SENATE BILL: The Labor Rights Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: jdb

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator, you have 24 hours to begin explaining this.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'll let Snowstalker give his schpeel before I outline some of the tweaks I'd like to see. I'm not against the overarching spirit of this bill though.

[Speed of Sound]

Partly out of not having time right now, and partly out of respect for the sponsor, I too will hold off my comments on this bill until his argument has been made.

[Gass3268]

For some reason this bill looks familiar...

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This has my full support.

[Niemeyerite]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you change that, it's perfect for me That's socialism haha... Not less than 25% and no more than 40% is about right (maybe a bit excessive for a capitalist country).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Only 40 minutes left, Snowstalker!!!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Here. This was legislation which passed in the Mideast but vetoed by Governor Tmth. The cornerstone of a nation is its workers; the profiteers may get the lion's share, but it is the employees who keep the Atlasian cog spinning. Their only chance for a voice is through the labor union. This bill is intended to prevent the stifling of this voice by the much more powerful management and allow for fair negotiations between labor and management.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't test me, Senator! I'll bounce your legislation from here to Dallas.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Don't test me, Senator! I'll bounce your legislation from here to Dallas.

I like keeping things on edge. Would all those shows where the hero has to find and deactivate a time bomb be as interesting if the bomb stopped 1 second before detonation? Of course not.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'll start slowly with some of the easier stuff and we'll see how it goes...

An Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unionizing family farms is a bit much to me. The Farm Service Agency defines family farms as being owned and operated by families who sometimes hire seasonal workers. They may have a "reasonable" amount of full-time help. Does this bill give a farmer's children the right to unionize against him? When we're talking about small operations like these (operations that aren't making huge corporate profits), I think we've got to have some sympathy for the farm-owners. Unionization could destroy family farms. If you get national farm unions fighting for higher wages across the board, maybe it'll only be the factory farms that can afford these wage hikes. This bill opens a lot of doors.

Also, giving government workers this opportunity could put huge strains on regional budgets. How do you go about cutting the government workforce when you've got a bunch of unions to worry about?

[tmthforu94]

Just to give you all an idea, here is the compromise bill that the Assembly eventually agreed on:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Tmthforu94

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Hagrid's amendment is unfriendly.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Does this bill give a farmer's children the right to unionize against him? When we're talking about small operations like these (operations that aren't making huge corporate profits), I think we've got to have some sympathy for the farm-owners. Unionization could destroy family farms. If you get national farm unions fighting for higher wages across the board, maybe it'll only be the factory farms that can afford these wage hikes.

Why shouldn't a farmer's children be allowed to organize? We're not just talking about kids here; we're talking about adults, too. And believe me, conditions on some of these farms can be pretty rough - especially for the migrant workers who are now a fixture on even the smallest of farms. The traditional family farm is virtually nonexistent; almost all of today's "family farms" are multi-million dollar operations with thousands of livestock, hundreds of acres, and at least a few dozen workers. Attempts to preserve a "way of life" too often gloss over the fact that these farms, exempt from many regulations and on the receiving end of plenty of subsidies, treat workers, the environment, and consumers poorly.

Anyway, if factory farms are the only farms that can afford to pay their workers a decent wage and provide safe, healthy working conditions, then I'm not particularly concerned about the demise of their smaller competition.

If the competition is over-inflated because of a union, I am concerned. I get that there a big factory farms where workers could benefit from the right to unionize, but to ignore that small farms would be hit is, IMO, problematic. Maybe we add revenue guidelines to differentiate farms instead of using the "family farm" label?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Because you can't have workers without the enterprise that employs them.

Imagine you've got two farms in New York: a large factory farm and a smaller family farm. Workers at both farms are allowed to unionize, and suddenly, in mid-June, they decide "I want this, this, and this, and if you don't give it to me, I'll go on strike." Unfortunately, the employers know that those demands are unrealistic, so a strike ensues. It lasts from mid-June to early September. I expect most strikes would happen around this time, because unions would be aware that striking in the summer would give them the most amount of leverage.

What's important to realize, though, is that those farms didn't just lose two and a half months—they lost over two-thirds of the growing season (see here). That is a huge amount of lost revenue.

Farms are in a unique position when it comes to unions. The nature and timing of their operations mean that unions would have an over-inflated amount of undue influence. It's for this reason that I really don't favour giving agriculture workers the right to unionize on any type of farm... but I know that amendment would not pass here. I made the exemption for family farms because a lost growing season could completely wipe them off the map. Factory farms would have a better chance of surviving.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Just to give you all an idea, here is the compromise bill that the Assembly eventually agreed on:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Tmthforu94

I'd like to provide another prospective, having also been heavily involved in negotiating this compromise.  That was a compromise passed under a specific set of circumstances.  Honestly, I still have problems with section 3.  However, I supported the compromise because at the time it was half a loaf or no bread and the compromise was a big step forward (the unamended Labor Relations Act was awful).  But it was still imperfect and I think it would be better to pass a better law rather than using this an imperfect one as a template.

[Franzl]

I generally support the legislation. Although I'm leaning towards voting against Hagrid's amendment because of the government employees.

[Speed of Sound]

I cannot say I'm familiar with the notion of allowing a company to force a worker into a union--can some explain to me why this ever happens and why it should be allowed? I'm not against it necessarily, I would just like more information on it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't test me, Senator! I'll bounce your legislation from here to Dallas.

I like keeping things on edge. Would all those shows where the hero has to find and deactivate a time bomb be as interesting if the bomb stopped 1 second before detonation? Of course not.

Would it be as interesting if the bomb wasn't a bomb, but an alarm clock and thus failure to shot it down did not carry with it dire consequences for the hero and others near him? Of course not.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Vote to commence soon.

[Oakvale]

I support Senator Snowstalker's original bill. I'm not even especially a fan of unions, but I suppose I'm speaking from a European rather than Am-- er, Atlasian perspective - I'm practically a foaming-at-the-mouth leftist in this context.

While I understand the reasoning behind Senator Hagrid's amendment, I'm interested in Senator Nix's suggestion - allowing a President to break large-scale strikes by executive action should such strikes lead to an agricultural crisis.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: The above amendment is now at vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Franzl]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye, Guess

My concern is that we avoid going to far and going more harm in the process. I certainly think there are merits to having these safeguards in placed, but at the same time, I am concerned about the nationalization of these standards.