SR 105-18: Labor Rights Amendment (Failed)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

AN AMENDMENT
to the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia:

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this Amendment shall be, the “Labor Rights Amendment.” It may be cited by its ordinal number in order of ratification.

Section 2 (Labor Rights Amendment)
i. The following shall be appended to Article I of the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia as the next section thereof:

A full-enfranchised working class being necessary for the prosperity of a free people, the right of the working people to organize and bargain collectively shall not be infringed.

This amendment to the Bill of Rights would protect the right of wage-earners to unionize free from the subversive influence of employers or the state.

Sponsor: Western Democrat

The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.

[WD]

This amendment is meant to enshrine in our constitution that every worker has the right to collectively bargain. Fundamentally, this amendment is about protecting the workers of Atlasia and ensuring that all have a voice on the job.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I have always maintained that unions ought to be protected by freedom of assembly, but the Bill of Rights is null on the matter of unions. I support this amendment to guarantee workers the right to organize.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I am very grateful to the great senator from my region for reviving this bill. I wrote this amendment to the Bill of Rights almost two years ago, when it was passed by a 2/3 majority of the Senate and the House of Representatives before being forgotten about. (Bicameralism was a mistake!) Since then, the urgency of labor rights has not abated. May the Senate move swiftly to allay the fears of those who say you are just as useless as your predecessors and send this amendment to the people!

[AGA]

Would this protect unions just from public employers or private ones as well? I'm guessing both. Either way, I oppose this. Unions should only be backed by their own inherent power, not by that of the state. Excess unionization can cripple the economy.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Would this protect unions just from public employers or private ones as well? I'm guessing both. Either way, I oppose this. Unions should only be backed by their own inherent power, not by that of the state. Excess unionization can cripple the economy.

I would support exemptions for, say, doctors - but they don't unionize. Union bosses are another story, but the union workers themselves are just folks trying to get by.

[WD]

I personally do not see increased or “excess” unionization as a vice. Workers who are unionized have substantially higher wages than those who are non-unionized. In addition, union workers have far more generous health benefits and pension plans. High levels of unionization also tend to result in higher wages for nonunion workers; and there is a strong correlation between reduced levels of union membership and income inequality. The fact is, when unions are empowered, so is the Atlasian worker. I urge the Senate to support this amendment without hesitation.

[Spark]

Do Atlasians already pay union dues? And if not, would this amendment by implying that citizens have to join a union? I am personally in favor, but officially neutral on unions because I leave it up to the regions. I am curious.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Do Atlasians already pay union dues? And if not, would this amendment by implying that citizens have to join a union? I am personally in favor, but officially neutral on unions because I leave it up to the regions. I am curious.

This amendment does not mandate union membership, it merely recognizes their right to exist, organize, and bargain for higher wages and better living standards.

[WD]

Do Atlasians already pay union dues? And if not, would this amendment by implying that citizens have to join a union? I am personally in favor, but officially neutral on unions because I leave it up to the regions. I am curious.

No one would be forced to join a union under this amendment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Does the right to bear arms require that every citizen must own a gun? The language in both amendments is identical.

[WD]

Motioning for a final vote

[Joseph Cao]

24 hours to object to the motion.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Do Atlasians already pay union dues? And if not, would this amendment by implying that citizens have to join a union? I am personally in favor, but officially neutral on unions because I leave it up to the regions. I am curious.

This amendment would take away regional rights to decide the matter.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

when it was passed by a 2/3 majority of the Senate and the House of Representatives before being forgotten about. (Bicameralism was a mistake!)

>Says it passed both houses with 2/3rds Majority
>Says it was then forgotten about
>Blames Bicameralism

I hope that I do not have to explain what is wrong with this reasoning here.

Ah screw it.

If it was forgotten about after it was passed in both chamber, that means it was either
1. Never sent to the Regional Vote Administrators via PM as required by law
2. Never posted in a public thread on the AFE Board as required by law
or
3. Intentionally ignored by the regional vote administrators.

Not a single damn one of these is a) exclusively a situation that could occur with bicameralism and cannot happen with unicameral by extension or b) a situation that could not occur under unicameralism (it did pre-reset much more more frequently under unicameralism than under the bicameral system).

The facts and the historical record do not back up the contention that this justifies the statement "bicameralism" was a mistake and often one finds these arguments from any number of radicals, centralists, anti-regionalists and reformers who have bought into and accepted the terms of the debate as dictated by such nefarious elements whereby any number of deficiencies, ills or incompetence is attributed to as a system or institution they don't like even though often there is no direct link or exclusivity with regards to said system or institution in question.

Let us have some straight talk for once, the reason why "bicameralism" was a "mistake" was because it inhibited the cancerous "completionist mindset" with which the left has approached this game since the mid 2000s, and with which there has in effect been a direct causal relationship between a decline in activity and this mindset being allowed to succeed.

Its the exact same reason why "paygo" had to be axed, because it was inconvenient for the completionism even though for years Tack and others managed to still adhere to it when passing their left leaning bills, indicating that it wasn't the road block that it was made out to be. If we want to talk about "mistakes" there were two grievous errors made on the part of the newly installed Laborite Majority in 2019, the first which has been recognized as such, removed and uniformly acknowledged to have been a misguided approach While we are on that matter, it should be noted that it once again went after things indirectly related (if even related at all) as opposed to addressing the root problem at the heart of the matter (for which provisions even already existed and merely needed to be modified to reflect new chamber size).

Bicameralism was not a mistake, bicameralism helped to save this game from the deluge of radicalist hell and you of all people should understand that.

[WD]

Motioning for a final vote

Renewing this request

[Continential]

A vote has been opened.

[WD]

Aye

[If my soul was made of stone]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[S019]

Aye

[Continential]

Aye 

[Kuumo]

Aye

[Spark]

Since this does not require to Atlasians to join a union or pay dues, I can support. This right should be protected if Atlasians choose to form a union. Aye

[Joseph Cao]

Nay.