Northeast Assembly Thread

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For reference, Taft-Hartley is no more:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Labor_Rights_Act

Of course part of that act has yet to be implemented (probably the NAO should be incorporated into the DoI), but the first sections are in force.

I should also point out that the DoI is likely to take a dim view of regionally-sponsored blacklegging.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here are things a law would consist of:
Definition of who may unionize and who may not
Definition of the rights of all workers and the rights of all employers
Definition of unfair labor practices (by both the employer and the union)
Definition of what the punishments for ULPs are
Outlining how to unionize
Defining what topics unions and employers may bargain on, how they may bargain, what happens if they cannot agree, etc.
Strikes

Laws covering these areas would also be blatantly unconstitutional. They can't to much more than introduce USC's (which don't exist in the Northeast in real life, and maybe not in fantasyland). They have as much a right to undermine Unions as the Pacific does to restrict gun ownership...

I gather that the guy when stuck a constitutional protection for collective bargaining into the Constitution used a picture of a miner as his avatar on the forum where the Constitution was drawn up. Not sure where is his these days.

[Purple State]

Here are things a law would consist of:
Definition of who may unionize and who may not
Definition of the rights of all workers and the rights of all employers
Definition of unfair labor practices (by both the employer and the union)
Definition of what the punishments for ULPs are
Outlining how to unionize
Defining what topics unions and employers may bargain on, how they may bargain, what happens if they cannot agree, etc.
Strikes

Laws covering these areas would also be blatantly unconstitutional. They can't to much more than introduce USC's (which don't exist in the Northeast in real life, and maybe not in fantasyland). They have as much a right to undermine Unions as the Pacific does to restrict gun ownership...

I gather that the guy when stuck a constitutional protection for collective bargaining into the Constitution used a picture of a miner as his avatar on the forum where the Constitution was drawn up. Not sure where is his these days.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the Constitution is saying that anyone in Atlasia may join a union and bargain collectively. Public vs. private employment, assembly line vs. supervisor vs. management, etc. are all able to unionize?

Also, why can't a region define ULPs and how they are to be punished, the rights of workers, outlining a process to unionize?

[Sam Spade]

Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

That being said, the simple fact is that, in my view, that amendment basically sends most attempts to regulate unionization out the window.

[cinyc]

Seems like there's a lot gng on, so I will extend debate until 2:30PM tomorrow (Monday).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

Litotes

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Seems like there's a lot gng on, so I will extend debate until 2:30PM tomorrow (Monday).

Can you clip summarize all pending legislation and when the votes will take place?

[segwaystyle2012]

Seems like there's a lot gng on, so I will extend debate until 2:30PM tomorrow (Monday).

Can you clip summarize all pending legislation and when the votes will take place?

The current bill is the only thing we are currently working on, and voting will begin Monday.

[Purple State]

Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

That being said, the simple fact is that, in my view, that amendment basically sends most attempts to regulate unionization out the window.

The problem is that "unionization" is a pretty meaningless term without a law defining what it is and how it occurs. If it is impossible for anyone to define unionization, unfair labor practices, rights of employees and employers, and subjects of bargaining, isn't the result anarchy?

[Sam Spade]

Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

That being said, the simple fact is that, in my view, that amendment basically sends most attempts to regulate unionization out the window.

The problem is that "unionization" is a pretty meaningless term without a law defining what it is and how it occurs. If it is impossible for anyone to define unionization, unfair labor practices, rights of employees and employers, and subjects of bargaining, isn't the result anarchy?

No, it means that you know who holds the cards in all labor disputes within Atlasia.  Which should have been written into your GM scenario in the past, but has understandably been ignored (after all - who here really reads the Constitution).

Let me additionally point out that the previous statement that I made was rather glib and did not detail the whole situation, in my view.  While I would submit that any law which limited "the right to organize" would certainly be overturned, laws, for example, regulating the process of collective bargaining might be outside its scope so long as they don't infringe on the "right to organize", whatever that entails.

Of course, given who's on the Court right now, all I can suggest is "pass a law and see what happens."  And secondly, "good luck, you're going to need it"...

[Sam Spade]

Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

Litotes

Didn't know you were using it in "that way".  Makes complete sense now.

[segwaystyle2012]

The Constitution could be read easier if it were all on a single wiki page, I don't have much patience to go through a gazillion windows for something largely based on the US Constitution and maintaining little relevance to the position I'm actually serving. I hope someone with a wiki account could actually adress this concern too.

[Free Palestine]

The Constitution could be read easier if it were all on a single wiki page, I don't have much patience to go through a gazillion windows for something largely based on the US Constitution and maintaining little relevance to the position I'm actually serving. I hope someone with a wiki account could actually adress this concern too.

I've had this same issue.  It would be nice if it were on a single page.

[Sam Spade]

No disagreements here.  I think putting it on a single page would be smart.

[cinyc]

I'd probably vote for the proposed amendment as long as it might be constituional.  What section of the constitution are we talking about?  I do have some reservations with section 1.  While we might want to reopen existing contracts, they should be honored.  A contract is a contract.

Could we enact something like NY's Taylor Law, which fines public employees (most often, teachers, but recently, public transit workers, too) 2 days' pay for every day they're on strike?

[segwaystyle2012]

^^^^^

I would support that if you wrote up an amendment.

[cinyc]

My proposed changes are in red below:

Practical Labor Policy Act

1. The Northeast Government shall review and re-negotiate existing public employee contracts, benefits and pensions and work towards making more realistic and cost-effective contracts. The Northeast Government shall not enter into any contract that does not expire after a two-year period, measured from the date the contract enters into effect.

2.  Any new contract shall specify a mechanism for negotiating renewals, and shall provide that Northeast employees receive the same salary and benefits as during the last period of any current expired contract while a new contract is being negotiated.  Pay raises and benefit levels in subsequent contracts may be applied retroactively, as negotiated.

3.  Any new contract shall contain a penalty provision requiring any Northeast public employee who strikes or engages in a major work stoppage against the Northeast Government to pay two days' salary for every one day of such strike or stoppage, unless permanently replaced.

4. If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike interferes with the ability of the Northeast Government to carry out its basic daily functions, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.

5. All new contracts shall provide that any Northeast employee who does not wish to join the relevant public employee shall have the right not to, and shall not be required to pay any dues to the union.  Such contract shall provide that union must provide any union-provided negotiated fringe benefit to any employee who opts out at the same out-of-pocket cost to the opting-out employee as union members.

6.  All new contracts shall provide that no union dues withheld by the Northeast Government be set aside for political activity.  Such contracts shall provide that Northeast public employee unions may not penalize any Northeast employee who refuses to voluntarily contribute to any union political activity fund.

7.  Any provision of this law may be waived in a particular contract negotiation by a majority vote of this Assembly and actual or deemed consent of the Governor.  If the Governor vetoes any waiver passed by the Assembly, that veto may be overridden in accordance with the usual veto override process.

8. If any provision of this law is declared unconstitutional, all provisions of this law not expressly declared unconstitutional shall remain the law of the Northeast.
------------
I don't see how this is unconstitutional.  Our public employees have the right to collectively bargain, but the Northeast as employer, has the right to set our terms, too, as part of that bargaining process.  Given the constraints of the game, we can't do this on a contract -by-contract basis.  This puts our employees on notice about what those terms will be for future contracts.  

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Rep. segwaystyle, do you deem Rep. cinyc's amendments friendly?

[segwaystyle2012]

Rep. segwaystyle, do you deem Rep. cinyc's amendments friendly?

With the exception of this "If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike interferes with the ability of the Northeast Government to carry out its basic daily functions," yes.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Alright, we'll hold a vote now for this amendment, specifically on the red clause:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voting shall be open until 5:30 on Tuesday, March 15, 2010 , or until all representatives have voted.

[segwaystyle2012]

Nay

If this amendment fails I'd like the text to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

for clarity purposes.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nay

[cinyc]

I took that language from the previous amendment (Dallasfan's?).  I'm not wedded to it, so nay.

Rep. Segway Style's alternative is acceptable.

[The Age Wave]

Abstain

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nay - at the time I drafted it, I didn't realize that our government had as much leeway as it did.