Present Employee Representation Act (VETOED)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A lot of these  unions were voted on to represent workers from 30-40 years ago. Today's employees should be able to have a say in their unionization just like those workers did.

     It's true, we're really talking about binding people by decisions of a bygone era here.

By that argument, we should hold a revote on the Declaration of Independence every 10 years - after all, the nation formed in 1776 is the oldest Union of all.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Your ilk support "workplace democracy."

Oh no, democracy! What next - equal rights?

Seriously, though, I'm not sure what you mean by my "ilk," unless you're referring to the communist firebrands you teamed up with to start ANUSTART last summer. For the record, I do not support attempts to institute 'collective management' (or whatever it is Cynthia McKinney-types support these days) - I merely oppose transparent attempts to weaken organized labor by allowing non-union members to decertify labor unions and disenfranchising older employees.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You know as well as I that there was no "communism" behind A New Start. McCarthyism is a bad fit for you.

I never meant to claim that ANS was a communist outfit - my apologies if that's how it sounded. I was merely pointing out that, while you are eager to wed the current generation of Laborites to the overreaches of last generation's radicals, you have closer ties to those people than I do (I opposed the agenda of TNF & co. as a member of TPP and joined Labor only after he had left office). I have no interest in grinding hatchets, but if you're going to play the guilt-by-association card against me and my "ilk" (what does that even mean?), you need to be prepared to answer for the skeletons in your own closet. I'm sure you see how attacking Labor as an "enemy" second only to ISIS in the "damage" it has inflicted on the game is not exactly consistent with your vision for an issues-based policy game.

In any case, I am happy to debate this bill on its own merits.

I'm fairly certain we have no right to work laws, so shops are closed when they are unionized.

Not even at the Regional level? A quick scan through the Statute didn't reveal any federal laws that would prohibit the Regions from adopting RTW, though it's possible I missed something (the Wiki is such a mess, even with the work DemPGH put in). In any case, I still contend that this bill disenfranchises older workers by limiting voting in the proposed referendums to those workers who were not employed at the time of unionization. This could prove particularly harmful in (relatively) new businesses/workplaces, where it would effectively disenfranchise older workers in favor of new hires.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would like to propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, this amendment aims to ensure that the people participating in these referendums are the people who will be directly affected by the outcome, as opposed to Super PACs or political parties.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would like to propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, this amendment aims to ensure that the people participating in these referendums are the people who will be directly affected by the outcome, as opposed to Super PACs or political parties.

Am I to interpret that this means the union will be unable to campaign for reauthorization?

     I would surmise that the union could encourage its officers in the workplace to organize proponency for maintaining unionization, but they would be forbidden from supporting those efforts directly.

This is correct. One must be both an employee and a union member to directly campaign for/against reauthorization.

Likewise, I'm fine with striking "or support" if y'all think it necessary from a Constitutional standpoint.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Will management be able to organize an effort to reject unionization within the workforce?

No. Only those represented by the union (the employees of the workplace in question) will be eligible to organize or aid efforts to sway their fellow employees.

My biggest concern with this Act as it currently stands is that the proposed referendum process would be easily susceptible to influence by outsiders. It's all too easy to imagine a scenario wherein management and/or the union bribe or bully workers into voting their way, or else turn what should be a dialogue within the workforce into a high-caliber battle between labor bosses on one hand and corporate executives on the other, leaving the workers to pick up the pieces. The only people who should have a say in this process are those who are represented by the union in question, a state of affairs this amendment seeks to achieve by limiting participation to unionized employees.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

So, has my amendment been adopted?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

So, has my amendment been adopted?

I do not believe so.

We will now move to a 72-hour vote on Senator Truman's amendment.

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but I don't believe this is correct. Per the Senate Rules:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As no senator objected to my amendment within 36 hours of its introduction, I believe it has been adopted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye.