S.19.4-2: LABORER Act (Statute)

[West_Midlander]

Of course, I favor this bill.

Do note, Mr. Speaker: I believe this bill (the Southern Environmental Act) was skipped over in the queue. As a result, I would appreciate if the SEA Act can be addressed after the LABORER Act.

Thanks in advance,

Southern Delegate WM

[West_Midlander]

For starters, I think it's important to note what "right to work" actually means:
"relating to or promoting a worker's right not to be required to join a labor union"

No one is harmed by having a choice. Atlasian federal law already restored more power to the unions by ensuring that they aren't being forced to represent non-union members.

Because no one seemed to be willing to answer this before, I'm going to ask this here:
If being a member of a labor union is so great, why do you think people should be forced to join them? Why is it bad for workers to choose what they feel is right for them?

I thank the Gentlelady from Virginia for her questions.

Of course, as legislators we want the people of the Southern region to have the maximum amount of choice logistically possible.

That being said, a program or policy area being mandatory does not necessarily equate to a negative.

Social Security is mandatory, we have to pay payroll tax and can't opt out, and it is a hugely popular program.

When unionization is not universal, we have situations like this (website link) where employers give raises only to non-union members. When there is that choice to join a union or not, union members can be punished by being withheld raises, and the courts have upheld employers' right to do this.

Right-to-work states have lower wages, fewer benefits for workers, etc. (across the board) when compared to non-RTW states.

Unionization is about collective bargaining. Workers bargaining for their rights being amplified when there are more union members to lobby for better working conditions, better wages, etc.

In RTW states where unionization is not mandatory many coast off of unions. Without paying union dues, non-union employees benefit from increases in workplace safety, increases in wages, in family leave, often paid, in some occupations/workplaces, and in having gained the weekend, limited work hours (per day) and overtime (historically). All these rights secured by unions and their members.

In case this point comes under fire, I will go ahead and link the following (below):

The claim below was rated Mostly False by Politifact.

"Unions did not create" the eight-hour work day and the 40-hour work week. "Henry Ford did."

EDIT: At-will employment laws exist in 49/50 states. Unions also serve to negotiate with employers the creation of contracts necessitating just cause for termination, as opposed for no just-cause being needed for termination.

For clarity:

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

The "and without warning" section is particularly troubling. The source for the quote above is Wikipedia but this line is cited to "Jay Shepherd, Firing At Will: A Manager's Guide (Apress Media, 2011) 3-4."

We should strive to empower Southern workers giving them an equal seat at the table with their employers and this is accomplished through unionization.

The POWER Act prohibits termination on the basis of union membership. However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.

See the quotes below:

"At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all."

Source: Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, ''Cases and Materials on Employment Law'' (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.

[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment

Source: Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (2000).

[West_Midlander]

West_Mid addresses the concerns pretty well, and I've been eager to sign a bill like this for a while. You guys about ready to send it to my desk? *clicks pen in anticipation*

I motion for a vote on this legislation. Given that this bill has been on the floor for more than 72 hours (118 hours, in fact) and debate has halted for more than 24 hours (32, in fact), I move that the Speaker open the floor to objections (to suspension of debate) for a period of 24 hours and if no objection is made by a Delegate, a vote should proceed on this legislation, in accordance with the rules of this Chamber.

[West_Midlander]

How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees? 

The poor bosses :cry:

If someone lacks any experience and understanding of how the process works, they have no business speaking on an issue they aren't informed about.

Only black people should have a say on civil rights issues.

Madam President: It is unreasonable to claim that only experts in a particular field can comment on that policy area.

[West_Midlander]

EDIT: At-will employment laws exist in 49/50 states. Unions also serve to negotiate with employers the creation of contracts necessitating just cause for termination, as opposed for no just-cause being needed for termination.

For clarity:

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

The "and without warning" section is particularly troubling. The source for the quote above is Wikipedia but this line is cited to "Jay Shepherd, Firing At Will: A Manager's Guide (Apress Media, 2011) 3-4."

We should strive to empower Southern workers giving them an equal seat at the table with their employers and this is accomplished through unionization.

The POWER Act prohibits termination on the basis of union membership. However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.

See the quotes below:

"At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all."

Source: Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, ''Cases and Materials on Employment Law'' (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.

[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment

Source: Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (2000).

Don't feel like linking again since I already linked above, but an important tidbit from the article I posted just a bit ago:

"Before firing someone under at-will circumstances, consider the fact that it's not uncommon to receive a retaliation claim, a discrimination claim or a similar action," said Carroll. "Those put the employer on the defensive." In court or agency proceedings, arguing that your action was based mainly on the employee's at-will employment "isn't going to get you very far," she said.

Most people expect there to be some kind of justification for putting an individual out of his or her job, Carroll observed, whether it has to do with the person's performance, the company's financial situation or another workplace issue entirely. If you can't articulate and document a reason, "it's easy for a judge and jury to fill in the blanks, whether they're correct or not," and rule against you.  

Your assumption that employers just get rid of people for the sake of doing so is simply false.

Just out of curiosity, how many people who support this legislation in the chamber (or sit as governor) have held full time employment before? How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees?

We know from the perspective of most Atlasians at the federal level, that number is very small, and at times have been at 0.

It's an important thing to consider, especially when we are letting people who don't understand how these policies actually work dictate what our policies should be.

I think the Congresswoman overlooked this part of the quote I cited (in bold).

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

I wholly recognize, under the current law, the right of workers in some limited cases to file a (sometimes successful) suit of wrongful termination in addition to mentioning the inability of employers to fire on the sole basis of race or religion without repercussions.

[West_Midlander]

Addressing the Congresswoman's other concerns:

If you are a [union] member, you have the right to vote on union business.

Source

Union members choose their union leaders. Additionally, union members often choose who to endorse, if the union does endorse. Local union branches do endorse candidates without or against the consent of the national, regional, or state branch of the union. I believe it is the right of unions under the first amendment to lobby for pro-labor policies and the candidates that support them. We live in a democratic republic so if a majority vote a certain way, in an endorsement or for a union leader, that is how things turn out. Not everyone can have their political ideology come to fruition in a democratic society.

Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.

[West_Midlander]

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

[West_Midlander]

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

Debate hasn't died down, we are waiting on you guys to answer questions and address points that have been made.

What wasn't addressed? (Besides hypocritical standards on who can legislate and arguing from a misrepresentation of my claims) <-- And even those I tried to address along with legitimate concerns raised in four replies to the Congresswoman's posts.

Also: Delegate reagante objected to ending debate but hasn't given his thoughts on this legislation before or after his objection or on any other legislation for that matter. About 36 hours have lapsed since the motion to end debate failed and no delegate has been talking about this legislation. In fact, I don't think any delegate aside from myself has debated this bill (procedural dialogue not counting toward debate of course).

[West_Midlander]

Good-faith clauses exist in some parts of the country re: at-will employment but they aren't universal. I prefer to expand security to workers who are doing their jobs, whenever possible. I didn't reply to this post before because I didn't want to entertain such a dramatic misrepresentation of my words--implying that I claimed "[j]obs...just fire people for fun."

[West_Midlander]

The fact of the matter is, that simply doesn't happen in the real world. Nor would it do any employer any favors in court if that was the scenario.

Every state but Montana is already an at-will employment state. At-will means your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Whether your employer doesn't like your shirt, wakes up in a bad mood, or just feels like it, they can fire you at-will unless you have a contract or union agreement saying otherwise.

A union can bargain to change this. Many union agreements have requirements that employers only terminate for just cause.

Source

Some states have good faith clauses as you and I have both said. To pretend employers never have discretion (without just cause) is disingenous, though.

I'm not saying at-will termination is an epidemic but I think it would be best to close the door to a lack of security for workers. It can be used, however rarely. And let's remember what's up for a vote here is right-to-work, not at-will employment.

I would prefer to close the door on avoidable financial jeopardy for working people, whenever possible.

[West_Midlander]

You were the one who mentioned at-will employment, something you even admit has nothing to do with the bill (and something I already said in my first reply to that was irrelevant to this bill).

I meant let's remember this isn't an at-will employment ban as you are defending at-will employment with fervor as if it is a ban.

The two issues are linked. I mentioned at-will employment only because it is one reason for ending RTW. In the quote I just referenced:

A union can bargain to change this. Many union agreements have requirements that employers only terminate for just cause.

Everything else I already addressed and mandatory does not necessitate bad as I already said.

Do you mind if we stop going in circles?

[West_Midlander]

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.

[West_Midlander]

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.

Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.

The same can be said for corporations but worse. What's your point besides: only unions should come under scrutiny?

[West_Midlander]

If joining a union is so great

You've gone over this...quite a few times.

[West_Midlander]

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

I motion for a Final Vote.

If there is another objection to a final vote this will be the trigger the vote for cloture.


Edit: If and when there is is an objection. Please quote this post and start voting on the vote for cloture.

A vote should have been called on this, Tim, Muaddib.

EDIT: I meant a vote should have been opened...oops.

[West_Midlander]

[X] Aye
[  ] Nay
[  ] Abstain