ColonelWest (R-PA) proposes Federal Employment Act
Bill fails @ColonelWest
Nay, too vague.
Yea. Unions are like the mafia, and we do not need the mafia in the government.
This effectively bans unionization, which is a breach of the right of association
Federal workers don't have a right to collectively bargain against the taxpayers
They do have a right to association and are protected under labor laws. The government doesnt have the right to treat them any worse than any other employee
They are only protected under labor laws to the extent that the laws set by Congress establish those protections. As direct employees of the federal government, we have the right to set the terms of their employment.
We do, but they're still protected under federal labor laws. Like it being illegal to fire them for unionizing, and strike protections
Yes, I agree that this is a realistic description of the status quo. However, that would not be an accurate description of the United States after this bill passed
But this bill is unconstitutional for that reason
Because of federal labor laws or because of the right to association? If it's the former, then obviously laws can be repealed. If it's the latter, then you need to recognize a couple things. First, that union rights were not legally protected at the time when the right to association was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Second, that there is no basis to believe that the intent of that claus was to protect the right of workers, especially federal workers, to collectively bargain.
Doesnt matter, still applies. The intention of freedom of speech wasn't to allow people to advocate genocide, but it still protects it
Sure it was. Free speech protected the rights of slavery advocates and all sorts of horrible people. It's based on the principle of the Enlightenment, which was perhaps best expressed by Voltaire when he wrote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
And the right to association is the same way.
No it's not, because no one in the eighteenth century was advocating for businesses or governments to be forced to recognize the rights of guilds to collectively bargain. People at that time were advocating for the rights of slave owners to say whatever they want, however controversial.
They never meant the right to vote to extend to women either, but now it does.
You cant limit rights because you dont like what they're doing with them
I agree that this was never their intention, which is why progressives amended the Constitution for the nineteenth time in order to grant women the right to vote. If you believe that workers need a constitutional right to collectively bargain, then it is your burden to do as past progressives have done by witting a constitutional amendment instead of trying to change the meaning of a centuries old claus.
The "meaning" stays the same. The 2nd amendment doesn't only protect muskets.
The second amendment applies to modern weapons, the first amendment still applies to radio and television media, and the right to free speech and association applies to unions.
There's a difference between adapting the amendments to changing technology and adapting the amendments to changing economic prerogatives. The right of free association can be expanded with advanced technology to include things like forming online petitions against the government, but it can't be altered to expand economic rights not considered in the Constitution.
Plus, if we're being honest, I'm being generous in implying that there even is a constitutional right to association in any form. That's because the words 'right to association' do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
The supreme court defined the right to association, and unions are still associations.
And by that logic you couldnt discuss any modern economic events because "rights don't adapt to modern economics"
I understand that the Supreme Court chose to add a right to association, but they have not extended that invented right to constitute the right of a union to exist and orchestrate strikes while retaining for its members immunity from termination over the issue of labor organizing.
I support the sentiment, but that's extremely vague.
I'm all for streamlining the ability of the government to trim the oversized bureaucracy, but I'm concerned that this legislation would allow racial discrimination, sexual exploitation, and other issues that could actually inhibit the meritocracy this bill would like to bolster.
That's not true at all. Discrimination is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and is unaffected by this bill.
Discrimination is forbidden by the Civil Rights Act, but since this legislation does not specify that provisions of the Civil Rights Act are maintained, there is no reason to assume this act is not overridden like every other federal employee statute.
Should it really be harder to terminate minorities if they have poor work ethics?
That's not the intent of the Civil Rights Act.
No, but it's the result.
This is extremely vauge. You can pretty much scrap any workers rights by arguing they make it harder to fire someone
Federal Employment Act
No Federal Employee shall have, as part of any contract, a stipulation making it harder for a supervisor to terminate their employment.