HB 1357: Right to Work Repeal Act of 2018 (Passed)

[Sestak]

Any explanation on the amendment? Do you want the present term to accomplish as much as the last session of Congress? Because repeatedly objecting to final votes, demanding answers to questions that have been answered, and introducing amendments that are frivolous and just add to the partisan gridlock in the House are a great way of grinding the House to a halt.

Rather than play the game, far too many Feds in the lower house have just thrown a fit ever since WB got elected and done anything to obstruct the passage of this and the EFCA. It is becoming apparent that a common strategy of the minority party in the lower chamber has been to obstruct so nothing gets done and then go turn around as the next presidential election is underway and harp about how the present administration hasn't done anything to zombie voters in their GOTV messages on Discord.

Why should we just sit back and allow dumb policies to get passed without having necessary debate. They GOTVed a totally unqualified candidate to victory who is essentially a placeholder who doesn't care much about what goes on in the day to day affairs of Congress. So I don't see why Labor should be entitled to us playing nice with them.

Throwing gazillions of nonsensical amendments at the bill that you know won't pass without providing any justification for them is not debate.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Considering the Supreme Court has already ruled that the proposed amendment is legally correct, it is arguably only "nonsensical" in that even without the amendment a union would never be permitted under the law to expend agency fees for political and lobbying purposes.

In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education , 431 U.S. 209 (1977), the Supreme Court unequivocally held that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Labor can vote against the amendment but once again,  just like this entire bill, it is literally nothing more than a dead letter feel good virtue signaling bill that can never actually be enforced as Labor claims. The real complaint should be as to why they are wasting so much time on a facially unconstitutional law that will not do anything, rather than actual concern that this bill is nothing more than a funding source for the Labor Party. I mean yeah, anyone who thinks that its perfectly fine for a person to be forced to pay money that will fund only one political Party's campaign speech just to hold a job is an asshole. But thats illegal under the Constitution so the movement to block the amendment in this statute will still not permit such funding.

Ok, back to Labor pretending they never saw this and their factually incorrect view that this law will permit what they think it permits.

[Sestak]

Considering the Supreme Court has already ruled that the proposed amendment is legally correct, it is arguably only "nonsensical" in that even without the amendment a union would never be permitted under the law to expend agency fees for political and lobbying purposes.

In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education , 431 U.S. 209 (1977), the Supreme Court unequivocally held that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Labor can vote against the amendment but once again,  just like this entire bill, it is literally nothing more than a dead letter feel good virtue signaling bill that can never actually be enforced as Labor claims. The real complaint should be as to why they are wasting so much time on a facially unconstitutional law that will not do anything, rather than actual concern that this bill is nothing more than a funding source for the Labor Party. I mean yeah, anyone who thinks that its perfectly fine for a person to be forced to pay money that will fund only one political Party's campaign speech just to hold a job is an asshole. But thats illegal under the Constitution so the movement to block the amendment in this statute will still not permit such funding.

Ok, back to Labor pretending they never saw this and their factually incorrect view that this law will permit what they think it permits.

The opinion you posted above doesn't say the same thing as this amendment would.

The Abood quote you posted indicates that unions can only finance political activities with contributions from employees who consent to usage for those purposes.

This amendment would bar unions from spending anything on political activities unless 100% of the employees consent to it.

So under this amendment, if a union represented 500,000 employees, and 499,999 were okay with their dues being used for political spending while 1 wasn't, the union would still be barred from using the dues from the other 499,999 workers for political spending.

Claiming that this has already been ruled by the Supreme Court is completely disingenuous.

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that the amendment is one sentence removed from the first in the same paragraph, the most natural reading of "dues" in the context of sentence 2 is that it has the same definition as"dues" in sentence 1. "Dues" in sentence 1 is referring specifically to "payment ... for the purpose of collective bargaining ... as a condition of employment" aka an agency fee. This is not the same definition as the general use of the word "dues" referring to a membership fee. The Bill of Rights prevents the government from forcing people to join groups (like unions) and has always limited its rulings on the matter to fees charged for services provided, not a 100% membership fee. And sentence 1 upholds this. It does not say employers can require union membership, merely the payment of money to a union. Under Abood the Supreme Court clearly stated that agency fees are constitutionally limited to mandatory services provided and cannot fund unrelated expenses like political lobbying. If sentence 2 is using the same definition of "dues" as in section 1, the only "dues" being restricted are those collected under the context of sentence 1: agency fees. It is strange that sentence 2 assumes that union members have the authority to illegally spend agency fees if every member agrees, considering those agency fees must be refunded through an annual Hudson notice... But like I said, regardless of if the amendment passes or not, this bill will still never make it legally permissible for unions to spend non-union member agency fees on political lobbying, per the Supreme Court and the bill of rights.

[YE]

What about "administrative purposes"? Why should agency fees not be used for administrative purposes?

[JGibson]

NAY

[Coastal Elitist]

Why should a union like the teachers union be allowed to take union dues and put it towards something like supporting abortion, which has nothing to do with teaching. Workers should be allowed to choose to join a union and pay union dues. It seems wrong to make people join a union and see their money go to groups that they don't support. Union dues for an organization should be spent on the exact profession that the union is representing.

Yes on the amendment.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Nay

[Esteemed Jimmy]

With a majority of representatives voting against adopting this amendment, the vote will close in 24 hours and any Representative who wishes to change his or her vote must do so during that interval.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Aye

[Pragmatic Conservative]

What about "administrative purposes"? Why should agency fees not be used for administrative purposes?

Administrative purposes could count as wages and bonuses for the board of directors and president of the union. Individuals shouldn’t be forced to subsidize bonuses for these individuals.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

The amendment fails to be adopted by a vote of 5-3-1.

[fhtagn]

If you're going to force people to join a union, and argue that unions are good for the workers, why are you people defending their ability to use their funds on things that dont help the workers?

This is a more than reasonable amendment, and just proved how anti-worker the Atlasian left is.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If I was still in the House I would vote no on this Bill.

[Sestak]

If you're going to force people to join a union, and argue that unions are good for the workers, why are you people defending their ability to use their funds on things that dont help the workers?

This is a more than reasonable amendment, and just proved how anti-worker the Atlasian left is.

Once again, the amendment is written in a way that it prohibits even one worker’s payments going to administrative costs unless every other worker also agrees with it.

[fhtagn]

If you're going to force people to join a union, and argue that unions are good for the workers, why are you people defending their ability to use their funds on things that dont help the workers?

This is a more than reasonable amendment, and just proved how anti-worker the Atlasian left is.

Once again, the amendment is written in a way that it prohibits even one worker’s payments going to administrative costs unless every other worker also agrees with it.

If even one worker objects to their dues being used to pay for ridiculous things like political donations and lobbying, that is one too many, especially when you want to force them to join the union or face unemployment.

If you guys really cared about workers, you wouldn't be pushing for this bill at all, and the left wing representatives certainly would have at least supported the amendment.

I guess it's fair to say the name "Labor" party doesn't mean what it implies.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I motion for a final vote. Representatives have 24 hours for objections.

[Sestak]

If you're going to force people to join a union, and argue that unions are good for the workers, why are you people defending their ability to use their funds on things that dont help the workers?

This is a more than reasonable amendment, and just proved how anti-worker the Atlasian left is.

Once again, the amendment is written in a way that it prohibits even one worker’s payments going to administrative costs unless every other worker also agrees with it.

If even one worker objects to their dues being used to pay for ridiculous things like political donations and lobbying, that is one too many, especially when you want to force them to join the union or face unemployment.

If you guys really cared about workers, you wouldn't be pushing for this bill at all, and the left wing representatives certainly would have at least supported the amendment.

I guess it's fair to say the name "Labor" party doesn't mean what it implies.

If worker A isn’t okay with their dues being used for political purposes, then I agree, those dues shouldn’t be used for that. But why should that prevent worker B’s dues from being used for political purposes if they are okay with it?

[Devout Centrist]

I would understand my colleagues opposing closed shop legislation from a philosophical perspective. However, the Federalists have instead embarked on a quest to suggest inane amendments that are completely unworkable. It's pure obstruction.

There are existing opt outs for the use of union dues for PACs and other forms of political speech. This bill has my full support, and I look forward to its passage.

[fhtagn]

If you're going to force people to join a union, and argue that unions are good for the workers, why are you people defending their ability to use their funds on things that dont help the workers?

This is a more than reasonable amendment, and just proved how anti-worker the Atlasian left is.

Once again, the amendment is written in a way that it prohibits even one worker’s payments going to administrative costs unless every other worker also agrees with it.

If even one worker objects to their dues being used to pay for ridiculous things like political donations and lobbying, that is one too many, especially when you want to force them to join the union or face unemployment.

If you guys really cared about workers, you wouldn't be pushing for this bill at all, and the left wing representatives certainly would have at least supported the amendment.

I guess it's fair to say the name "Labor" party doesn't mean what it implies.

If worker A isn’t okay with their dues being used for political purposes, then I agree, those dues shouldn’t be used for that. But why should that prevent worker B’s dues from being used for political purposes if they are okay with it?

Why allow unions to do it in the first place if it doesn't actually help the workers?

[Sestak]

If you're going to force people to join a union, and argue that unions are good for the workers, why are you people defending their ability to use their funds on things that dont help the workers?

This is a more than reasonable amendment, and just proved how anti-worker the Atlasian left is.

Once again, the amendment is written in a way that it prohibits even one worker’s payments going to administrative costs unless every other worker also agrees with it.

If even one worker objects to their dues being used to pay for ridiculous things like political donations and lobbying, that is one too many, especially when you want to force them to join the union or face unemployment.

If you guys really cared about workers, you wouldn't be pushing for this bill at all, and the left wing representatives certainly would have at least supported the amendment.

I guess it's fair to say the name "Labor" party doesn't mean what it implies.

If worker A isn’t okay with their dues being used for political purposes, then I agree, those dues shouldn’t be used for that. But why should that prevent worker B’s dues from being used for political purposes if they are okay with it?

Why allow unions to do it in the first place if it doesn't actually help the workers?

What, you want to ban unions from political activity completely?

[fhtagn]

If you're going to force people to join a union, and argue that unions are good for the workers, why are you people defending their ability to use their funds on things that dont help the workers?

This is a more than reasonable amendment, and just proved how anti-worker the Atlasian left is.

Once again, the amendment is written in a way that it prohibits even one worker’s payments going to administrative costs unless every other worker also agrees with it.

If even one worker objects to their dues being used to pay for ridiculous things like political donations and lobbying, that is one too many, especially when you want to force them to join the union or face unemployment.

If you guys really cared about workers, you wouldn't be pushing for this bill at all, and the left wing representatives certainly would have at least supported the amendment.

I guess it's fair to say the name "Labor" party doesn't mean what it implies.

If worker A isn’t okay with their dues being used for political purposes, then I agree, those dues shouldn’t be used for that. But why should that prevent worker B’s dues from being used for political purposes if they are okay with it?

Why allow unions to do it in the first place if it doesn't actually help the workers?

What, you want to ban unions from political activity completely?

If you're going to force people into them, there's no need for them to be engaged in political activity.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

If you're going to force people to join a union, and argue that unions are good for the workers, why are you people defending their ability to use their funds on things that dont help the workers?

This is a more than reasonable amendment, and just proved how anti-worker the Atlasian left is.

Once again, the amendment is written in a way that it prohibits even one worker’s payments going to administrative costs unless every other worker also agrees with it.

If even one worker objects to their dues being used to pay for ridiculous things like political donations and lobbying, that is one too many, especially when you want to force them to join the union or face unemployment.

If you guys really cared about workers, you wouldn't be pushing for this bill at all, and the left wing representatives certainly would have at least supported the amendment.

I guess it's fair to say the name "Labor" party doesn't mean what it implies.

If worker A isn’t okay with their dues being used for political purposes, then I agree, those dues shouldn’t be used for that. But why should that prevent worker B’s dues from being used for political purposes if they are okay with it?

Why allow unions to do it in the first place if it doesn't actually help the workers?

What, you want to ban unions from political activity completely?

Unions can still fundraise money outside of raising dues to engage in political activities.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I object to the motion for a final vote. Debate is obviously still active and it would be inappropriate to rush to a final vote at this point.

[Vern]

While I believe Unions have their place to help workers, I do not believe in using union fees for political things. It should go toward things that will help the workers and better their working environment.