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: Positive Discrimination Encouragement
Details
Submitted by[?]: Workers' Autonomy Socialist Party
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: September 2413
Description[?]:
| After the linguistic offensive of the IB, we believe that it is time for that ikradonians parties to send a message that we actively support our minorities |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: No form of positive discrimination is permitted.
Current: Hiring policies are regulated by local governments.
Proposed: The government encourages positive discrimination and enforces it for government hiring.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:28:09, May 29, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | We will support. |
| Date | 19:12:30, May 29, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | We believe a free choice must exist based on the capacities of the subject. |
| Date | 07:13:49, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Supported. |
| Date | 11:07:59, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | We prefer promoting diversity over positive discrimination. Companies and our government aren't busy with promoting diversity in a positive way when people get recruited based on something than there capacities. They are however busy with presentation and keeping in check with the law. All that count are the quotas, not the people. Further positive discrimination will lead to tension and discrimination on the workfloor. Who will be the ones to get fired first, who will be the ones not getting promoted? This will be the ones with the least capacities. How can one benefit a group wihout discriminating another one? |
| Date | 12:33:44, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | This bill does not incorporate quotas. |
| Date | 12:50:16, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | How will you 'enforce' it then? |
| Date | 13:39:43, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | You can enforce positive discrimination easily without implementing quotas (e.g. by giving a preference to candidates of a underrepresented group in a selection of the best candidates; which means the chosen person doesn't have less capacities, as IB suggests). We regret IB vetoes this bill without knowing or considering the practical implications of it. |
| Date | 13:57:19, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Will you cut your silly IB bashing for once? You don't know at all what we think, nor how we see the complete picture. The example BF offers won't work. How can you 'enforce' something if one can give preference based upon what one wants (and there is ALWAYS something one wants). This won't 'enforce' hiring of minorities. Now let's assume there is some sort of 'enforcement' in practice. It will results in digital choices: if (member of minority) 1 else 0 Is this the system Ikradon longs for? We remain heavily in favour of promoting diversity, but not through positive discrimination. |
| Date | 14:35:40, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Wow, this surely was an expression of what you called "freedom of speech"! For a clear understanding: you asked how government can enforce positive discrimination without quotas, because you didn\'t understand. Therefore we explained that this surely is possible without any disadvantages (or loss of quality). We even illustrated it clearly with an exemple! And now the "freedom of speech"-party wants us to "cut" our "silly IB bashing" (probably because we stated that we regret that you were anxiously saying "no" when you saw words like "positive discrimination" and "enforce"). By the way: we think you do not understand it quite well already. Therefore, I will explain it once more, if you allow me. Usually, applicants for government hiring must take an exam. Of all the hundreds or thousands of candidates, some percentage will pass. If government needs 40 policemen, the 40 best applicants will be engaged. However, if the 34th-best applicant and the 42th-best applicant (and everyone in between) scored equally well, this proposal will enforce (!) government to select members of the underrepresentated social group in this ex aequo scoring people. In a nutshell: this proposal (1) can enforce government to engage people being in a minority, (2) without implementing quotas and (3) without any loss of quality in the hiring of personnel. We are sure IB has other objections; we look forward to hear them (even embittered ones). |
| Date | 15:02:38, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | First of: we can talk our way out of this one, just like BF did. We don't serve drama, we serve issues. We don't mind sharing our opinion, just as BF apparently. The clarification sums it up pretty nicely. There is no need for positive discrimination if one is more compotent then the other. If however mr x and mr y are equally compotent, we get digital choice. We oppose this kind of treatment. Or we could adjust this system by looking at other capacities then 'theoretical' capacities. We'll eventually know if either mr x or mr y is suitable. No need for positive discrimination. |
| Date | 15:37:00, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Usually an application procedure for government hiring doesn't test so many capacities to avoid ex aequos, because it's a standardised procedure. We understand IB wishes to reform this system, spending many millions of Drahmes extra on this bureaucratic procedures? We think they do not. So, let us assume a group of people will score equally well. Therefore, we ask IB what's wrong there with giving advantage to underrepresentated groupings. By the way: what do you mean with "we don't serve drama, we serve issues"? Quite amusing hearing you say that to a party which explains it's opinion so broadly. :) |
| Date | 15:42:57, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | if (member of minority) 1 else 0 Is this the system Ikradon longs for? |
| Date | 15:46:43, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | In general: no. If this "member of minority" is proved of equal qualities with a other people: yes. |
| Date | 15:50:18, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Go tell that to the person who just lost a job opportunity. "I'm sorry, you won't get the job because you have the wrong skincolor, sex, sexual orientation, ...". Long live digital choice. |
| Date | 17:40:45, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | No more arguments, here are the slogans... Nice drama ;) |
| Date | 17:48:55, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Can I therefore conclude that BF can live with the issue IB mentioned? |
| Date | 18:01:25, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Workers' Autonomy Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Actually, positive discrimination is a mean to an end, so "digital choice" is not what we are looking for. On the contrary, we believe that affirmative action is one positive policy in order to reduce the causes and the effects of negative discrimination. We believe in the possibility of a world where skin color, sex or sexual orientation do not matter, but we know that we don't live in that world. If the IB believes that we don't already live on a "digital world", we find that at least naive. |
| Date | 18:06:24, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Please take the time to read earlier statements before you try to be funny. |
| Date | 18:10:37, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Workers' Autonomy Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | ? |
| Date | 18:12:32, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Just as WASP, we do not agree at all with IB's point of view, because the quote you gave ("I'm sorry, you won't get the job because you have the wrong skincolor, sex, sexual orientation, ...") is actually being said in the private sector to people of minority groups. In the other case, we wouldn't need possitive discrimination at all. |
| Date | 18:21:56, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Read post 4 for the alternative: promoting diversity |
| Date | 18:25:42, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Workers' Autonomy Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | And how would you promote diversity? |
| Date | 19:07:43, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Its a system in which managers try to achieve diversity in workgroups. This will then result in higher production and quality. This requires component people who fit in, both practical and psychological. This is in essence what promoting diversity is about. I propose you read a managementbook if you want a better understanding. This can be achieved by advantaging this system, showing facts, a campaign, management schooling, and so on. |
| Date | 19:59:53, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Why won't positive discrimination as we explained it result in higher production and quality? And don't forget: legitimacy! Maybe your managementbook doesn't deal with legitimacy, but that's because a public service has other organisational standards than a company. |
| Date | 20:05:44, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Because one will be forced to take anyone who is 'diverse', chances are statiticly very high that he/she doesn't answer the 'right' profile which the manager searches. Please clarify what BF wants us to tell about 'legitimacy'. We can think of multiple things here. |
| Date | 20:52:26, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | We earlier clearly explained (posts 8 and 10) that our system of positive discrimination guarantee that those people surely have the right profile. Legitimacy is what makes a public services differ from a "normal" private company. A company must do what is best for their shareholders, while a state enterprise has a social responsibility, because it works with public money, paid by everyone. It's important that every citizen can identify himself/herself in that public service (otherwise people ask themselves why they pay taxes for it). That is the first reason why the composition of a public enterprise has to be a mirror image of society. A second reason why minorities must be as much as possible represented in the organization of government enterprises is because their services are society-related. The army, policemen, judges, teachers, firemen, tax officers, newsreaders on public television stations are there for all our nation. It is important that their services are adapted to the expectations and needs of as many citizens as possible. And because no one is better placed to represent and articulate the interests of a group than people of that group itself, it is important that social minorities are protected in the organisation of public services. |
| Date | 21:10:50, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | A profile is not based on knowledge only, there's also a psychological and social aspect. This pretty much offers a 'prefered' candidate, and not simply numbers. Yes this will require more money, but you wil get better production and quality in return. So the investment earns itself back. I seriously encourage you to find some material on the subject, interesting read. And yes, this will result in legitimacy. Since different profiles are put togheter for optimal productivity and quality, people with a different background will be chosen. In the broad picture this will form a mirror of society. |
| Date | 21:30:24, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Of course an exam is not only about knowledge. It can probe psychological and social aspects, and I would seriously be surprised when that isn't the case actually. However, the exams are held on a broad scale, where you cannot clearly classify the best, the second best, ... , the worst candidate. I'm sorry to say so, but your argument doesn't make any sense. About legitimacy: your great belief in the "invisible hand" is laughable. If you think that there will be an acceptable mirror of society without any policy incentive, then why should we talk about minorities after all? In that case, you put yourself outside this debate because positive discrimination has absolutely no meaning from this point of view. As a result, there isn't any reason for troublemaking anymore. |
| Date | 21:51:38, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Your understanding is still wrong, first of all: the wanted profile is highly determined by the future collegues of our candidate. If collegues are all part of a majority, chances are high the profile will fit the profile of our minority candidate. If collegues are all part of a minority, chances are high the profile will fit the profile of our majority candidate. There will always be one that is best suited, unless you belief everyone is equal. It will result statiticly in a diverse workgroup forming a mirror of society. Who claims anything about lack of incentive? There can be control on companies who claim to hire by this system. A legislative framework can be worked out. Further managers gain NO benefit for not doing it, less production, less quality. They won't get that sold to their share holders (which is the general public in case of the state). And yes, we oppose positive discrimination since we believe in a system that doesn't require the need for it. No need for an unethical digital choice and the other drawbacks we mentioned before. |
| Date | 22:54:22, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | If our understanding is wrong, your argumentation is incomprehensible and not suitable to the public sector, as we explained. For exemple this: "If collegues are all part of a majority, chances are high the profile will fit the profile of our minority candidate. If collegues are all part of a minority, chances are high the profile will fit the profile of our majority candidate." Why is that? If we are talking about the public sector, it's clear that officials have their own interest, which they want to defend (read p.e. some books about the "public choice" theory, very interesting). In this light, it sounds more logical that people from one social group want to engage people from that same group... |
| Date | 23:16:14, May 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Because this system is based upon social studies which get updated constantly, that's why I can assume those things. (I can give you sources to back this up and sources where this system is discussed, but don't want to get to technical, you seem interested). Yes you're theory sounds logical, and since I'm familiar with similar theories, I can find myself in it. But this will conflict with the prementioned studies, if one keeps in line with it the studies you'll get a nice diverse workgroup. Keeping in line isn't that hard actually, some initial effort is offcourse needed. |
| Date | 10:21:13, May 31, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | Wrong theory... Maybe those sources offer are good theoretical framework for management in the private sector, but I refuse to adopt them when we're talking about public services, because they (must) have an all other organisation, as we said. While some diversity can be a welcome bonus in the private sector, equal representation is quite necessary for the legitimacy in the public sector. |
| Date | 10:51:07, May 31, 2007 CET | From | Workers' Autonomy Socialist Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | We are very happy with the interesting debate that have opened. For this reason, the WASP anounces that this bill will only go to vote eight months before election. |
| Date | 18:26:20, May 31, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Encouragement |
| Message | The system has proven its use in both the private and public sector. If other parties consider 'positive discrimination' a better system, so be it. We prefer to use natural diversity (and gain better performance) in stead of forcing diversity. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 319 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 244 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 36 |
| Random fact: Treaties will be eligible for deletion if they are more than 50 in-game years old and have no currently ratified members. |
| Random quote: "Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." - Franklin D. Roosevelt |