Bernie Sanders: Workplace Democracy Act

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
B2079EF3-3745-41B7-82BE-48D160E558E7.jpeg

On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders introduced the Workplace Democracy Act, a bill that aims to increase America’s unionization rate by:


• Allowing workers to form unions simply by collecting signatures in favor of unionization from a majority of their colleagues, instead of holding elections, which provide employers with the opportunity to lobby against the union before ballots are cast.

• Requiring companies to bargain with a new union within ten days of receiving a request.

• Nullifying right-to-work laws, by requiring workers to pay some amount of dues to unions that bargain on their behalf, regardless of the state they live in.

• Drastically increasing penalties on employers that illegally fire workers during union drives.

• And expanding the definition of “employee” so that America’s growing population of contract laborers — like the “gig economy” workers who power Uber and Lyft — can access the wide array of mandatory benefits that only employees can currently claim (including the right to collective bargaining). Specifically, the bill stipulates that a company’s workers are “employees,” unless the services they provide are “outside the usual course of the employer’s business” (so, a hardware store can hire a plumber to fix its toilets on contract, but a plumbing service would need to employ said plumber, if it wishes to avail itself of his or her services).

Thirteen of Sanders’s Democratic colleagues have signed onto this legislation — including virtually every suspected 2020 hopeful in the upper chamber (Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris are all represented). And yet, a wide array of (self-identified) progressive senators — including ones from states with strong labor presences — have not signed onto the bill.

It’s possible that these legislators simply haven’t gotten around to it — there is a lot going on right now, and this bill isn’t gonna come up for a vote any time soon. It’s also possible that they object to some little detail in this proposal but are hard at work at their own labor bills.

But if 35 Senate Democrats have no intention of supporting comprehensive labor-law reform of any kind, then 35 Senate Democrats are so deeply committed to protecting the ability of employers to exploit their workers, they’re willing to put their party at an electoral disadvantage for the sake of abetting such exploitation. There’s little reason to believe that this actually the case. But those who haven’t signed onto Sanders’s bill would do well to clarify that it isn’t, posthaste.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/every-democrat-should-back-bernie-sanderss-new-labor-bill.html

Sanders/Turner 2020
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
View attachment 4135804

On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders introduced the Workplace Democracy Act, a bill that aims to increase America’s unionization rate by:


• Allowing workers to form unions simply by collecting signatures in favor of unionization from a majority of their colleagues, instead of holding elections, which provide employers with the opportunity to lobby against the union before ballots are cast.

• Requiring companies to bargain with a new union within ten days of receiving a request.

• Nullifying right-to-work laws, by requiring workers to pay some amount of dues to unions that bargain on their behalf, regardless of the state they live in.

• Drastically increasing penalties on employers that illegally fire workers during union drives.

• And expanding the definition of “employee” so that America’s growing population of contract laborers — like the “gig economy” workers who power Uber and Lyft — can access the wide array of mandatory benefits that only employees can currently claim (including the right to collective bargaining). Specifically, the bill stipulates that a company’s workers are “employees,” unless the services they provide are “outside the usual course of the employer’s business” (so, a hardware store can hire a plumber to fix its toilets on contract, but a plumbing service would need to employ said plumber, if it wishes to avail itself of his or her services).

Thirteen of Sanders’s Democratic colleagues have signed onto this legislation — including virtually every suspected 2020 hopeful in the upper chamber (Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris are all represented). And yet, a wide array of (self-identified) progressive senators — including ones from states with strong labor presences — have not signed onto the bill.

It’s possible that these legislators simply haven’t gotten around to it — there is a lot going on right now, and this bill isn’t gonna come up for a vote any time soon. It’s also possible that they object to some little detail in this proposal but are hard at work at their own labor bills.

But if 35 Senate Democrats have no intention of supporting comprehensive labor-law reform of any kind, then 35 Senate Democrats are so deeply committed to protecting the ability of employers to exploit their workers, they’re willing to put their party at an electoral disadvantage for the sake of abetting such exploitation. There’s little reason to believe that this actually the case. But those who haven’t signed onto Sanders’s bill would do well to clarify that it isn’t, posthaste.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/every-democrat-should-back-bernie-sanderss-new-labor-bill.html

Sanders/Turner 2020
Click to expand...
By signing onto the bill, you mean co-sponsor, correct?

There is no need for more than a few co-sponsors to a bill. Plenty of bills pass with only a few co-sponsors. Not co-sponsoring the bill riles Cult of Sanders members heart burn. I'm good with that.

More than likely, the bill is poorly written. It won't make it to the floor for a vote until Democrats take Congress. That said, I'm with you on the general principle that unions are better for workers and legislation is needed to reverse Republican actions that are killing them off.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
By signing onto the bill, you mean co-sponsor, correct?

There is no need for more than a few co-sponsors to a bill. Plenty of bills pass with only a few co-sponsors. Not co-sponsoring the bill riles Cult of Sanders members heart burn. I'm good with that.

More than likely, the bill is poorly written. It won't make it to the floor for a vote until Democrats take Congress. That said, I'm with you on the general principle that unions are better for workers and legislation is needed to reverse Republican actions that are killing them off.
Click to expand...
So in other words you are anti union.

Just go vote for Trump already.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
More than likely, the bill is poorly written. It won't make it to the floor for a vote until Democrats take Congress. That said, I'm with you on the general principle that unions are better for workers and legislation is needed to reverse Republican actions that are killing them off.
Click to expand...
A poorly written bill is worse than no bill. It sets the precedent that the issue lacks support.
 
Terps

Terps

Well-Known Member
This is the reason why Bernie is not electable. For how many years has he been pushing these bat shit crazy bills? How many have passed? I think the total is 0.....
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Terps said:
This is the reason why Bernie is not electable. For how many years has he been pushing these bat shit crazy bills? How many have passed? I think the total is 0.....
Click to expand...
Don't sell Bernie short. He has so gotten a bill passed.

He got some solar water heaters installed on some federal buildings and renamed a post office.
 
Terps

Terps

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Using collective bargaining for a decent wage and a safe work place is such a corrupt thing to do.
Click to expand...
No but golf courses and $100000 salaries are Try taking a look at the United auto workers of America that almost destroyed the automobile industry. They are very Corrupt in America.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Terps said:
No but golf courses and $100000 salaries are Try taking a look at the United auto workers of America that almost destroyed the automobile industry. They are very Corrupt in America.
Click to expand...
Japan made better cars and were better managed. Anybody who has purchased a Toyota knows the difference in quality between any of the big three and Toyota. Plain and simple.

This analysis from Eric Perkins, a financial analyst hired by UAW under an agreement with Ford to provide an assessment so that both parties could understand the problems the industry faced in 2006:

I told the membership that the company was in terrible shape. They should prepare for the worst. There were flexible body shops only running one product. Money had been wasted on share buybacks and special dividends, rather than investment in new products. Purchased component costs (two-thirds of vehicle costs) were roughly $2,000 higher for Ford than for Toyota and maybe a thousand higher than they were at GM on equivalent vehicles, primarily because of lousy volume predictions at the time of product approval.

There was too much complexity in the design. Their time to market was two to three years longer than the Japanese and one year longer than GM. Ford had generated many innovative products such as the Explorer and the Expedition, but the success covered up underlying problems. Further, most of the Big 3 market share loss since 2001 had been at Ford, and this included the very profitable products such as Explorers, Expeditions, and even pickups—product segments Ford had once dominated. I said this company is on the verge of bankruptcy and they needed to make a radical transformation. Purchasing and design accounted for more of the problem than labor. I said that though we were only 20 percent of the problem, every penny counted. Many UAW members owned stock and identified with Ford. People thought of themselves as working for a great company—so it was a difficult message to deliver. (Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Brooks, and Mulloy 2015, 43)

Bottom line was though the business was riven with horrible management practices and sucked dry by Wall Street, the workers had to take pay cuts so that the company could survive.

No sir, the corruption and incompetence at Ford for example, wasn't due to workers or unions. Chrysler was managed even worse. GM was better but still in no shape to compete with Japanese car makers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top