SB 2018-318: Right to Work Repeal Act of 2018 (Final Vote)

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Sponsor: Sestak

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why do even bother having regional legislative elections if we are just going to do their job for them from on high?

[Sestak]

Why do even bother having regional legislative elections if we are just going to do their job for them from on high?

I think this should say no federal law, whoops. Let me add that in there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From the convention:

We have gotten consolidation, we appear to have gotten bicamerialism. Unless we get devolution, this will fail at the regional level when it comes to activity and participation.

What people need to consider with regards to the recently failed JCL amendment, is that some of the most contentious regional issues that attracted most of the attention and interest dealt with social policy. We tend to forget that this is a game and there is desire to kill it wherever it grows with regards to any remotely socially conservative agenda. This happened in 2013 when Gass pushed for amendment to the Constitution that basically outlawed most all restrictions on abortion, in response to the Mideast Abortion statute that passed that year. There were two competative regional elections and a high turnout referendum that ultimately tossed out the said legislation by two votes, and this in a region that at the time was 50% Federalist, and had been dominated by Conservatives for five years.

There is this desire to coddle the regions, to take away any and all responsibility, and I use that word intentionally as opposed to rights or powers. If regions have no responsibilities, their officeholders and the votes cast in elections for such, are pointless endeavors. By leaving important matters in their hands, is how you force competition. If a region passes a statute you don't like, the answer in the best interest of the game is, run for Governor or legislature. Th answer most certainly is not to remove that issue from field by the having the feds make decisions for them, so they don't have too.

Devolution is a must or consolidation is a busted flush.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

We have federalism for a reason.

[fhtagn]

Yeah, no. This is not something that should be handled at the federal level. The bill as worded is also unconstitutional.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I will happily vote to kill this bill once it reaches the House. Sestak, if you want your party to play hardball, we can play it too.

[Sestak]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Sestak the power act already allows unions to require members to pay dues from members that receive benefits from the union. I don’t see how this law changes much of anything except giving employers the power to decide whether unions should collect dues from their membership.

[Sestak]

Sestak the power act already allows unions to require members to pay dues from members that receive benefits from the union. I don’t see how this law changes much of anything except giving employers the power to decide whether unions should collect dues from their membership.

As far as I understand, the POWER act only does the inverse; allowing unions to choose not to represent workers who do not pay dues. This clarifies that federal law does not preclude unions from setting up agency shop agreements.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Sestak the power act already allows unions to require members to pay dues from members that receive benefits from the union. I don’t see how this law changes much of anything except giving employers the power to decide whether unions should collect dues from their membership.

As far as I understand, the POWER act only does the inverse; allowing unions to choose not to represent workers who do not pay dues. This clarifies that federal law does not preclude unions from setting up agency shop agreements.

No it allows unions to decide whether or not to represent workers that do not pay union dues. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272198.0

[Sestak]

Sestak the power act already allows unions to require members to pay dues from members that receive benefits from the union. I don’t see how this law changes much of anything except giving employers the power to decide whether unions should collect dues from their membership.

As far as I understand, the POWER act only does the inverse; allowing unions to choose not to represent workers who do not pay dues. This clarifies that federal law does not preclude unions from setting up agency shop agreements.

No it allows unions to decide whether or not to represent workers that do not pay union dues. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272198.0

That’s literally what I said.

The POWER act merely says that when there isn’t an agency shop agreement, unions can decide whether or not to represent non-due paying workers. This clarifies that agency agreements are also still allowed to exist under federal law.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Sestak the power act already allows unions to require members to pay dues from members that receive benefits from the union. I don’t see how this law changes much of anything except giving employers the power to decide whether unions should collect dues from their membership.

As far as I understand, the POWER act only does the inverse; allowing unions to choose not to represent workers who do not pay dues. This clarifies that federal law does not preclude unions from setting up agency shop agreements.

No it allows unions to decide whether or not to represent workers that do not pay union dues. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272198.0

That’s literally what I said.

The POWER act merely says that when there isn’t an agency shop agreement, unions can decide whether or not to represent non-due paying workers. This clarifies that agency agreements are also still allowed to exist under federal law.

No it dosen't say that at all. Their is no mention of agency shop agreements in the bill at all. "i. Unions shall decide whether or not those who do not pay dues for union representation can receive the benefits of the union"

[Sestak]

Sestak the power act already allows unions to require members to pay dues from members that receive benefits from the union. I don’t see how this law changes much of anything except giving employers the power to decide whether unions should collect dues from their membership.

As far as I understand, the POWER act only does the inverse; allowing unions to choose not to represent workers who do not pay dues. This clarifies that federal law does not preclude unions from setting up agency shop agreements.

No it allows unions to decide whether or not to represent workers that do not pay union dues. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272198.0

That’s literally what I said.

The POWER act merely says that when there isn’t an agency shop agreement, unions can decide whether or not to represent non-due paying workers. This clarifies that agency agreements are also still allowed to exist under federal law.

No it dosen't say that at all. Their is no mention of agency shop agreements in the bill at all. "i. Unions shall decide whether or not those who do not pay dues for union representation can receive the benefits of the union"

And in an agency shop agreement, there are no members who don't pay dues for representation. So that clause only applies to non-agency shops.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Sestak the power act already allows unions to require members to pay dues from members that receive benefits from the union. I don’t see how this law changes much of anything except giving employers the power to decide whether unions should collect dues from their membership.

As far as I understand, the POWER act only does the inverse; allowing unions to choose not to represent workers who do not pay dues. This clarifies that federal law does not preclude unions from setting up agency shop agreements.

No it allows unions to decide whether or not to represent workers that do not pay union dues. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272198.0

That’s literally what I said.

The POWER act merely says that when there isn’t an agency shop agreement, unions can decide whether or not to represent non-due paying workers. This clarifies that agency agreements are also still allowed to exist under federal law.

No it dosen't say that at all. Their is no mention of agency shop agreements in the bill at all. "i. Unions shall decide whether or not those who do not pay dues for union representation can receive the benefits of the union"

And in an agency shop agreement, there are no members who don't pay dues for representation. So that clause only applies to non-agency shops.

Well I assume that bill refers to all businesses since it doesn't distinguish between them.

[Lechasseur]

Yeah, no. This is not something that should be handled at the federal level.

[Sestak]

TIL clarifying that the federal government is not imposing right to work is not something that should be handled at the federal level.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

TIL clarifying that the federal government is not imposing right to work is not something that should be handled at the federal level.

The federal government never imposed right to work in the first place.

[Sestak]

TIL clarifying that the federal government is not imposing right to work is not something that should be handled at the federal level.

The federal government never imposed right to work in the first place.

I was recently alerted to the possibility that this provision

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could potentially be interpreted by the executive to include agency fees to unions and thus impose right to work. This clarifies that the provision does not apply to agency fees.

[Sestak]

Also, derp, my own amendment is friendly. 24 hours to object.

[fhtagn]

I think it's safe to say that this bill is very poorly written, with not enough research done on laws currently in place. If the Senate truly cares about workers and well-informed legislation that actually helps them, they will realize this bill doesn't do that, and vote to kill this bill.

[Sestak]

I think it's safe to say that this bill is very poorly written, with not enough research done on laws currently in place. If the Senate truly cares about workers and well-informed legislation that actually helps them, they will realize this bill doesn't do that, and vote to kill this bill.

Exactly what are your specific problems with this?

[fhtagn]

I think it's safe to say that this bill is very poorly written, with not enough research done on laws currently in place. If the Senate truly cares about workers and well-informed legislation that actually helps them, they will realize this bill doesn't do that, and vote to kill this bill.

Exactly what are your specific problems with this?

You went from an unconstitutional version to a version of the bill that is already resolved by existing legislation. This bill as currently written is frivolous, and any decent PPT wouldn't have let it come to the floor.

[Sestak]

I think it's safe to say that this bill is very poorly written, with not enough research done on laws currently in place. If the Senate truly cares about workers and well-informed legislation that actually helps them, they will realize this bill doesn't do that, and vote to kill this bill.

Exactly what are your specific problems with this?

You went from an unconstitutional version to a version of the bill that is already resolved by existing legislation. This bill as currently written is frivolous, and any decent PPT wouldn't have let it come to the floor.

Resolved by what existing legislation?

[fhtagn]

I think it's safe to say that this bill is very poorly written, with not enough research done on laws currently in place. If the Senate truly cares about workers and well-informed legislation that actually helps them, they will realize this bill doesn't do that, and vote to kill this bill.

Exactly what are your specific problems with this?

You went from an unconstitutional version to a version of the bill that is already resolved by existing legislation. This bill as currently written is frivolous, and any decent PPT wouldn't have let it come to the floor.

Resolved by what existing legislation?

As already pointed out to you, the POWER Act resolves any issues that you think this bill solves.