FT 15.03 - Right to Organize Act (LAW)

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

AN ACT
to protect the right to organize against dishonest employer advertisement

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this Act shall be, the "Right to Organize Act."

Section 2 (Mandatory anti-union training)
i. No employer may require persons in their employ to attend a training, seminar, or other assembly featuring a presentation the contents of which a reasonable person might construe as discouraging membership of a specific labor union, or general efforts to recruit for or organize labor unions.
ii. No employer may host or incentivize membership at a training, seminar, or other assembly such as described by §2(i) of this Act, which does not give equal time to a representative chosen by the relevant labor union or unions to explain the benefits of union membership.

Section 3 (Penalty)
i. Any employer found to have violated the provisions of this Act shall be fined 10% of their gross annual earnings in Frémont.

Sponsor: Harry S Truman, FM (Fianna Frémont—Labor, North Dakota)

Mr. First Minister, you have the floor.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My thanks to the speaker.

For employers looking to neuter labor's attempts to organize, a relentless propaganda campaign to discourage union membership is perhaps the oldest trick in the book. While of course the reactionary's right to speak against the cause of solidarity is protected under the freedom of speech, when managers and administrators use their power over their employee's paycheck to coerce attendance at anti-union reeducation sessions —whether billed as employee training, information seminars, or the like —is a clear abuse of power and a violation of Frémonters' constitutional right to organize. This bill would ban mandatory anti-union assemblies and prohibit employers from incentivizing attendance at nominally voluntary assemblies unless a representative chosen by the relevant union is given equal time to provide an alternative perspective.

[OBD]

My main quarrel with a bill dealing with this issue would be that it would outright forbid businesses from advocating against unions, which I believe would be a violation of corporate free speech. Thankfully, this act doesn't do so, as it merely requires that a union representative be allowed to make an equally compelling case for membership if a corporation desires to run an anti-union campaign. I'm not a huge fan of the language implying that all anti-union efforts are dishonest propaganda, but I otherwise have no quarrel with this bill and will vote AYE if it comes to a vote.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I appreciate the message and agenda of this act, however, I'm not really the greatest fan of the language. While wording the bill to make both union workers and business owners happy is a very difficult task that requires stepping on a lot of eggshells, is there any possible way to make the wording of this bill to be a little less (for lack of a better term) vague when it comes to distinguishing corporate free speech from anti-union propaganda?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I appreciate the message and agenda of this act, however, I'm not really the greatest fan of the language. While wording the bill to make both union workers and business owners happy is a very difficult task that requires stepping on a lot of eggshells, is there any possible way to make the wording of this bill to be a little less (for lack of a better term) vague when it comes to distinguishing corporate free speech from anti-union propaganda?

The problem is that the more specific you become, the more loopholes you create that then have to be closed, and the law becomes more impotent as a result. Please note that this bill does not limit the ability of employers to speak against labor unions or efforts to organize in any way; it merely prohibits them from requiring their employees to listen. Freedom of speech does not extend so far as to give the speaker the right to a captive audience or isolation from criticism, in my view, so I don't believe the bill as it stands treads upon free speech at all. Could you maybe be more specific about what changes you would like to see made?

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I appreciate the message and agenda of this act, however, I'm not really the greatest fan of the language. While wording the bill to make both union workers and business owners happy is a very difficult task that requires stepping on a lot of eggshells, is there any possible way to make the wording of this bill to be a little less (for lack of a better term) vague when it comes to distinguishing corporate free speech from anti-union propaganda?

The problem is that the more specific you become, the more loopholes you create that then have to be closed, and the law becomes more impotent as a result. Please note that this bill does not limit the ability of employers to speak against labor unions or efforts to organize in any way; it merely prohibits them from requiring their employees to listen. Freedom of speech does not extend so far as to give the speaker the right to a captive audience or isolation from criticism, in my view, so I don't believe the bill as it stands treads upon free speech at all. Could you maybe be more specific about what changes you would like to see made?

Actually, you do make a good point. So long as this bill doesn't infringe on any party's right to express their opinions on joining labor unions, then I support it, and coupled with that explanation you just gave me, I believe that this bill actually can do that.

[OBD]

If I may, I'd like to motion for a vote on this, as there don't seem to be any amendments crying out to be proposed.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

24 hours to object to the motion from the gentleman of Oregon.

Edit: A vote is now held, 48 hours to vote.

[OBD]

Aye!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye!

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Aye

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Nay

[Continential]

I will be a proud AYE Vote!

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Right to Organize Act
Frémont Parliament Bill 15.03 - Sponsored by Harry S Truman, FM

	LAB	PAX	IND	TOTAL
Aye	3	1	0	4
Nay	0	0	1	1
Abstain	0	0	0	0
Not Present	0	0	0	0

	FF	TR	ML	UL	TOTAL
Aye	1	1	1	1	4
Nay	0	0	1	0	1
Abstain	0	0	0	0	0
Not Present	0	0	0	0	0

First Minister HARRY S TRUMAN of North Dakota (LAB/FF)
Mr. AUSTRALIANSWINGVOTER of Washington (IND/ML)
Mr. ISHAN of Guam (LAB/UL)
Ms. KOOPADAQUICK of Iowa (PAX/TR)
Mr. OREGON BLUE DOG of Oregon (LAB/ML)

Four in favor, one opposed. The bill passes.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AN ACT
to protect the right to organize against dishonest employer advertisement

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this Act shall be, the "Right to Organize Act."

Section 2 (Mandatory anti-union training)
i. No employer may require persons in their employ to attend a training, seminar, or other assembly featuring a presentation the contents of which a reasonable person might construe as discouraging membership of a specific labor union, or general efforts to recruit for or organize labor unions.
ii. No employer may host or incentivize membership at a training, seminar, or other assembly such as described by §2(i) of this Act, which does not give equal time to a representative chosen by the relevant labor union or unions to explain the benefits of union membership.

Section 3 (Penalty)
i. Any employer found to have violated the provisions of this Act shall be fined 10% of their gross annual earnings in Frémont.