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 Law Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Front for State Prosperity
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: May 2125
Description[?]:
| Trade unions can be a strong force for change. However, these reforms would democratize them so as to ensure that they truly were enforcing the will of the workers instead of enforcing their will ON the workers. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Trade union strike ballots.
Old value:: Trade unions are not required by law to hold a ballot before striking.
Current: Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, majority approval of those that vote is needed from its members.
Proposed: 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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:36:33, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | Also, I need to ask. What are Democratic Workers' Councils? |
| Date | 14:41:37, October 12, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | We of the RLP feel that the government should not intervene in the internal matters of any organization, including trade unions. Therefore, we must oppose this bill. In answer to your question, as I understand them they are the European equivilent of ESOPs, where the workers own the company they work for. |
| Date | 16:03:36, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | If I removed the secondary strike part, would you support? It isn't right that some higher up in a labour union should be able to just cut off work at a whim. The workers should be the ones deciding - that's the whole point of the labour union Still don't know what an ESOP is. I haven't heard either term. The idea of workers owning the company they work for seems fine though. Do you know if they've worked in practice? |
| Date | 16:26:14, October 12, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | ESOP - Employee Stock Ownership Program. They work sometimes, if the workers either hire competant managers or have a realistic idea of how to run a business. Unfortunatly, sometimes they look at a company as a magic source of income and benefits. I agree that is would be best if the workers decided, but if they have selected a union where the head can decide, that's their right and the government should not step in to protect them from their own bad judgement. |
| Date | 17:14:11, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | By that reasoning then, any dictatorship with open movement policies is perfectly moral. The problem here is twofold. Firstly there is that to be effective unions must be quite large. It is simply not possible for every single worker to know every single policy. Secondly many unions are very aggressive about recruiting workers. Membership is often only voluntary in word, with union membership being required to get a job in some businesses and union monopoly making it difficult for any single worker to actually speak out against the actions of the union. I personally like the idea of unions. I think that no business that treats its workers badly will be that productive. However, rampant control by unions has been proven to have an inflationary effect as they often do not understand - some accuse them of not caring - that the measures they are pushing for will be bad for their workers. I fully support the freedom for lemmi... workers... to jump off a cliff if they choose to. I just want to make sure that they really want it first. If the common worker approves of present conditions, then asking for still better conditions will cost the economy, will cost the worker, and will gain nothing of value. |
| Date | 17:34:52, October 12, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | "By that reasoning then, any dictatorship with open movement policies is perfectly moral. " That is precicsly what I'm saying. Some people, for whatever reason, do not want to think or decide, but would rather let the man in charge choose. I say, if that's what they want, let them have it. They will be less efficient, and Darwin always has the last word on that. |
| Date | 18:11:23, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | Alright. I give. We should instate open movement policies though. At present we don't allow free immigration. |
| Date | 18:13:37, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | Actually, on second thought, I'm still going to bring this to vote. I still believe it should be this way, democratized. It's more of a stance and activity issue. I've no hard feelings against you if you vote against it. I understand now why you would. |
| Date | 20:33:52, October 12, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | I totallly agree with bring this to a vote. Let the will of the people be done. |
| Date | 23:42:41, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | The arguments of the RLP, while always promoting freedom, seldom seem to work on a real life basis. I find what the PCP has said to be true - while in name workers have the right to choose their union, in reality it is normally the union who chooses the workers, and the power of the workers should not be exploited by the union leaders for political ends - the only reason a worker should strike should be if they want to. We can see, however, that this legislation would have trouble if the unions encountered voter apathy or needed to act fast, but all systems have their limitations. On balance, i think the proposed measures are a good idea. |
| Date | 00:16:42, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | Since the topic was brought up, what does everyone think about relaxing immigration laws? |
| Date | 04:41:02, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | The AAP follows the lead of the LPE and PCP in this issue. Whatever increases democracy, even on the shop-floor, must be good. |
| Date | 23:32:38, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Labour Law Reform |
| Message | It doesn't seem that this will pass. Oh well. I will bring it up again after the next Likatonian election. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 246 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 254 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life quotations may be used in Particracy, but the real-life speaker or author should always be referenced in an OOC (out-of-character) note alongside the quotation. |
| Random quote: "Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. " - Thomas Paine |