MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

I know this failed, but I think I should still answer you question.  Badger's main problem with this bill was the "free-rider" issue.  Basically, unions negotiate for benefits for all employees most of the time.  He was concerned that non-union employees would still get those benefits and not have to pay, thus leading to a destruction of the unions.  As that is not something I wanted to see happen, I wrote the 75% section.

Thus, if an employee is in a situation where they would benefit from union negotiations (for example fixed salary structures, more time off, better working conditions, enviromental safeguards) those non-unon members have to pay up to 75% of the union dues.  The remaining portion they do not have to pay, as that goes to union representation that they would not enjoy.  Hope that answers the question.

that clears it up a little, but I still don't understand if the 75% of union dues is a one-time payment (such as 75% of the dues for that year) or an ongoing payment (75% of the dues for as long as the union-backed benefits continue).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

I know this failed, but I think I should still answer you question.  Badger's main problem with this bill was the "free-rider" issue.  Basically, unions negotiate for benefits for all employees most of the time.  He was concerned that non-union employees would still get those benefits and not have to pay, thus leading to a destruction of the unions.  As that is not something I wanted to see happen, I wrote the 75% section.

Thus, if an employee is in a situation where they would benefit from union negotiations (for example fixed salary structures, more time off, better working conditions, enviromental safeguards) those non-unon members have to pay up to 75% of the union dues.  The remaining portion they do not have to pay, as that goes to union representation that they would not enjoy.  Hope that answers the question.

that clears it up a little, but I still don't understand if the 75% of union dues is a one-time payment (such as 75% of the dues for that year) or an ongoing payment (75% of the dues for as long as the union-backed benefits continue).

one time

still this is an arbitrary figure considering some unions have members pay dues monthly, some annually, etc. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Question to everyone, if we remove section D, will you support the passage of this bill?

if you removed section D completely, then I'd suggest a minor amendment to section E that I think would be noncontroversial, and then support passage. (I'd still prefer section C to revert back to it's original form, but I imagine that's probably a non-starter)

Of course what really needs to be done to get support, which hasn't sufficiently, is for someone to really make the case why the status quo is not acceptable and how this bill fixes it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't have the specific wording for the amendment. I admit I don't know that much about union proceedings, but my thought is that because they are prohibited from striking, the union will need another mechanism in order to force negotiations.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't have the specific wording for the amendment. I admit I don't know that much about union proceedings, but my thought is that because they are prohibited from striking, the union will need another mechanism in order to force negotiations.

Binding arbitration if either side certifies negotiations are at an impasse after "x" weeks after lapse of contract?

it looks like we have something like that
Section E(2)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

but the obvious question that this wording brings up to me is "within two months of what?" i would think if left vague as to what event signals the beginning of the time frame, you would have additional court disputes over that every time you have a disagreement between employer and union.