Northeast Assembly Thread

[Badger]

Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.

Just making sure you realize that 3 ME assemblymen threads + ME Assembly + NE Assembly + NE Assembly Legislation + 6 NE assemblymen = 12 threads. The first page of this board can hold thirteen non-stickied threads.

Perhaps a regional government sub-board will soon be necessary. A thought for the mods to bring up to Dave perhaps. If one more region passes a legislature it will definitely be needed.

I allow myself to post in this thread, just to concur with PS, as Mideast assemblyman.

What Fab said.

[Badger]

By a vote of 5-3, Proposed Amendments 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate) and 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic) pass.
By a vote of 1-7, Proposed Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist) fails.
By a vote of 6-2, Proposed Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwejt) passes.

The final bill on the floor, as amended, reads as follows:
Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

However, as Rep. Hamilton has decided to withdraw the bill, it shall not proceed to a final vote.

<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

[Badger]

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.  

Section 3 is patently unconstitutional. Assessing a day's wage's penalty  (as opposed to merely not paying a salary) is assessing a fine for constitutionally protected organizing and striking. regardless of whether one penalizes striking with life in prison or a $100 fine, that still makes conduct illegal. And the fact it's being done as a contract makes no difference whatsoever. Even private agencies are SEVERELY limited in allowing employees to validly contract away their constitutional and legal rights. For the government, as a state actor, to attempt doing so makes such provisions not worth the paper they're printed on.

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

[Badger]

Section 3 is patently unconstitutional. Assessing a day's wage's penalty  (as opposed to merely not paying a salary) is assessing a fine for constitutionally protected organizing and striking. regardless of whether one penalizes striking with life in prison or a $100 fine, that still makes conduct illegal. And the fact it's being done as a contract makes no difference whatsoever. Even private agencies are SEVERELY limited in allowing employees to validly contract away their constitutional and legal rights. For the government, as a state actor, to attempt doing so makes such provisions not worth the paper they're printed on.

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

Really?  New York's Taylor Law does just that REGARDLESS of what it says in public employee contracts - and is perfectly constitutional.  It also takes away future dues withholding for public employee unions that strike.

Of course, the leftist, activist Atlasian Supreme Court may see things otherwise.  But in my view, the Northeast as employer can negotiate whatever we want into our union contracts.

Your assumption that nobody on this forum being in a union household is wrong, I'm sure.  In states that aren't right-to-work states (like many in the U.S. Northeast), people are FORCED to join unions or pay useless dues for no benefit against their will as a condition of employment.    Talk about the ultimate violation of freedom of association - the right not to associate with or pay tribute to union thugs with whom you vehemently disagree.  People in union households don't necessarily like unions.

But unlike the Taylor Law this act doesn't mandate mediation and (key here) binding arbitration as an alternative for resolving the strike, potentially in the strikers favor. Without such recourse legally binding the regional government to resolve a labor dispute, this simply (and, again, arguably unconstitutionally) criminalizes striking by public employees.

EDIT: Here's a thought. Why not amend the law to include any and all state government administrators with authority--including shared authority--to negotiate and/or resolve a particular labor dispute on the state's behalf, and fine them 2 days pay for every day a strike lasts? Hey, it takes two to tango.

[Badger]

Hey Badger, you're a member of NE Assembly?

Badger and all other citizens of the Northeast - and Atlasia in general - are welcome to provide feedback on this thread.

You, know cinyc, how can I harass my good friend and Pittsburgher of the diaspora, Badger, if you take this kind of attitude. 

Yeah cinyc! How dare you stick up for me when Grumpy gives me s$%t?

[Badger]

BTW: Since I'm on a role sticking my nose in to other region's assembly business:

IMHO this bill needs some common sense limitations regarding use of deadly force vs. ordinary force and protection of property vs., say, protection of one's home from intruders.

As self-defense stems largely from common law, it wouldn't surprise me there is no statute specifically codifying the right in the NE's laws, but that by no means is to say the right doesn't exist under NE law.

Codifiying self-defense of property may not be a bad idea, but as currently proposed it does leave open the kind of undesirable scenarios Mr. M noted.

My two cents.

[Badger]

Then why not just add "justifiable" somewhere in the bill such as:

The Northeast Region shall protect the right of any citizen to use lethal, justifiable force to protect his life, liberty, or property.

And whether or not force was "justifiable" is up for the courts to decide, on a case-by-case sort of basis.

Since I was just offering my two cents on the SE Assembly's proposed castle law.....

The intent behind this bill as amended is well-meaning, but as written it isn't workable due to being far, far too vague.

The idea behind such castle laws is to let property owners know exactly what their legal rights and responsibilities are, plus letting cops and courts effectively and consistently apply the law. Under this language I wouldn't have a clue what the law means, whether I was a property owner, a cop investigating a crime scene, a prosecutor reviewing the police report, a judge hearing the case, or a private lawyer trying to advise a client what it does and doesn't allow.

Yes, laws can sometimes be written too specifically and not allow enough flexibility, but this measure would essentially give every trial judge in the region total carte blanche to interpret what "justifiable" means, inevitably leading to wildly disparate application in the law.

It's one thing to let the courts iron out the nuances in interpreting a law's language, but it's wholly another to simply let the courts create the law outright. And the latter is exactly what will be necessary here.

My two cents....

[Badger]

I have introduced a bill that would give Governor Morgan authority to put a volunteer police force into the streets for the moment with the police on strike. I urge the assembly bring it up to the floor as quickly as possible.

"Volunteer police force"? This may be a game but that still doesn't mean you can just conjure things up like that. We're talking about an entire region's law enforcement here. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument you could make a police force for an entire region appear out of thin air, I would have serious concerns about their training and behavior on the job..

Seriously. Every cowboy wannabe who wants to play cop volunteering for a civilian posse? I think I'd prefer anarchy.

As a self-described libertarian, Gio, doesn't this thought frighten you a tad? The threats of life and limb of hundreds of poorly or untrained volunteer cops--both to the public and themselves--is staggering. Not to mention I shudder to think of trying to prosecute some of the arrests these guys make:


Defense Attorney: "Patrolman Newbie, what training, education and experience did you have in the detection and apprehension of impaired drivers prior to the night you arrested my client?"

Patrolman Newbie: "Well, I never miss an episode of 'Cops'!"

Me: "Recess, your honor? I need to confer with counsel and offer a plea to a reduced charge of jaywalking".


Since it's just the NE equivalent of the state patrol off the streets, why not just make deals with local departments and county sheriffs for them to put extra officers on the street temporarily? A tad more expensive in the short run, but infinitely more workable.

Now, again, regarding those Regional corrections officers staffing the prisons.....

[Badger]

I think we should table the measure. I would support an amendment that allowed for training new officers so we can just fire all these strikers.

VASTLY expensive proposition, and you can't "train" years or decades of experience on the streets into rookies.

Wouldn't it be better to simply seek a tough settlement with the officer's organizations go on an anti-union ideological bent?

[Badger]

Public employee unions Wall Street executives and insurance companies have gotten out of hand.  They live in a fantasy world where there's no recession and they deserve raises and perqs that people who work in the real world aren't getting.  Their actions have been completely unreasonable

[Badger]

Friendly note:

Cut the size of your legislature to three, immediately.

We already passed an amendment to be on the ballot in May, reducing it to six.

Six is way too many.

Really now?  Maybe three is too many.  Perhaps we should have one member of the legislature.

Don't be ridiculous.

You just elected four people to your legislature. The Mideast had a three-man legislature for a long time and it worked well.

It's worked rather well with 5 members too.

[Badger]

The rationale for this bill, I feel, is rather simple.

As a rule of thumb we shouldn't be spending more money than we take in - barring some extreme circumstance, in which case, if the voters of our region felt that way, we would be allowed to.

California is in some of the worst financial doo-doo in the nation largely in part to exactly such a restriction.

Why on earth should raising taxes require a super majority as opposed to a simple majority? IMHO, majority rule democracy > tax increases.

Incidentally, for the sake of budget planning and simple consistency, does this mean tax cuts will likewise require a 2/3 majority as well?

[Badger]

With five votes and four absences, Fezzyfestoon is recommended by the Assembly for Lieutenant Governor.

Good choice.