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: CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2544
Description[?]:
| After passing the Bill #177940, debate is required on what regulations to impose for child labour so that there is no exploitation. This debate will assist the Minister of Trade and Industry set guidelines to prevent exploitation of children in the workforce. The debate will be put to a vote and sent to the Minister of Trade and Industry (at the time of this debate: Jozef Miller of FDP) for further consulation before the Ministry proposes guidelines. Since this bill is just a debate and only to aid the Minister, parties can vote either way as this debate goes into archives. See "PUA Child Labour Bill" : http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=177940 |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:53:12, March 01, 2008 CET | From |  Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | Ideas: 1) "Child Labour" should be applied to those under the age of adulthood in Sekowo, the "children". 2) Children can only work a half-week (half the hours of an adult) 3) Children may only work between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. 4) Children minimum wage is same as adults 5) Children must abide by compulsory school policy if in place (which are so that means children could only work non-school hours) Anyone else have ideas? |
| Date | 07:40:39, March 02, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | We could agree with all of those except #4. Minimum wage is there so that poor individuals can support themselves for a living. Children do not have that need. Additionally, children cannot do the same work for a job that adults often can (in terms of quality), and so are not as valuable. We could, however, perhaps support some provision that children can be paid no less than 50% minimum wage or some such. |
| Date | 18:15:19, March 02, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | We agree with all clauses except 2 and 4, and we agree with NPP on 4. |
| Date | 20:52:49, March 02, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | The CP was considering the 50% of an adult wage for the same reason but we also thought that it would encourage employers to hire adult over children. Do you think employers would exploit children because of "cheap" labour tactics? Like working in a shoe factory and the job is to push through the lacing. An adult or child would produce the same quality because it's not a challenging task. This is where exploitation can occur. Maybe we can come up with another proposition that can counter exploitation so that we can have the 50% less? Note: please add/remove ideas as your party sees fit. This is a DEBATE to help the Minister of Trade and Industry, not the actual law itself. USMC, if a child already goes to school for 40 hours a week and then work full-time at 40 hours a week, the likelihood of them falling behind other students is very probable. For a child, school comes before work. OOC: I used number of hours worked per work from my area. |
| Date | 21:56:55, March 02, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | What about the summer... |
| Date | 22:36:54, March 02, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | What about a clause stating seasons that they may work full-time? OOC: Good point. I take extra classes in summer and didn't think of it. |
| Date | 03:19:37, March 03, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | Well, I was thinking more along the lines of something to see if its interfearing with school work. |
| Date | 03:31:52, March 03, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | USMC, that's CP idea #5, no? |
| Date | 06:10:20, March 03, 2008 CET | From | Peasant Party Of Sekowo | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | No. This is horrible. The Justification of this bill was said to be "Paper Routes and Lawn Mowing" not factory labour. |
| Date | 15:25:38, March 03, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | "It has long been our view that any child who wants to should be free to work, as long as they are not being exploited." PPS, that is the description of the bill. There has been no distinction made between what jobs a child can do and what they can't do. As this is a debate, make suggestions that would help the Minister of Trade and Industry. For the sake of PPS, how about job categories? Jobs children can not do? Like being a politician however, we've seen some childish behaviour from politicians at times. OOC: =D That was a stab at certain foreign parties writing on our wall ... yes, take this as a hint not to write any more silliness. |
| Date | 23:11:33, March 03, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | No, its not number 5. As we see it, number 5 applies only to attendance. |
| Date | 05:31:08, March 04, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | The way it's worded is saying that a child has a higher obligation to their education and then work. Therefore, in the summer when they have no school, they have no obligation to attend classes. USMC, what are we missing? |
| Date | 22:27:29, March 04, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | "5) Children must abide by compulsory school policy if in place (which are so that means children could only work non-school hours)" That means they have to be there durring school hours, and they only need good grades to work if its school policy. What I'm saying is we need to make that school policy. |
| Date | 00:00:02, March 05, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | Ah, by "Compulsory school policy", I was refering to the Sekowan law that states all children up to 17 must attend school. Nothing with grades and such. How about "compulsory school attendance policy"? Because technically, if the law changes and says that only children to 14 have to go to school, then there are a few years where the compulsory school attendance does not apply to them and they could work full-time. |
| Date | 00:09:20, March 05, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | Also, the job category/industries section, a list of jobs they can not do would be better. Examples could be (but not limited to): sex industry, security services (intelligence agencies, firemen, policemen) - however cadets should be allowed, help-lines, health (nurses, doctor, ambulance) or where the safety of lives can be at stake (mechanical maintenance on airplanes, trains, etc.) but being an apprentice is fine. Basically they can observe and learn but not do a job that requires certification. Stuff like changing the oil in a car is simple and they can do that but diagnosing the car's problem should be left to a mechanic. |
| Date | 02:51:07, March 05, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | Hmmm, not quite sure what you're going on about, but I'll just outline two points that will hopefully end the mis-communication 1) Its worded for attendance only 2) Word it so grades are included It seemed to me you though I wanted it only attendance, not grades, but I want BOTH specificly stated. |
| Date | 06:32:48, March 07, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | So only children with good grades can work? |
| Date | 22:54:21, March 07, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | Yes. |
| Date | 00:58:44, March 08, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | That could be considered discriminating against academically less successful children. If they are from a low-income family, they would need the work more than a child with good grades from a high-income family. OOC: The shame! =D I will put this to a vote after the proposed cabinet passes/fails. Then the new minister (IC) can do his own investigation and come up with a regulatory bill. |
| Date | 01:36:34, March 08, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | Well, if they arn't getting good grades, they should be studying not working. |
| Date | 06:38:08, March 08, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | It still splits the children into two camps: those of you who are good enough, those of you who are not good enough. The CP feels a bit troubled by this thought. |
| Date | 08:43:50, March 08, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | The DSP has no official position on this as we feel children should not be doing labor in the first place (paper routes, mowing yards and bag person don't count as labor), however we agree with the USMC on the issue unofficially. |
| Date | 17:06:12, March 08, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | School takes precidence over work, its as simple as that. |
| Date | 17:35:44, March 10, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the CP.Debate Child Labour Regulation Discussion RP |
| Message | Okay. Cool. Putting it into voting phase so that the Minister can take all this into consideration and to put this debate into archives. Vote whatever way you want. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 254 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 137 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 209 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "I have opinions of my own - strong opinions. But I don't always agree with them." - George W. Bush |