SB 2018-307: Employee Free Choice Act (Voting on Amendment)

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Sestak

[Mr. Reactionary]

2 Proposed Amendments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Sestak]

Hostile.

[Mr. Reactionary]

A vote on both amendments is now open for 72 hrs or until everyone votes.

[Mr. Reactionary]

aye
aye

[Sestak]

Nay
Nay

[Dr. MB]

Nay
Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"Employee Free Choice Has Risen Again!!!"

[AustralianSwingVoter]

As the Fremont Parliament is shortly to vote on a resolution to urge the Senate to pass this bill, I feel that I should make my feelings clear.
Let me be absolutely clear here, I don't like unions. However, despite my great personal disdain for them, I recognise that they have an important purpose, to protect their members. More importantly, I wholeheartedly recognise that employees have every right to join a union if they so wish, and that employers should not obstruct that freedom.
So, in short, I urge the Senate to look favourably on this bill.

[fhtagn]

As the Fremont Parliament is shortly to vote on a resolution to urge the Senate to pass this bill, I feel that I should make my feelings clear.
Let me be absolutely clear here, I don't like unions. However, despite my great personal disdain for them, I recognise that they have an important purpose, to protect their members. More importantly, I wholeheartedly recognise that employees have every right to join a union if they so wish, and that employers should not obstruct that freedom.
So, in short, I urge the Senate to look favourably on this bill.

They can already do so under current law.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

As the Fremont Parliament is shortly to vote on a resolution to urge the Senate to pass this bill, I feel that I should make my feelings clear.
Let me be absolutely clear here, I don't like unions. However, despite my great personal disdain for them, I recognise that they have an important purpose, to protect their members. More importantly, I wholeheartedly recognise that employees have every right to join a union if they so wish, and that employers should not obstruct that freedom.
So, in short, I urge the Senate to look favourably on this bill.

They can already do so under current law.

Yes, I know, however I was just trying to make a simple argument.
The problem with everything relating to unions for me is trying to separate my personal views about unions from my personal and realistic views about unions. Personally, I hate unions, I feel they are nothing but corrupt luddites who pay for Australian Labor Party prostitutes. However, I recognise that my preference of the government protecting workers isn't going to happen any time soon, so unions are an unfortunate necessary evil.
Basically, I remember when the RL bill was around (just as I was starting to get interested in politics). I feel that the card check, although far from perfect, is a better system. Yes it does give advantage to the unions, but quite frankly in US, with your weak unions, I would rather that the unions had a bit too much power than the companies. Unions do protect their workers, (though not in the way I feel they should), from the excesses of unchecked corporatism. Unions do give the workers a voice to bargain with employers to stop workplace exploitation and to force better conditions for themselves.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Unions do give the workers a voice

And yet you aim to deny the workers a voice in deciding if they even want a predatory, monopolistic union as their exclusive bargaining agent. Seriously, your attempt to explain away why voting is bad is sophomoric at best.

[Sestak]

All amendments have failed due to lack of a quorum.

I motion for a final vote, 24 hours to object.

[Sestak]

A final vote is now open. Members, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Sestak]

Aye.

[Canis]

Aye

[Zaybay]

AYE

[Lachi]

aye

[Sestak]

Passes 4-0-0, 1 NV.

Aye: Canis, Lok, Zaybay, Sestak

Not Voting: Lechasseur

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY FTR


It has long been my belief that this bill is unnecessary, and we went several rounds last spring over this matter but fundamentally, I have not been convinced of why it is impossible in Atlasia to have a vote, a public, free and fair vote without the warned interference on the behalf of the left. I get it, there power of corporate money, the worry of having corrupt or complacent regulators and so on and so forth IN REAL LIFE. We do not have money in politics in Atlasia. WE don't have the Koch brothers buying up governmental agencies and state governments.

We don't have the same kind of problems and the same limitations that could in theory be used to justify substituting card check for the secret ballot. I am very willing to support any all regulations that would be necessary to protect the secrecy of the voting and so forth as well as to ensure aggressive oversight to ensure proper enforcement of those laws in a scenario where the secret ballot is preserved. However, it just keeps coming back to the same fears and the same insatiable desire for a ham fisted solution that usually violates some fundamental principle or constitutional concept because of a much feared real life bogey man that often times do not even exist here.

I am very much in favor of the right to collectively bargain and for the right of unions to organize to lobby for better working conditions wages and benefits. I Think sometimes unions cut off the nose to spite their chins in terms of the weighing of these demands with what is realistic and sustainable long term, particularly in regards to pensions, which lead to long term financial commitments as opposed to ensuring that the profits are distributed evenly and labor is properly compensated for in the process.

From a historical perspective (and you can already her neoliberals cringing) the formation of the large middle class in the United States in the mid 20th century owes much to the economic nationalism of the pro-industrial American System and also the efforts of unions to then ensure that everyone benefited from the economic success. There were other factors like rapid gains in education, entrepreneurship was vital, infrastructure building (railroads) and the resulting tying together of the internal free market, but the growth of infant industry and the subsequent level playing field created by the presence of unions were just as important. I am not saying that we should duplicate policies like high tariffs in the modern age where they wouldn't effective (and would be counterproductive) what I am saying is that the success of the nation and its people's economic fortunes often derives from the success and implementation of policies from both sides as opposed to a monolith of either.

[Mr. Reactionary]

NAY FTR


It has long been my belief that this bill is unnecessary, and we went several rounds last spring over this matter but fundamentally, I have not been convinced of why it is impossible in Atlasia to have a vote, a public, free and fair vote without the warned interference on the behalf of the left. I get it, there power of corporate money, the worry of having corrupt or complacent regulators and so on and so forth IN REAL LIFE. We do not have money in politics in Atlasia. WE don't have the Koch brothers buying up governmental agencies and state governments.

We don't have the same kind of problems and the same limitations that could in theory be used to justify substituting card check for the secret ballot. I am very willing to support any all regulations that would be necessary to protect the secrecy of the voting and so forth as well as to ensure aggressive oversight to ensure proper enforcement of those laws in a scenario where the secret ballot is preserved. However, it just keeps coming back to the same fears and the same insatiable desire for a ham fisted solution that usually violates some fundamental principle or constitutional concept because of a much feared real life bogey man that often times do not even exist here.

I am very much in favor of the right to collectively bargain and for the right of unions to organize to lobby for better working conditions wages and benefits. I Think sometimes unions cut off the nose to spite their chins in terms of the weighing of these demands with what is realistic and sustainable long term, particularly in regards to pensions, which lead to long term financial commitments as opposed to ensuring that the profits are distributed evenly and labor is properly compensated for in the process.

From a historical perspective (and you can already her neoliberals cringing) the formation of the large middle class in the United States in the mid 20th century owes much to the economic nationalism of the pro-industrial American System and also the efforts of unions to then ensure that everyone benefited from the economic success. There were other factors like rapid gains in education, entrepreneurship was vital, infrastructure building (railroads) and the resulting tying together of the internal free market, but the growth of infant industry and the subsequent level playing field created by the presence of unions were just as important. I am not saying that we should duplicate policies like high tariffs in the modern age where they wouldn't effective (and would be counterproductive) what I am saying is that the success of the nation and its people's economic fortunes often derives from the success and implementation of policies from both sides as opposed to a monolith of either.

LeTtInG wOrKeRs VoTe On UnIoNiZiNg Is BaD bEcAuSe ThEy MiGhT vOtE nO!

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]