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 Business 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: January 2116
Description[?]:
| We propose the emoval of further regulations, by not interfering in the hiring policies of Likatonian companies. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: No form of positive discrimination is permitted.
Current: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Proposed: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:53:36, September 22, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | We or the RLP fully support this bill, as the government should not be in a position to tell business owners who to hire. |
| Date | 14:56:57, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | We thank the RLP for sympathizing with this bill. |
| Date | 00:11:20, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | They are not telling them who to hire. They are telling them how to hire. Discrimination of all types is to be avoided in the workplace, and this is a good starting point. |
| Date | 00:12:01, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | the current legislation, we mean is a good starting point. Which is why we oppose its reform. |
| Date | 18:59:13, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | ah, we see, but we would still prefer that companies went unreulated in this area. A company that discriminates is a company that will lose talent. The free market will ensure that everyone will be employed based upon their qualifications. |
| Date | 19:03:31, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | "A company that discriminates is a company that will lose talent" PRECISELY. what have I been saying? Current law PREVENTS discrimination. of any sort. so the only criteria of selection remaining will be talent and suitablility for the post. |
| Date | 19:05:44, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | "The free market will ensure that everyone will be employed based upon their qualifications" Yes. Yes it will. And to ensure that the market is totally free, that companies are not setting quotas to improve their image or because of prejudices whether positive or negative, that qualification is the only criteria for employment, we have to BAN discrimination. From your arguments you would think you were against the bill! |
| Date | 20:19:28, September 23, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | No, those of us who are true believers in the free market would rather let the marketplace punish those companies which discriminate in hiring, rather than having the government do it for us. In the first case, what appears to be discrim0nation to a bureaucrat, may turn out to be smart hiring in the world. If it is not, the company is punished by performing less effieiently and losing revenue. |
| Date | 20:26:44, September 23, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | we agree with our RLP friends and shall now push this to the floor. |
| Date | 04:04:11, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | The AAP cannot condone a change in law which would ALLOW companies to discriminate... and that means even POSITIVE discrimination. It is the AAP belief that there is NO 'positive' discrimination. ANY discrimination must be negative to someone. |
| Date | 23:20:23, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Business Bill |
| Message | "rather let the marketplace punish those companies which discriminate in hiring, rather than having the government do it for us" but they would not necessarily be punished. those who are discriminated in favour of may well be equally capable of the job, but if a company hires white males from Hukati every time other groups will have poorer opportunities, which will mean that they miss out on chances to learn new skills (which come with every new job), so end up being WORSE qualified, just because of a bit of discrimination. This is a vicious circle, because now these people are discriminated against even more heavily, gain a bad reputation, get no jobs. What starts off in one company can spread easily to a whole industry. This is one area in which the government must intervene and do what it is there for - promote justice and equality. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 116 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 120 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 39 |
| Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
| Random quote: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson |