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

[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?

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

The provision pointed out by 1184AZ does not do the same thing as this.

Also, the provision I'm concerned about was passed after POWER.

[fhtagn]

And the provision that you're concerned about doesn't actually do what you think it does. So once again, this bill doesn't actually resolve anything.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

And the provision that you're concerned about doesn't actually do what you think it does. So once again, this bill doesn't actually resolve anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't know unions were occupational licensing groups.

Literally nothing in the power act explicitly protects the right of unions to collect dues from nonmembers, only to exclude them from the benefits. And why not explain whats being misunderstood by sestak?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Gross.

Remember, Constitutionally agency fees for unions are limited per Hudson and other pre-Atlasian SCOTUS cases to those services unions were required by federal statute to perform for non union members. It was a freerider problem and unions had no choice in the matter. After the POWER Act unions are no longer forced to perform thoses services. Its a very pro-choice law.

[Sestak]

I move for a final vote.

24 hours to object.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I move for a final vote.

24 hours to object.

Why did you wait this long to bump this bill?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I move for a final vote.

24 hours to object.

Why did you wait this long to bump this bill?

To avoid addressing the glaring concerns of this bill.

[Sestak]

I move for a final vote.

24 hours to object.

Why did you wait this long to bump this bill?

To avoid addressing the glaring concerns of this bill.

"Glaring concerns" of what was the status quo a few months ago?

[Sestak]

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

[Sestak]

Aye.

[Canis]

Aye

[Mr. Reactionary]

I move for a final vote.

24 hours to object.

Why did you wait this long to bump this bill?

To avoid addressing the glaring concerns of this bill.

"Glaring concerns" of what was the status quo a few months ago?

What are you talking about? The entire country wasn't right to work a few months ago. Fremont maybe, but certainly not the South.

[Zaybay]

AYE

[fhtagn]

How shocking that the Labor party is anti-worker.
/s

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

What is a "proviso" exactly?
So the Senate is just going to pass a bill with an obvious typo in it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is a "proviso" exactly?
So the Senate is just going to pass a bill with an obvious typo in it.
[/quote]

We already learned this week from Australia nutso that its not about actually passing good bills its about the warm feelz from being able to say "I banned assault weapons yay me!" Or in this case "I banned worker freedom right to work yay me!"

[Sestak]

Passes 3-0-0, 2 NV.

Aye: Canis, Zaybay, Sestak

Not Voting: Lechasseur, Lok

[Mr. Reactionary]

This should fail for lack of quorum as a quorum was not reached within 72 hrs of opening the vote. The rules cap floor votes at a maximum of 72 hrs unless waived following a request. No request for a waiver was ever made so the vote should have ended prior to Haslam's resignation. Its very abusive to throw out the rules just to push a hack bill that you can't even turn out a quorum to vote for. I was willing to declare my own bills as having failed when I couldn't turn out a quorum. Such a controversial issue should not be treated this way.

[Sestak]

This should fail for lack of quorum as a quorum was not reached within 72 hrs of opening the vote. The rules cap floor votes at a maximum of 72 hrs unless waived following a request. No request for a waiver was ever made so the vote should have ended prior to Haslam's resignation. Its very abusive to throw out the rules just to push a hack bill that you can't even turn out a quorum to vote for. I was willing to declare my own bills as having failed when I couldn't turn out a quorum. Such a controversial issue should not be treated this way.

K, if you insist.

I'm reintroducing this on the same thread, 24 hours to object.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I find it deeply concerning that the sponsor refuses to advocate for the need of this legislation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Assuming this has been reintroduced in the same thread.

To begin with I have severe concerns about the wording of the bill. For one thing the way the sentence flows: "No law or proviso protecting the freedom of association established by act of Congress,...".

It reads like the freedom of association is being established by act of congress, regions etc. The freedom of association is a fundamentally and universally recognized right found in natural and international law. It is protect explicitly in Article I in terms of the freedom to assemble and again in the last section where the constitution explicitly establishes that all Atlasians retain any and all natural rights that herein remain unlisted.

A bill, even if unintentionally so with its wording, should note imply a state of affairs that is blatantly unconstitutional and then proceed to correct or a restrict such action. I don't think this was intentional, I think this was merely an issue of grammatical interpretation. The word law is what is desired to be directly conditioned by "established by act of Congress..."


Secondly, the congress does not have the authority in my opinion to dictate to the regions proper protection of the "freedom of association". The Constitution is the final determinant of that and only the courts through judicial review may decide or interpret whether or not a region has erred in its policies in that regard. Here we see an unfortunate attempt by the Congress to usurp authority from the Judicial Branch.

Where the Congress does have the authority to act in this regard is through regulation of interstate commerce and with regards to the repeal of its own laws in this regard.

That being said, I must oppose this act for the simple fact that once again, the left has had no problems winning the regional legislatures at different periods of each of the last two years, and yet there seems to be the almost natural inclination of necessity for the Federal Gov't to determine what is good and what is bad for the regions.

This is a horrendously bad approach to take because it means that we are beginning down the path, at the end of which is the usurpation of so much regional prerogative and responsibility that there is nothing of importance motivate service, interest and turnout in regional elections. It is bad for game mechanics and it is most certainly bad in terms of constitutionalism and respect for the proper balance of powers between the regions and the between the branches of the federal government itself.

[Sestak]

Yankee, you’re reading this wrong. It is the current status quo that stifles the regions by federally banning agency shop contracts. This bill would send it back to the regions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, you’re reading this wrong. It is the current status quo that stifles the regions by federally banning agency shop contracts. This bill would send it back to the regions.

The original text that this bill was introduced as did just the opposite. That being said, even regarding the amendment, which I wrongly presumed to have failed (would it be possible to state what is passing when declaring votes: "Bill", "amendment", "cloture" etc). A lot of confusion can be avoided by clearly stating what is happening. This is not just for our benefit for but for outside observers as well.

That being said I am still concerned about the nature of the first clause, and the way it is worded and the amendment did not make any changes to that portion of said clause.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We still have a pending motion correct? Or can I go ahead and offer amendments?

[fhtagn]

We still have a pending motion correct? Or can I go ahead and offer amendments?

There shouldn't be any pending motions since he motioned to reintroduce the bill in the same thread, and the period for objections passed 3 days ago.