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: CPL Industrial Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Liberal 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: June 2114
Description[?]:
| We Propose - The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services. Recently several prominant manufacturing firms have collapsed against competition from cheap foreign imports. We believe that the government must step in to save failing industries that provide vital goods, and more importantly, vital employment. We must not allow our manufacturing industry to go the way of the Dodo against cheaper foreign goods. We Propose - All workers, except certain categories of workers regarded as critical to society, have the right to strike. We think it is insane to allow the Police and other Emergency Services to strike, as the law currently allows them to. In order to protect Likatonian lives and ensure that society functions normally, certain categories of workers regarded as critical to society, such as the aforementioned, wil have the right to strike removed. |
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: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
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 The workers' right to strike.
Old value:: All workers have the right to strike but certain categories of workers regarded as critical to society have to ensure a minimal service.
Current: All workers have the right to strike.
Proposed: All workers, except certain categories of workers regarded as critical to society, have the right to strike.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:45:57, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | Comments. |
| Date | 14:53:42, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | We oppose this bill because of the second article. Everybody should have the right to strike, and the minimal service proviso ensures that no lives will be lost for this right, even if some made rather uncomfortable. As for nationalising industries, we are in favour of government ownership of key service industries and see the proposed value as no better or worse than the current. |
| Date | 15:03:22, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | We cannot see how allowing members of the police, fire or health services to go on strike is acceptable. Even if only a section of the police force goes o strike that will leave the 'minimal service provisions' seriously overstretched, and would lead to the army being needed to feel the vacancy created by the strikers. |
| Date | 17:56:33, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | The AAP supports the first article of this Bill, as it is exactly the legislation that the AAP has been considering. However, we feel (along with the LPE) that the current balance of power is acceptable... anyone can strike BUT a minimum level of service MUST STILL be provided from key industries and services. We cannot condone removing the absolute 'right to strike' from any office. |
| Date | 21:18:06, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | A minimum level of policing? How the hell is that possible, how the hell could we cope with only half or less of our police force working on the beat? |
| Date | 00:40:37, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | A minimum level of policing... the AAP sees no quandry here. Instead of a set number of patrols per day, the police force might make a lesser number of patrols, and/or only respond to calls for help, no? |
| Date | 09:36:51, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | So reducing their effectiveness, allowing criminals and other subversives to run riot? |
| Date | 13:06:15, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | Most crimes are crimes of opportunity, anyway. Partial reduction of the police force for a day or so is unlikely to make much of a difference to actual crime rates. However, that is kind of the point. If your police force feels strongly enough about an issue that they are willing to take industrial action over it, your administrators really DO need to listen to that concern. Striking is an indicator of discontent... and discontented police officers COULD retire, en masse. THAT would have a much more noticable long-term effect than a 'temporary partial reduction'. |
| Date | 13:27:02, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | The police force is not a service, it is a public necessity, we cannot endanger the civilian populationslives and livelyhoods by allowing vital workers to go on strike. |
| Date | 13:30:09, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | Actually, a 'police force' is only one possible option. We could survive happily without it, if we employed vigilante forces, and/or a militia, and/or gave policing powers to our military. Thus, a 'police force' is a service. |
| Date | 16:51:55, September 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | The RLP must oppose both provisions of this bill. The possibility of failure is built into the system as a reality check on business plans. If this passes, We may retire from politics and open up a buggy whip factory, and once we go broke, demand that the government step in to support us. The ability to strike is the last resort for any worker. He always should have the right to decide not to sell his services if the terms are not acceptable, To insist he continue top work against his will is slavery, not capitalism. |
| Date | 18:08:12, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | to vote. Thanks for comments, although we cannot believe the AAP has really suggested using the Military Powers as a civilian police force in Likatonia. |
| Date | 22:24:06, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the CPL Industrial Bill |
| Message | Response to the CPL: The AAP has not suggested using the military as a a civilian police force... The CPL representative claimed that a domestic 'polic force' was an absolute necessity... and the AAP merely pointed out that there are SEVERAL alternatives. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 53 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 222 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Hundreds of vessels were lost while traversing the cold waters of the Sea of Lost Souls. It is located between Seleya and Majatra. |
| Random quote: "What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln |