caused by the ill-advised POWER Act of last year.

One thing we need to remember here is that we do not have a corporate lobby, nor campaign finance, so many of the things that tip the scales towards corporations are already no longer present. That gives us a chance to be more discerning about the policies we take both in terms of corporations and also in terms of unions, I would certainly agree that the Power act renders this bill unnecessary at the very least, as I said during the Senate debate.

Also, you are indeed correct about the labor laws in the past, especially pre-reset.

[RFayette]

Should employers be allowed to fire workers who go on strike solely to demand their employers donate 1 million dollars to the Westboro Church?

Because employers would not be able to fire such striking workers if this bill passes.

This is my concern with the bill.  The absolute nature of the language involved is very problematic.  In general, protecting strikers from being fired in such a broad scope puts the ball too much in the employees' court.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am re-issuing the 24 hours call for a final vote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A final vote is now open on this bill. Representatives have 72 hours to vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[RFayette]

Nay

[Oakvale]

NAY.

[Leinad]

naY