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: Limitation of Strikes (2497.IC.003)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Independence Coalition
Status[?]: defeated
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 2497
Description[?]:
| **Lorence Aguana party spokesmen for the Independence Coalition approaches the podium standing in the center of the Folkstamma, Clicks the projector on, displaying picture of a burning city, and begins speaking in a loud firm voice** Allowing public employees the ability to strike is a great misdeed. If workers in health care, transportation, municipal employees and emergency services are permitted to strike, it could bring life in the Federation to a halt. The well being of the people of the Federation would be put in danger, the lives of the sick, and elderly put in jeopardy. Fire, Police, and Medic services striking could lead to chaos, criminal mischief and destruction of property would become rampant in the streets of the Federation. This Is unacceptable! |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The workers' right to strike.
Old value:: All workers have the right to strike.
Current: All workers have the right to strike.
Proposed: All workers, except public employees, have the right to strike.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:04:17, December 06, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Limitation of Strikes (2497.IC.003) |
| Message | IC: Public workers need the ability to strike the most. Besides, if life comes to a screeching halt, things are more likely to get done to fix whatever problem caused the strike in the first place. Beyond that it's incredibly unlikely everyone in these fields would actually strike, subsequently, we have not had a public employee strike, beyond the occasional TOC employee strike in, well probably sometime in the early days o Aretist rule. OOC: I did'nt even know that was one of the options, weird. |
| Date | 23:10:20, December 06, 2007 CET | From | Independence Coalition | To | Debating the Limitation of Strikes (2497.IC.003) |
| Message | It would not be necessary for every one of these fields to strike for the lives of people to be endangered. If the police or medics were to strike it would could cause mass anarchy (police) or preventable deaths (medics). |
| Date | 00:39:39, December 07, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Limitation of Strikes (2497.IC.003) |
| Message | OOC: They might have renamed it, cauase there was the same option earlier, but it was put nicer... With this harsh wording I'm not sure what to do. |
| Date | 00:50:09, December 07, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Limitation of Strikes (2497.IC.003) |
| Message | As I said, it is highly unlikely everyone in any one field, especially medics, who, like doctors have a Hippocratic oath to the people firstly, would go on strike. |
| Date | 01:03:00, December 07, 2007 CET | From | Independence Coalition | To | Debating the Limitation of Strikes (2497.IC.003) |
| Message | People are unpredictable, and sometimes look out for their needs rather than the needs of others, just because the DSP views all members of a profession as "looking out for the common" does not make it so. |
| Date | 01:56:29, December 07, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Limitation of Strikes (2497.IC.003) |
| Message | We are not assuming that all of them will put the interests of others first, over there own lesser ones, what we are saying that it's unlikely all of them would strike at once, considering there are literally hundreds of thousands of Medics. |
| Date | 02:31:08, December 07, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Limitation of Strikes (2497.IC.003) |
| Message | Have you heard of unions? |
| Date | 07:53:33, December 07, 2007 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Limitation of Strikes (2497.IC.003) |
| Message | We are split in our opinion on this issue. We understand the reasoning behind this law. We also understand the reason for wishing to allow public servants to strike. After much debate, we feel that this bill would ultimately encourage the government to give lower wages to government-employed professionals, which would not inherently be a bad thing, except that government employment would ultimately be more lucrative than private employment. This would encourage the enlargement of government in the long run, and the centralization of resources. Therefore, with some trepidation, we must oppose this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 313 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 379 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 58 |
| Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
| Random quote: "I swear to the Lord I still can't see Why Democracy means Everybody but me." - Langston Hughes, The Black Man Speaks |