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: Labour (Union Voting) Amendment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union Party
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: November 2508
Description[?]:
| An act to remove regulations on strike decisions in unions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Trade union strike ballots.
Old value:: Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, a majority of all members, regardless of if they vote or not must approve the strike action.
Current: Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, a majority of all members, regardless of if they vote or not must approve the strike action.
Proposed: Trade unions are not required by law to hold a ballot before striking.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:15:29, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Labour (Union Voting) Amendment Act |
| Message | Why should the state be stepping in and regulating how unions operate? If a member of the union does not agree with how it carries on its business, they can leave the union, and join another, or start their own. |
| Date | 03:44:45, December 28, 2007 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Labour (Union Voting) Amendment Act |
| Message | for once my party agrees with the JUP. what possible benefit does this entail? |
| Date | 14:41:37, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Labour (Union Voting) Amendment Act |
| Message | JUP! This is insane. If they are not required to hold a ballot before striking, we'll have no end to strikes. This is nutso. |
| Date | 15:49:29, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Labour (Union Voting) Amendment Act |
| Message | The strike still has to be reasonable - that law isn't going to change any time soon, regardless of the efforts of a certain party. That will limit strikes. |
| Date | 18:26:40, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Labour (Union Voting) Amendment Act |
| Message | This would open the door to wild strikes, something which could paralize our entire economy. We'll oppose |
| Date | 06:41:49, December 29, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Labour (Union Voting) Amendment Act |
| Message | It would do no such thing. If a union strikes when the members don't want it, they will leave the union, and the strike will fail. This bill just removes the state from where it is needlessly regulating. |
| Date | 17:50:07, December 29, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Labour (Union Voting) Amendment Act |
| Message | JUP? You are a fool. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 119 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 380 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The grey space in the east is populated by the forum-based countries, known in-game as the former colonies or the "Third World". These countries are managed by the Third World Coordinator but players can request control of individual countries in the Third World Control Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8302 |
| Random quote: "The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected." - Will Rogers |