Jump to content
TedderVision
Macmillan

National Right to Work Law

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Macmillan said:

Amendment rejected as non-germane 

Amendment rejected as non-germane

I'll save some time and decree that all the amendments have been rejected as non-germane

I would like to remind the Members of this House that wrecking amendments are out of order, I would urge everyone to engage constructively with this bill rather than introducing amendments to see it introduced in a millennium's time or to see it close the next day etc.

@Shiggy I ask for a parliamentarian review of DeJesus I. The amendment adds enactment guidelines which is perfectly germane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Hands off the Gavel*

DeJesus I is a crude attempt to make it so that the legislation comes into and out of force on the same day, it is a wrecking amendment plain and simple Mr Speaker. I yield

*Hands on the Gavel*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Macmillan said:

*Hands off the Gavel*

DeJesus I is a crude attempt to make it so that the legislation comes into and out of force on the same day, it is a wrecking amendment plain and simple Mr Speaker. I yield

*Hands on the Gavel*

Mr. Speaker, 

 

Thank you for confirming your ruling was completely political. Just because you do not agree with an amendment does not make it non-germane.

 

I yield in disgust 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

As I've already said, closed-shop employment is outlawed. Workers are perfectly allowed to stay out of labor unions, they just can't expect the union to give them the same benefits as their members.

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Mr. Speaker,

As I've already said, closed-shop employment is outlawed. Workers are perfectly allowed to stay out of labor unions, they just can't expect the union to give them the same benefits as their members.

I yield.

*Hands off of the Gavel*

Mr Speaker that would be well and good if it were true but the fact is that the closed shop does remain in proxy form with the union shop. Whilst getting employment may not be contingent upon being in a union keeping that job very much is for a great many workers in our nation. Union shops operate on a system where if you get a job you have a certain amount of days to join that union before you are relieved of said job. This isn't about unions handing out benefits, this is about unions having the power to essentially fire someone for breaking a picket and it is about them forcing individuals to hold membership and pay fees when they do not wish to. To me that sounds extortionate and even akin to blackmail.

I yield

*Hands back on the Gavel*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Macmillan said:

*Hands off the Gavel*

DeJesus I is a crude attempt to make it so that the legislation comes into and out of force on the same day, it is a wrecking amendment plain and simple Mr Speaker. I yield

*Hands on the Gavel*

 

It is a crude attempts to gut the bill, but moving to add a sunset clause or to individually move to removed a subsection is germane to the bill. Therefore @Macmillan the amendments must be lawfully considered.

If you don't like it........then go to the press and argue that it is obstructionism. You CANNOT use the power of speaker to unilaterally legislate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debate is concluded, all Hong amendments are rejected due to lack of a second, Voting shall commence shortly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×