S.19.4-2: LABORER Act (Statute)

[fhtagn]

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?

[fhtagn]

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.

"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:

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:

"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.

[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

[fhtagn]

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:

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:

"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.

[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:

"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.

[fhtagn]

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...

[fhtagn]

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.

[fhtagn]

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!"

[fhtagn]

Addressing the Congresswoman's other concerns:

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.

[fhtagn]

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:

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:

"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.

[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:

"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).

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.

[fhtagn]

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?

[fhtagn]

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

Debate hasn't died down, we are waiting on you guys to answer questions and address points that have been made.

[fhtagn]

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

Debate hasn't died down, we are waiting on you guys to answer questions and address points that have been made.

What wasn't addressed? (Besides hypocritical standards on who can legislate and arguing from a misrepresentation of my claims) <-- And even those I tried to address along with legitimate concerns raised in four replies to the Congresswoman's posts.

Also: Delegate reagante objected to ending debate but hasn't given his thoughts on this legislation before or after his objection or on any other legislation for that matter. About 36 hours have lapsed since the motion to end debate failed and no delegate has been talking about this legislation. In fact, I don't think any delegate aside from myself has debated this bill (procedural dialogue not counting toward debate of course).

This, for example:

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:

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:

"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.

[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:

"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).

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.

[fhtagn]

Good-faith clauses exist in some parts of the country re: at-will employment but they aren't universal. I prefer to expand security to workers who are doing their jobs, whenever possible. I didn't reply to this post before because I didn't want to entertain such a dramatic misrepresentation of my words--implying that I claimed "[j]obs...just fire people for fun."

Your words:

However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.

The fact of the matter is, that simply doesn't happen in the real world. Nor would it do any employer any favors in court if that was the scenario.

[fhtagn]

The fact of the matter is, that simply doesn't happen in the real world. Nor would it do any employer any favors in court if that was the scenario.

Every state but Montana is already an at-will employment state. At-will means your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Whether your employer doesn't like your shirt, wakes up in a bad mood, or just feels like it, they can fire you at-will unless you have a contract or union agreement saying otherwise.

A union can bargain to change this. Many union agreements have requirements that employers only terminate for just cause.

Source

Some states have good faith clauses as you and I have both said. To pretend employers never have discretion (without just cause) is disingenous, though.

I'm not saying at-will termination is an epidemic but I think it would be best to close the door to a lack of security for workers. It can be used, however rarely. And let's remember what's up for a vote here is right-to-work, not at-will employment.

I would prefer to close the door on avoidable financial jeopardy for working people, whenever possible.

You were the one who mentioned at-will employment, something you even admit has nothing to do with the bill (and something I already said in my first reply to that was irrelevant to this bill).


As for right to work, I would like you to explain the logic that went into thinking violating someone's individual rights in favor of extortion is acceptable.

Comparing it to social security or even voting for someone in an election simply isn't the same, and just saying they are is not a solid argument.

You are literally telling workers that they will be required to pay money into a group that they have no desire to join, that often engages in behavior that a worker may not agree with and uses funds collected by the workers to continue that behavior, and may not offer them benefits the worker feels they need. If you want to force people to join something, your have a responsibility to limit what that group can or cannot do.


If you have to force someone to join, it's clearly not in their best interest.

[fhtagn]

You were the one who mentioned at-will employment, something you even admit has nothing to do with the bill (and something I already said in my first reply to that was irrelevant to this bill).

I meant let's remember this isn't an at-will employment ban as you are defending at-will employment with fervor as if it is a ban.

The two issues are linked. I mentioned at-will employment only because it is one reason for ending RTW. In the quote I just referenced:

A union can bargain to change this. Many union agreements have requirements that employers only terminate for just cause.

Everything else I already addressed and mandatory does not necessitate bad as I already said.

Do you mind if we stop going in circles and vote on this?

We know from experience IRL that something being necessary is almost always bad.

To use your example of social security: we know for a fact that what we pay into it, we will not be reaping the benefits we should be from it when it comes time for us to need it. It's no longer effective and a waste of our resources as it is currently.


The fact that you aren't willing to put in restrictions on unions to ensure that it truly is worth buying into is enough proof that this potentially mandatory thing will not be a good thing.

[fhtagn]

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

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.

Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.

[fhtagn]

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

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.

Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.

The same can be said for corporations but worse. What's your point besides: only unions should come under scrutiny?

Not saying that at all.

However no one should have as much trust as you are putting in unions to do the right thing. Especially when history proves that they shouldn't have as much power as you want to give them.

[fhtagn]

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

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.

Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.

The same can be said for corporations but worse. What's your point besides: only unions should come under scrutiny?

Not saying that at all.

However no one should have as much trust as you are putting in unions to do the right thing. Especially when history proves that they shouldn't have as much power as you want to give them.

and you support giving more power to the corporations...........

I support employees choosing what they feel is best for them, as it should be.

If joining a union is so great, then an employee should be able to decide for themselves to join. It does workers no favors if you have to force them to join or be unemployed.

[fhtagn]

If joining a union is so great

You've gone over this...quite a few times.

And yet you still want to defend extortion...


Why do you hate workers? Why don't you trust them to make the right decisions for themselves?

[fhtagn]

If joining a union is so great

You've gone over this...quite a few times.

And yet you still want to defend extortion...


Why do you hate workers? Why don't you trust them to make the right decisions for themselves?

And why exactly do you trust the employers to make the right decisions?

Anyway uhhhhhhhhh basically we’ve gone over this. The only reason you’re doing this is so it takes longer to get passed because you know it will and this is all you can do to stop it.

What makes unions any more trustworthy of doing the right thing? If we are going to force people to join one, then the logical thing that needs to happen is stricter regulations on unions must be in place to protect the workers. Unions with too much power has always been a bad thing.

And once again, this has nothing to do with the employers, this has to do with respecting employees enough to allow them to choose for themselves whether or not joining a union is right for them. It is not in their best interest they are forced into it.

The reason I'm discussing this bill is because people with no knowledge of how things work in the real world are pushing bad policy that violates the rights of individuals.

[fhtagn]

I saw fhtagn has now bought the "Social Security is going broke!" myth.

Also hypocritical that she accuses others of ignoring her points when she just ignored MB's point that she's trying to waste the CoD's time (probably because it is true).

I'm a concerned citizen of the South and have every right to express those concerns. That's not wasting time, especially when 2 of your party's delegates aren't debating on something that needs debate.

Last I checked, you are not a Southern citizen. You are just someone who can't handle someone having legitimate issues with bad policy.

[fhtagn]

I saw fhtagn has now bought the "Social Security is going broke!" myth.

Also hypocritical that she accuses others of ignoring her points when she just ignored MB's point that she's trying to waste the CoD's time (probably because it is true).

I'm a concerned citizen of the South and have every right to express those concerns. That's not wasting time, especially when 2 of your party's delegates aren't debating on something that needs debate.

Last I checked, you are not a Southern citizen. You are just someone who can't handle someone having legitimate issues with bad policy.

You've commented on debates in other regions so I don't get why you oppose me commenting here. Anyway, it seems detached from reality to say there isn't debate here. You clearly are consistently trying to bog down legislative productivity when the left wins elections and tries to deliver on what most Atlasians want.

Pushing back against bad legislation, especially in my own region is important to do, no matter what party is in power. Winning an election doesn't mean bad bills don't deserve criticism from citizens, and it doesn't mean it's okay for said legislation to be pushed without proper discussion. If you can't handle that, no one is making you stay in this game.

[fhtagn]

I saw fhtagn has now bought the "Social Security is going broke!" myth.

Also hypocritical that she accuses others of ignoring her points when she just ignored MB's point that she's trying to waste the CoD's time (probably because it is true).

Mr. Vice President, this is an unexpected pleasure we are honored by your presence. Considering the current level of engagement from Delegates of the Southern Chamber it would appear that labor delegates might think there is plenty of time to waste. Delegate West Midlander (Peace) and myself (ACP) are actively engaging in debate and discussion in this 16th session of the Southern Chamber of Delegates. Maybe you could use your position both Party Chair and as Vice President to encourage delegates from your party (Labor) to engage more in the debate and discussion held in this esteemed chamber.

You can rest assured that I am doing my best to ensure that us left-wingers make the most of the opportunity the recent Southern election results provide for us.

Mr. Vice President, how partisan of you.

A politician says something partisan. Shock horror. Who could have possibly predicted this.

One would think that someone who is vice president would at least try to be act as a statesman.

You do realize I'm Chair of the Labor Party?

So being the Chair of the Labor Party is more important than your role as Vice President?

[fhtagn]

I saw fhtagn has now bought the "Social Security is going broke!" myth.

Also hypocritical that she accuses others of ignoring her points when she just ignored MB's point that she's trying to waste the CoD's time (probably because it is true).

I'm a concerned citizen of the South and have every right to express those concerns. That's not wasting time, especially when 2 of your party's delegates aren't debating on something that needs debate.

Last I checked, you are not a Southern citizen. You are just someone who can't handle someone having legitimate issues with bad policy.

You've commented on debates in other regions so I don't get why you oppose me commenting here. Anyway, it seems detached from reality to say there isn't debate here. You clearly are consistently trying to bog down legislative productivity when the left wins elections and tries to deliver on what most Atlasians want.

Pushing back against bad legislation, especially in my own region is important to do, no matter what party is in power. Winning an election doesn't mean bad bills don't deserve criticism from citizens, and it doesn't mean it's okay for said legislation to be pushed without proper discussion. If you can't handle that, no one is making you stay in this game.

I have every right to call you out when I disagree with you. Your hatred of those who dare to hold a different view than you is damaging the game.

There's nothing damaging about pushing back against bad bills. Debate is important for a healthy game. Sitting back and just letting one side have their way with everything is damaging. You know this, and you just don't care.

There also isn't anyone on this thread that I'd say I hate, but your false assumptions are cute.

[fhtagn]

I saw fhtagn has now bought the "Social Security is going broke!" myth.

Also hypocritical that she accuses others of ignoring her points when she just ignored MB's point that she's trying to waste the CoD's time (probably because it is true).

Mr. Vice President, this is an unexpected pleasure we are honored by your presence. Considering the current level of engagement from Delegates of the Southern Chamber it would appear that labor delegates might think there is plenty of time to waste. Delegate West Midlander (Peace) and myself (ACP) are actively engaging in debate and discussion in this 16th session of the Southern Chamber of Delegates. Maybe you could use your position both Party Chair and as Vice President to encourage delegates from your party (Labor) to engage more in the debate and discussion held in this esteemed chamber.

You can rest assured that I am doing my best to ensure that us left-wingers make the most of the opportunity the recent Southern election results provide for us.

Mr. Vice President, how partisan of you.

A politician says something partisan. Shock horror. Who could have possibly predicted this.

One would think that someone who is vice president would at least try to be act as a statesman.

You do realize I'm Chair of the Labor Party?

So being the Chair of the Labor Party is more important than your role as Vice President?

Are you not able to separate the two? It's a serious question.

[fhtagn]

I still am extremely confused how me being VP is supposed to forbid me from commenting on politics.

I've not forbidden you on commenting on politics. Perhaps you should reread my actual statements.

Your statements are extremely stupid no matter how many times I read them, so I'll put my time to better use

Indeed I can't help you if there is a lack of ability to comprehend subtly, nuance and duty. Maybe they need better English classes in NZ. One where comprehension and subtly are actually taught.

...personally attack everyone who disagrees with you.

Hypocrisy is thy name, Pericles

I'm happy you'll save yourself some time.

You are not everyone I disagree with, and furthermore I critiqued your posts. If you want to be immune from criticism you shouldn't have joined Atlasia. I don't know you outside of Atlasia and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're a fine person (even if you're Australian ). People who compare my posts to fhtagn's will notice I do my best to be respectful and while I disagree with people sometimes I try to avoid personally attacking them, there seems to be plenty of room for improvement in that area with fhtagn.

lmao