We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Industry Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Independent Right
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2376
Description[?]:
| Pretty straight forward. EDIT: Removed the last two articles, which now have their own bills. We can now vote on the remaining two. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: The government does not intervene in the market nor provide any form of subsidies/relief to industries.
Current: Certain industries are owned by the state, all others are under private ownership.
Proposed: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards labor unions.
Old value:: Trade unions may exist and all workers must have membership in one.
Current: Trade unions may exist and all workers must have membership in one.
Proposed: Trade unions may exist and worker membership is voluntary.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:38:56, March 17, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the Industry Reform Act |
| Message | The TCP may vote in favour of this bill, but the party would like to querie Article 3 - whilst the TCP does not support racism or any form of xenophobia, the party does not believe in such measures as positive discrimination in the hiring process - the TCP believes that the hiring process should be left entirely un-regulated and that businesses should choose employees based upon their ability and their skill, as aposed to trying to satisfy race, gender and disability quotas. The TCP believes that it does not matter if someone is a woman, a man, black or white or any other ethnicity; regardless of these superficial factors, it is the employees skill and ability that should earn him\her the job. If employers hire people merely based on things such as belonging to ethnic minorities, and substitute such factors for superior skill or ability, the business's efficiency will gradually decrease. The TCP therefore suggests that perhaps Article 3 may be changed to eliminate all government regulation on hiring policies. The TCP would also like to query Article 4: whilst the article is an improvement to the current legislation, the TCP would like to suggest perhaps stronger methods - could the proposal be changed to ban sympathy strikes altogether? If the Independant Right is, however, trying to take moderate and gradual proceedures so as not to cause too much uproar in the electorate, the TCP can understand this, and will still vote in favour of the bill. |
| Date | 09:55:04, March 17, 2007 CET | From | S.C.A.F.R. | To | Debating the Industry Reform Act |
| Message | We can vote this bill. |
| Date | 16:30:58, March 17, 2007 CET | From | Communist Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the Industry Reform Act |
| Message | We will support this bill. |
| Date | 18:21:25, March 17, 2007 CET | From | Independent Right | To | Debating the Industry Reform Act |
| Message | On the subject of Article 4, the TCP is correct. We don't feel it would be beneficial to disrupt the current system too much, and would prefer gradual steps in the right direction. And we will remove Article 3 from this bill and put it forward as an independent proposal, in order to maximize possible support. |
| Date | 00:47:25, March 18, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the Industry Reform Act |
| Message | We do not agree with article three but the other articles we support vehemently! |
| Date | 01:26:09, March 18, 2007 CET | From | Independent Right | To | Debating the Industry Reform Act |
| Message | In the interests of putting as much support as possible behind the first two articles, then, we will put forward the Secondary Strike proposal in a separate bill, and move the remaining two to a vote. |
| Date | 06:07:08, March 18, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the Industry Reform Act |
| Message | We shall support both articles in this bill. In fact, we believe that article one does not go far enough. We believe that the government should be free to subsidize as it wishes in order to help out industries and move the economy in a direction the government sees as positive. However, that is another debate for another time. In the meantime, we are happy with this on this subject. We also have one slight problem with article two. While we agree no one should be forced to be in a union, we believe that it should encouraged, possibly even through federal funding of advertising. Again, this is only a minor discrepancy. We shall support this bill anyway and be happy with it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 187 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 297 |
| Random fact: Periodically, it is a good idea to go through your nation's Treaties and arrange to withdraw from any that are unwanted. |
| Random quote: "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." - Dwight D. Eisenhower |