Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 08, 2019, 07:01:49 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  S.19.4-2: LABORER Act (Statute)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print
Author Topic: S.19.4-2: LABORER Act (Statute)  (Read 892 times)
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 01, 2019, 01:01:51 am »
« edited: November 26, 2019, 04:54:53 am by Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil »

Quote
Whereas: “Right-to-work” laws across the South greatly reduce the ability of workers of all creeds from seeking and securing the rights of sufficient pay, a decent working environment, just amounts of vacation time, and sick and parental leave.
 
As a result: I hereby introduce this legislation to the Chamber of Delegates.
 
The LABORER’s Act of 2017
Article I — The long title of this bill shall be “The Laborer’s Assurance Bill Offering Registration and Entrance into Regional & Federal Labor Unions Act”. The bill may be referred to as “The LABORER’s Act” or “The LABORER Act”.
Article II — “Right-to-work” laws are hereby defined for the purposes of this legislation to be any law that prohibits contracts requiring union membership as a condition for employment, between unions and employers.
Article III — So called, “right-to-work” laws currently in effect anywhere under Southern jurisdiction are hereby invalidated.
Article IV — No state, locality, or another level of government under the jurisdiction of the Southern Region shall enact a “right-to-work” law.
Article V — The Southern Region shall not enact a “right-to-work” law.
Article VI — Articles I, II, IV, and V shall go into effect immediately after the approval of this legislation. Article III shall go into effect on May 1, 2020.
sponsor: WestMidlander
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2019, 11:55:06 am »
« Edited: November 01, 2019, 02:59:06 pm by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

Of course, I favor this bill.

Do note, Mr. Speaker: I believe this bill (the Southern Environmental Act) was skipped over in the queue. As a result, I would appreciate if the SEA Act can be addressed after the LABORER Act.

Thanks in advance,

Southern Delegate WM
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2019, 08:05:36 pm »
« Edited: November 04, 2019, 05:19:38 am by Baby Shark »

For starters, I think it's important to note what "right to work" actually means:
"relating to or promoting a worker's right not to be required to join a labor union"

No one is harmed by having a choice. Atlasian federal law already restored more power to the unions by ensuring that they aren't being forced to represent non-union members.

Because no one seemed to be willing to answer this before, I'm going to ask this here:
If being a member of a labor union is so great, why do you think people should be forced to join them? Why is it bad for workers to choose what they feel is right for them?
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2019, 02:58:44 pm »
« Edited: November 04, 2019, 03:51:13 pm by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

For starters, I think it's important to note what "right to work" actually means:
"relating to or promoting a worker's right not to be required to join a labor union"

No one is harmed by having a choice. Atlasian federal law already restored more power to the unions by ensuring that they aren't being forced to represent non-union members.

Because no one seemed to be willing to answer this before, I'm going to ask this here:
If being a member of a labor union is so great, why do you think people should be forced to join them? Why is it bad for workers to choose what they feel is right for them?

I thank the Gentlelady from Virginia for her questions.

Of course, as legislators we want the people of the Southern region to have the maximum amount of choice logistically possible.

That being said, a program or policy area being mandatory does not necessarily equate to a negative.

Social Security is mandatory, we have to pay payroll tax and can't opt out, and it is a hugely popular program.

When unionization is not universal, we have situations like this (website link) where employers give raises only to non-union members. When there is that choice to join a union or not, union members can be punished by being withheld raises, and the courts have upheld employers' right to do this.

Right-to-work states have lower wages, fewer benefits for workers, etc. (across the board) when compared to non-RTW states.

Unionization is about collective bargaining. Workers bargaining for their rights being amplified when there are more union members to lobby for better working conditions, better wages, etc.

In RTW states where unionization is not mandatory many coast off of unions. Without paying union dues, non-union employees benefit from increases in workplace safety, increases in wages, in family leave, often paid, in some occupations/workplaces, and in having gained the weekend, limited work hours (per day) and overtime (historically). All these rights secured by unions and their members.

In case this point comes under fire, I will go ahead and link the following (below):

The claim below was rated Mostly False by Politifact.

Quote
"Unions did not create" the eight-hour work day and the 40-hour work week. "Henry Ford did."

EDIT: At-will employment laws exist in 49/50 states. Unions also serve to negotiate with employers the creation of contracts necessitating just cause for termination, as opposed for no just-cause being needed for termination.

For clarity:

Quote
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

The "and without warning" section is particularly troubling. The source for the quote above is Wikipedia but this line is cited to "Jay Shepherd, Firing At Will: A Manager's Guide (Apress Media, 2011) 3-4."

We should strive to empower Southern workers giving them an equal seat at the table with their employers and this is accomplished through unionization.

The POWER Act prohibits termination on the basis of union membership. However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.

See the quotes below:

Quote
"At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all."

Source: Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, ''Cases and Materials on Employment Law'' (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.

Quote
[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment

Source: Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (2000).
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,699
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2019, 11:03:09 pm »

West_Mid addresses the concerns pretty well, and I've been eager to sign a bill like this for a while. You guys about ready to send it to my desk? *clicks pen in anticipation* Grin
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2019, 11:23:20 pm »

West_Mid addresses the concerns pretty well, and I've been eager to sign a bill like this for a while. You guys about ready to send it to my desk? *clicks pen in anticipation* Grin
I motion for a vote on this legislation. Given that this bill has been on the floor for more than 72 hours (118 hours, in fact) and debate has halted for more than 24 hours (32, in fact), I move that the Speaker open the floor to objections (to suspension of debate) for a period of 24 hours and if no objection is made by a Delegate, a vote should proceed on this legislation, in accordance with the rules of this Chamber.
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 846
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2019, 03:02:56 am »

I motion for a vote on this legislation. Given that this bill has been on the floor for more than 72 hours (118 hours, in fact) and debate has halted for more than 24 hours (32, in fact).

I second the motion.

24 hours for objections.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2019, 06:21:58 pm »

For starters, I think it's important to note what "right to work" actually means:
"relating to or promoting a worker's right not to be required to join a labor union"

No one is harmed by having a choice. Atlasian federal law already restored more power to the unions by ensuring that they aren't being forced to represent non-union members.

Because no one seemed to be willing to answer this before, I'm going to ask this here:
If being a member of a labor union is so great, why do you think people should be forced to join them? Why is it bad for workers to choose what they feel is right for them?

I thank the Gentlelady from Virginia for her questions.

Of course, as legislators we want the people of the Southern region to have the maximum amount of choice logistically possible.

That being said, a program or policy area being mandatory does not necessarily equate to a negative.

Social Security is mandatory, we have to pay payroll tax and can't opt out, and it is a hugely popular program.

When unionization is not universal, we have situations like this (website link) where employers give raises only to non-union members. When there is that choice to join a union or not, union members can be punished by being withheld raises, and the courts have upheld employers' right to do this.

Right-to-work states have lower wages, fewer benefits for workers, etc. (across the board) when compared to non-RTW states.

Unionization is about collective bargaining. Workers bargaining for their rights being amplified when there are more union members to lobby for better working conditions, better wages, etc.

In RTW states where unionization is not mandatory many coast off of unions. Without paying union dues, non-union employees benefit from increases in workplace safety, increases in wages, in family leave, often paid, in some occupations/workplaces, and in having gained the weekend, limited work hours (per day) and overtime (historically). All these rights secured by unions and their members.

In case this point comes under fire, I will go ahead and link the following (below):

The claim below was rated Mostly False by Politifact.

Quote
"Unions did not create" the eight-hour work day and the 40-hour work week. "Henry Ford did."

EDIT: At-will employment laws exist in 49/50 states. Unions also serve to negotiate with employers the creation of contracts necessitating just cause for termination, as opposed for no just-cause being needed for termination.

For clarity:

Quote
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

The "and without warning" section is particularly troubling. The source for the quote above is Wikipedia but this line is cited to "Jay Shepherd, Firing At Will: A Manager's Guide (Apress Media, 2011) 3-4."

We should strive to empower Southern workers giving them an equal seat at the table with their employers and this is accomplished through unionization.

The POWER Act prohibits termination on the basis of union membership. However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.

See the quotes below:

Quote
"At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all."

Source: Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, ''Cases and Materials on Employment Law'' (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.

Quote
[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment

Source: Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (2000).


A program is negative if a worker feels they do not benefit from it.

Unless you are willing to regulate the heck out of unions to ensure that they only serve one function (negotiating on behalf of the workers), and cannot do anything else, then any argument you make about this issue is in bad faith.

Unions are often highly political, and even contribute to political campaigns. Many people don't want to join them because they don't want to pay into an organization that doesn't align with their views. Would you be willing to push legislation that ensures that unions cannot express political opinions, cannot contribute to or endorse candidates in any elections, and cannot use their funds to donate to political campaigns?

Unions also have a very long history of corruption, something that union supporters always conveniently ignore. Are you willing to push legislation that cracks down on how unions, especially unions leaders conduct their business?

As for "at-will" employment, that is a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with right to work. The fact of the matter is, anyone who has ever actually held a job knows that it's not in the best interest of a business to let go of someone who is doing a good job, and has a record of doing so. Most employers wouldn't do that. There's also a lot of legal issues an employer has to consider if they want to fire someone that simply doing it for the reasons you laid out here doesn't actually happen.

If you'd like, here's a source that pretty much debunks everything you laid out about why at-will employment is "bad"
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/employment-at-will-isnt-a-blank-check-to-terminate-employees-you-dont-like.aspx
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2019, 06:34:57 pm »

EDIT: At-will employment laws exist in 49/50 states. Unions also serve to negotiate with employers the creation of contracts necessitating just cause for termination, as opposed for no just-cause being needed for termination.

For clarity:

Quote
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

The "and without warning" section is particularly troubling. The source for the quote above is Wikipedia but this line is cited to "Jay Shepherd, Firing At Will: A Manager's Guide (Apress Media, 2011) 3-4."

We should strive to empower Southern workers giving them an equal seat at the table with their employers and this is accomplished through unionization.

The POWER Act prohibits termination on the basis of union membership. However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.

See the quotes below:

Quote
"At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all."

Source: Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, ''Cases and Materials on Employment Law'' (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.

Quote
[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment

Source: Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (2000).


Don't feel like linking again since I already linked above, but an important tidbit from the article I posted just a bit ago:

Quote
"Before firing someone under at-will circumstances, consider the fact that it's not uncommon to receive a retaliation claim, a discrimination claim or a similar action," said Carroll. "Those put the employer on the defensive." In court or agency proceedings, arguing that your action was based mainly on the employee's at-will employment "isn't going to get you very far," she said.

Most people expect there to be some kind of justification for putting an individual out of his or her job, Carroll observed, whether it has to do with the person's performance, the company's financial situation or another workplace issue entirely. If you can't articulate and document a reason, "it's easy for a judge and jury to fill in the blanks, whether they're correct or not," and rule against you. 

Your assumption that employers just get rid of people for the sake of doing so is simply false.

Just out of curiosity, how many people who support this legislation in the chamber (or sit as governor) have held full time employment before? How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees?

We know from the perspective of most Atlasians at the federal level, that number is very small, and at times have been at 0.

It's an important thing to consider, especially when we are letting people who don't understand how these policies actually work dictate what our policies should be.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2019, 06:49:04 pm »

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2019, 06:52:47 pm »

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.

Also good to know you think that poorly of small business owners in the region...
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2019, 06:55:54 pm »

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.
Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2019, 06:58:29 pm »

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.
Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.
Madam President: It is unreasonable to claim that only experts in a particular field can comment on that policy area.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2019, 07:00:49 pm »

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.
Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.
Madam President: It is unreasonable to claim that only experts in a particular field can comment on that policy area.
It is unreasonable for people who have never had any real life experience with the issues you speak so negatively about to push policy on said issues.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2019, 07:04:43 pm »

EDIT: At-will employment laws exist in 49/50 states. Unions also serve to negotiate with employers the creation of contracts necessitating just cause for termination, as opposed for no just-cause being needed for termination.

For clarity:

Quote
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

The "and without warning" section is particularly troubling. The source for the quote above is Wikipedia but this line is cited to "Jay Shepherd, Firing At Will: A Manager's Guide (Apress Media, 2011) 3-4."

We should strive to empower Southern workers giving them an equal seat at the table with their employers and this is accomplished through unionization.

The POWER Act prohibits termination on the basis of union membership. However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.

See the quotes below:

Quote
"At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all."

Source: Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, ''Cases and Materials on Employment Law'' (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.

Quote
[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment

Source: Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (2000).


Don't feel like linking again since I already linked above, but an important tidbit from the article I posted just a bit ago:

Quote
"Before firing someone under at-will circumstances, consider the fact that it's not uncommon to receive a retaliation claim, a discrimination claim or a similar action," said Carroll. "Those put the employer on the defensive." In court or agency proceedings, arguing that your action was based mainly on the employee's at-will employment "isn't going to get you very far," she said.

Most people expect there to be some kind of justification for putting an individual out of his or her job, Carroll observed, whether it has to do with the person's performance, the company's financial situation or another workplace issue entirely. If you can't articulate and document a reason, "it's easy for a judge and jury to fill in the blanks, whether they're correct or not," and rule against you.  

Your assumption that employers just get rid of people for the sake of doing so is simply false.

Just out of curiosity, how many people who support this legislation in the chamber (or sit as governor) have held full time employment before? How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees?

We know from the perspective of most Atlasians at the federal level, that number is very small, and at times have been at 0.

It's an important thing to consider, especially when we are letting people who don't understand how these policies actually work dictate what our policies should be.



I think the Congresswoman overlooked this part of the quote I cited (in bold).
Quote
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

I wholly recognize, under the current law, the right of workers in some limited cases to file a (sometimes successful) suit of wrongful termination in addition to mentioning the inability of employers to fire on the sole basis of race or religion without repercussions.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2019, 07:17:15 pm »

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.
Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.
Madam President: It is unreasonable to claim that only experts in a particular field can comment on that policy area.
It is unreasonable for people who have never had any real life experience with the issues you speak so negatively about to push policy on said issues.
Going back to what I said, you could twist and turn this logic as many times as you want to justify any position.

Healthcare? Uh oh, I’m not a doctor or health insurance executive!

Abortion? Never had one, never performed one, no say!

Immigration? Never crossed the border, my family’s been here for hundreds of years.

Even if you do take that position, if you have no real life experience you have no say, that still narrows the “unaffected” group to a very small number of people. Everyone knows someone who has a job (even if they’re unemployed themselves) and most people know someone who has been fired from a job. If not, they hear stories. It’s not as if West Midlander and Leinad and whoever else do nothing but sit in a dark room disconnected from the outside world. Sh!t logic with no basis in reality doesn’t disprove this in any way.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2019, 07:27:28 pm »

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.
Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.
Madam President: It is unreasonable to claim that only experts in a particular field can comment on that policy area.
It is unreasonable for people who have never had any real life experience with the issues you speak so negatively about to push policy on said issues.
Going back to what I said, you could twist and turn this logic as many times as you want to justify any position.

Healthcare? Uh oh, I’m not a doctor or health insurance executive!

Abortion? Never had one, never performed one, no say!

Immigration? Never crossed the border, my family’s been here for hundreds of years.

Even if you do take that position, if you have no real life experience you have no say, that still narrows the “unaffected” group to a very small number of people. Everyone knows someone who has a job (even if they’re unemployed themselves) and most people know someone who has been fired from a job. If not, they hear stories. It’s not as if West Midlander and Leinad and whoever else do nothing but sit in a dark room disconnected from the outside world. Sh!t logic with no basis in reality doesn’t disprove this in any way.

The left consistently uses that sort of logic with abortions.

"No vagina? You don't get a say!"
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2019, 07:27:49 pm »
« Edited: November 06, 2019, 07:33:50 pm by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

Addressing the Congresswoman's other concerns:

Quote
If you are a [union] member, you have the right to vote on union business.

Source

Union members choose their union leaders. Additionally, union members often choose who to endorse, if the union does endorse. Local union branches do endorse candidates without or against the consent of the national, regional, or state branch of the union. I believe it is the right of unions under the first amendment to lobby for pro-labor policies and the candidates that support them. We live in a democratic republic so if a majority vote a certain way, in an endorsement or for a union leader, that is how things turn out. Not everyone can have their political ideology come to fruition in a democratic society.

Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2019, 07:31:03 pm »

Addressing the Congresswoman's other concerns:

Quote
If you are a [union] member, you have the right to vote on union business.

Source

Often, union members choose who to endorse, if the union does endorse. Local union branches do endorse candidates without or against the consent of the national, regional, or state branch of the union. I believe it is the right of unions under the first amendment to lobby for pro-labor policies and the candidates that support them. We live in a democratic republic so if a majority vote a certain way, in an endorsement or for a union leader, that is how things result. Not everyone can have their political beliefs come to fruition in a democratic society.

Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have historically been corrupt in some instances but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.

If you feel unions have the right to make political endorsements, you have a responsibility to protect the rights of workers to make the choice to not be involved with an organization that does not align with their beliefs. Forcing them to join in order to stay employed infringes on their rights. It's not the same as comparing them to elections.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2019, 07:34:16 pm »

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.
Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.
Madam President: It is unreasonable to claim that only experts in a particular field can comment on that policy area.
It is unreasonable for people who have never had any real life experience with the issues you speak so negatively about to push policy on said issues.
Going back to what I said, you could twist and turn this logic as many times as you want to justify any position.

Healthcare? Uh oh, I’m not a doctor or health insurance executive!

Abortion? Never had one, never performed one, no say!

Immigration? Never crossed the border, my family’s been here for hundreds of years.

Even if you do take that position, if you have no real life experience you have no say, that still narrows the “unaffected” group to a very small number of people. Everyone knows someone who has a job (even if they’re unemployed themselves) and most people know someone who has been fired from a job. If not, they hear stories. It’s not as if West Midlander and Leinad and whoever else do nothing but sit in a dark room disconnected from the outside world. Sh!t logic with no basis in reality doesn’t disprove this in any way.

The left consistently uses that sort of logic with abortions.

"No vagina? You don't get a say!"

And I'm opposed to that. You, on the other hand, clearly have some sort of double standard.

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.
Logged
reagente
Atlas Politician
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 431
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2019, 07:35:23 pm »

I motion for a vote on this legislation. Given that this bill has been on the floor for more than 72 hours (118 hours, in fact) and debate has halted for more than 24 hours (32, in fact).

I second the motion.

24 hours for objections.


I object.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2019, 08:36:55 pm »

EDIT: At-will employment laws exist in 49/50 states. Unions also serve to negotiate with employers the creation of contracts necessitating just cause for termination, as opposed for no just-cause being needed for termination.

For clarity:

Quote
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

The "and without warning" section is particularly troubling. The source for the quote above is Wikipedia but this line is cited to "Jay Shepherd, Firing At Will: A Manager's Guide (Apress Media, 2011) 3-4."

We should strive to empower Southern workers giving them an equal seat at the table with their employers and this is accomplished through unionization.

The POWER Act prohibits termination on the basis of union membership. However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.

See the quotes below:

Quote
"At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all."

Source: Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, ''Cases and Materials on Employment Law'' (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.

Quote
[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment

Source: Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (2000).


Don't feel like linking again since I already linked above, but an important tidbit from the article I posted just a bit ago:

Quote
"Before firing someone under at-will circumstances, consider the fact that it's not uncommon to receive a retaliation claim, a discrimination claim or a similar action," said Carroll. "Those put the employer on the defensive." In court or agency proceedings, arguing that your action was based mainly on the employee's at-will employment "isn't going to get you very far," she said.

Most people expect there to be some kind of justification for putting an individual out of his or her job, Carroll observed, whether it has to do with the person's performance, the company's financial situation or another workplace issue entirely. If you can't articulate and document a reason, "it's easy for a judge and jury to fill in the blanks, whether they're correct or not," and rule against you.  

Your assumption that employers just get rid of people for the sake of doing so is simply false.

Just out of curiosity, how many people who support this legislation in the chamber (or sit as governor) have held full time employment before? How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees?

We know from the perspective of most Atlasians at the federal level, that number is very small, and at times have been at 0.

It's an important thing to consider, especially when we are letting people who don't understand how these policies actually work dictate what our policies should be.



I think the Congresswoman overlooked this part of the quote I cited (in bold).
Quote
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

I wholly recognize, under the current law, the right of workers in some limited cases to file a (sometimes successful) suit of wrongful termination in addition to mentioning the inability of employers to fire on the sole basis of race or religion without repercussions.

Jobs don't just fire people for fun. Even in the source that I provided you, it outlines that when taken to court, employers are expected to provide some reason for terminating an employee. Simply relying on "at-will employment" won't cut it with a judge or jury, and the employer is likely to be ruled against if they don't have something to back their reason for termination. Pretty much anywhere you work today, even in states with at-will employment, businesses will document everything to back their reasons for firing an employee. Your argument that someone would be fired because the boss is having a bad day just doesn't hold up to how it actually works in the real world.
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,699
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2019, 09:11:43 pm »

The left consistently uses that sort of logic with abortions.

"No vagina? You don't get a say!"

Yeah but it's you using the logic now, and you're the only one doing so in this discussion. I try hard to avoid such standpoint-based arguments because they're often pretty dumb, but what's even dumber is pointing at someone like "your side does this!" to...somehow defend you doing that? Pointing and saying "hivemind!!!!" is not a valid argument, y'know?
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,590
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2019, 09:19:22 pm »

The left consistently uses that sort of logic with abortions.

"No vagina? You don't get a say!"

Yeah but it's you using the logic now, and you're the only one doing so in this discussion. I try hard to avoid such standpoint-based arguments because they're often pretty dumb, but what's even dumber is pointing at someone like "your side does this!" to...somehow defend you doing that? Pointing and saying "hivemind!!!!" is not a valid argument, y'know?

I've made plenty contributions to the discussion, with sources to back it, along with RL experience with these issues.

Maybe you can contribute with your reasons for why you think it's acceptable to violate individual rights and promote extortion?
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 846
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2019, 12:53:18 am »

I motion for a vote on this legislation. Given that this bill has been on the floor for more than 72 hours (118 hours, in fact) and debate has halted for more than 24 hours (32, in fact).

I second the motion.

24 hours for objections.


I object.

As there has been a formal objection debate will continue.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC