SENATE BILL: The Walter Reuther & Cesar Chavez Solidarity Act (Passed)

[Left Wing]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

Welcome to the Senate.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[lfromnj]

Why should it be illegal to distribute mere speech aka anti-union literature to employees? If employees are forced to go training I believe they are still required to get paid right?

It is not a level playing field if some dude can create a union and describe any theoretical benefits while the employer can't do the opposite. Either ban all union related literature within a workplace or don't ban a specific aspect.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why should it be illegal to distribute mere speech aka anti-union literature to employees? If employees are forced to go training I believe they are still required to get paid right?

It is not a level playing field if some dude can create a union and describe any theoretical benefits while the employer can't do the opposite. Either ban all union related literature within a workplace or don't ban a specific aspect.

In my preferred world as I stated previously, which I doubt I can get passed with current membership. It would be a free and open election administered by the Dept of Labor. Both sides would make their case, their would be a secret ballot and strict penalties for any intimidation by either side.

My Labor colleagues seem to think that this forever has to operate as some kind of clandestine spy mission sneaking past the German guards to steel the radar plans and destroy the prototype, but they seem to forget that we have the means to ensure compliance, we have the power to set the rules to regulate this and we can allow a free, fair and open election without the risks of it being undermined in RL. The reasons for this are ample including the lack of donor money and less corruptible administrative agency.

[Blair]

I thought Tack's amendment was adopted if I didn't object within 24 hours- but still I'll never turn down a vote.

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I thought Tack's amendment was adopted if I didn't object within 24 hours- but still I'll never turn down a vote.

Aye

I don't think it is a set time but if the feedback doesn't come it goes to a vote. 24 hours and objections only applies after sponsor feedback is given.

[Blair]

The reasoning for doing so is that in my view there is rarely a level-playing if you allow companies to promote anti-union stances; whether it's through internal message boards at work, scary presentations using 'internal projections' or information the moment new employees work.

Seeing as we have elections if they can't reach the 50% threshold I assume that we'd still seeing campaigning in this context?

[Blair]

I thought Tack's amendment was adopted if I didn't object within 24 hours- but still I'll never turn down a vote.

Aye

I don't think it is a set time but if the feedback doesn't come it goes to a vote. 24 hours and objections only applies after sponsor feedback is given.

ah okay my mistake!

[Former President tack50]

Yeah, I agree with Blair that anti union actions by the companies aren't really a level playing field. Even when you formally ban being fired for trying to organize a union honestly it is still very easy for me to see companies firing people for stuff like "low productivity" or whatever and just making up the reasons.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The reasoning for doing so is that in my view there is rarely a level-playing if you allow companies to promote anti-union stances; whether it's through internal message boards at work, scary presentations using 'internal projections' or information the moment new employees work.

Seeing as we have elections if they can't reach the 50% threshold I assume that we'd still seeing campaigning in this context?

Yeah, I agree with Blair that anti union actions by the companies aren't really a level playing field. Even when you formally ban being fired for trying to organize a union honestly it is still very easy for me to see companies firing people for stuff like "low productivity" or whatever and just making up the reasons.

But where does the line get drawn? Once you ban the whole other side of an argument, how can you have a fair process?

[lfromnj]

As long as workers are paid at their usual rate there is nothing wrong about forcing them to view anti union stuff.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly I find the entire concept of anti-union training at companies extremely creepy and predatory and it is something that should be indeed restricted or banned.

The union organizers and the owners of the company are not in an equal position. The latter are clearly in a position of privilege.

[lfromnj]

Honestly I find the entire concept of anti-union training at companies extremely creepy and predatory and it is something that should be indeed restricted or banned.

The union organizers and the owners of the company are not in an equal position. The latter are clearly in a position of privilege.

Privielge doesn't mean content based speech restrictions should be legal.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly I find the entire concept of anti-union training at companies extremely creepy and predatory and it is something that should be indeed restricted or banned.

The union organizers and the owners of the company are not in an equal position. The latter are clearly in a position of privilege.

Privielge doesn't mean content based speech restrictions should be legal.

Fair point. Then again freedom of speech is a very well protected right, so presumably this bill would be unconstitutional under those rules then?

[lfromnj]

Honestly I find the entire concept of anti-union training at companies extremely creepy and predatory and it is something that should be indeed restricted or banned.

The union organizers and the owners of the company are not in an equal position. The latter are clearly in a position of privilege.

Privielge doesn't mean content based speech restrictions should be legal.

Fair point. Then again freedom of speech is a very well protected right, so presumably this bill would be unconstitutional under those rules then?

I will sue as an imaginary business owner. Restricting speech based on place can be legal  but not when mixed with what type of content is in the speech.

[Former President tack50]

Ok I guess now the way to go is to decide whether we want to deal with lfromnj's constitutionality argument or whether we want to risk it and give the justices something to do

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Honestly I find the entire concept of anti-union training at companies extremely creepy and predatory and it is something that should be indeed restricted or banned.

The union organizers and the owners of the company are not in an equal position. The latter are clearly in a position of privilege.

Is their a line btw anti union training and anti union campaigning during the course of s regulated process overseen by Dol.

[Blair]

Edit: my intention wasn’t for this bill to ban speech; my intention was that CEOs/managers are still free to talk and communicate about it their views- it just imposes a limit on companies using their vastly larger resources- hence why it mentioned company resources

[Blair]

The Walter Reuther & Cesar Chavez Solidarity Act

Section 1:No Fire

1A.) It is hereby unlawful for any employer to fire or discipline any employee for joining a trade union, encouraging colleagues to join a union or attempting to form a union or organise within their workplace.

1B.) Any employer found guilty of breaching Section 1A shall be fined $5,000 after the first breach, $10,000 after the second breach and an additional $20,000 for each subsequent breach.

1C.) The Attorney General shall have the authority to introduce additional fines on companies found to breaching this regulation on successive occasions.

Section 2: Recognition

2A.) A union shall be recongised within any workplace providing that more than 50% of employees submit a signed affirmation in favour of unionisation.

2B.) If less than 50% but more than 30% of employees submit a signed affirmation in favour of unionisation then a secret ballot shall be held by employees on whether to unionise.

2C.) These signed affirmations may only be publicly accessible in an anonymous manner. No individual workers may be identified by signing an affirmation

Section 3: Solidarity Forever

3A.) Solidarity Strikes, or secondary strikes are hereby legal- under the provision that a ballot of union members is held with more than 50% voting in favour.

Section 4: Farm Workers are Workers

4A.) The National Labor Relations Act 1935 is hereby amended to include farm workers, and no limit shall be placed upon them

Section 5: Level Playing Field

5A.) No employer shall be allowled to limit, control or deny access for their employees to discuss or meet with their union representatives.

5B.) Employers shall not be allowled to use company resources to fund or provide literature or promotional material which encourages their employees not to join, except during a permitted election under section 2B, where a spending limit shall be approved by the National Labor Relations board

5C.) It is hereby illegal for an employer to use any form of surveillance to monitor, track or disrupt the lawful activities of union officals within the workplace.

Section 6: The room where it happens.

6A.) All public limited companies shall have at least 1 trade union appointed offical as a sitting and voting member of their board of directors.

[/quote]

[/quote]

[Blair]

I’m stuck on the iPad so apologies for the poor formatting but for the purpose of procedure I withdraw my motion to hold a final vote and offer the following amendment- which will allow for employers to engage during an election period with spending caps in place.

[Blair]

Another and final tweak based on comments re tone/content of speech- this amendment removes any specific mention of the content and rather imposes a blanket policy.

The Walter Reuther & Cesar Chavez Solidarity Act

Section 1:No Fire

1A.) It is hereby unlawful for any employer to fire or discipline any employee for joining a trade union, encouraging colleagues to join a union or attempting to form a union or organise within their workplace.

1B.) Any employer found guilty of breaching Section 1A shall be fined $5,000 after the first breach, $10,000 after the second breach and an additional $20,000 for each subsequent breach.

1C.) The Attorney General shall have the authority to introduce additional fines on companies found to breaching this regulation on successive occasions.

Section 2: Recognition

2A.) A union shall be recongised within any workplace providing that more than 50% of employees submit a signed affirmation in favour of unionisation.

2B.) If less than 50% but more than 30% of employees submit a signed affirmation in favour of unionisation then a secret ballot shall be held by employees on whether to unionise.

2C.) These signed affirmations may only be publicly accessible in an anonymous manner. No individual workers may be identified by signing an affirmation

Section 3: Solidarity Forever

3A.) Solidarity Strikes, or secondary strikes are hereby legal- under the provision that a ballot of union members is held with more than 50% voting in favour.

Section 4: Farm Workers are Workers

4A.) The National Labor Relations Act 1935 is hereby amended to include farm workers, and no limit shall be placed upon them

Section 5: Level Playing Field

5A.) No employer shall be allowled to limit, control or deny access for their employees to discuss or meet with their union representatives.

5B.) Employers shall not be allowed to use company resources to fund literature regarding trade union activity except during a permitted election under section 2B, where a spending limit shall be approved by the National Labor Relations board

5C.) It is hereby illegal for an employer to use any form of surveillance to monitor, track or disrupt the lawful activities of union officals within the workplace.

Section 6: The room where it happens.

6A.) All public limited companies shall have at least 1 trade union appointed offical as a sitting and voting member of their board of directors.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Forgot to post the results from the previous Amendment vote.

Aye (5): Blair, Falterin, NC Yankee, Tack and Spark
Nay (0):
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Devout Centrist

This amendment has passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to object to Blair's latest amendment.

[Spark]

Senators have 24 hours to object to Blair's latest amendment.

No objection.