MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm pretty much in support of this act, except for Section B, which is a Gray area, because no-one is really entitled to a job, but at the same time, employees deserve protection, so it's up in the air.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm pretty much in support of this act, except for Section B, which is a Gray area, because no-one is really entitled to a job, but at the same time, employees deserve protection, so it's up in the air.

It's staying in if you want my signature on this. Apparently I'm not the most pro-union person out there for trying to put the interests of the individual worker above anything else, but at the same time, I'm not going to try and destroy unions. Eliminated Section B would severely damage them, as some employees may be too scared to join the union, in fears of job security.

I'm mostly in agreement with what you said, except in the case of small businesses, where they might not at that tmie have the money to pay union wages.

Also, no-one is really entitled to a job, in my opinion. You join a union at your own risk, for better or worse, though I believe that workers shoudl get some protections. At the same time, a union has the right to strike and stop the company dead in its tracks until they reach an agreement or the company brings in 'scabs'. I'm pretty much hands off when it comes to the union-company relationship.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Here's my amendement to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this amendment. I disagree with the removal of "hire" in the first sentence. This amendment would only encourage people to not join the union, as their chances of getting a job would be on the line.

I like the amendment, but like everything, it can go two ways, so I'm leaning with A-Bob on this, but am still undecided.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Here's my amendement to discuss

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this amendment. I disagree with the removal of "hire" in the first sentence. This amendment would only encourage people to not join the union, as their chances of getting a job would be on the line.

Do you perhaps have a different solution to giving room to small and new business from being killed by unions because they can't give the highest wages or the best conditions? This amendment isn't perfect at all, but I really think we need to address this. Why should union members be given higher preference over non-union members? If this bill were to be passed, both would have to be hired and main employment, but the union members would get court support and the ability to strike, while the non-union member doesn't and if the business were to reward that and give non-union members nice wages and benefits, the unions sue.

As far as in relation to small businesses, you could make businesses earning under a certain number exempt from it, however, that would most likley lead to growing businesses hiding their actual numbers in an attempt to be able to hire people who aren't connected to a union.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Aye.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ay Ay, captain.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As of now, I am unsure and am changing from my previous "Aye", which used to be in this post.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd like to vote soon, but I'm being pressured to vote "Nay". I'd like to know specifically why I should vote "Nay". I read through the bill and I didn't find anything majorly dis-satiasfactory about it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm glad that this is done, so we can go back to working out the parts that people really didn't want in this.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Seriously? no amendments after all this fuss?

Call me out of the loop, stupid, inactive, but what was the major issue people had with this? That would help in trying to craft an amendment or a response to this.