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: Remove Government Interference in Companies
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party
Status[?]: passed
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: April 2132
Description[?]:
The workers within a company are the best judge of what regulations are needed to protect them. This bill proposes to remove the government oversight of these regulations and allow them to be set by the workers in the organization, this allows for local oversight, better enforcement and a better fit for the needs of a particular location. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Health and safety legislation for industry.
Old value:: The government introduces and actively regulates health and safety legislation in all areas of industry.
Current: Health and safety laws are to be determined by local governments.
Proposed: The government recommends health and safety legislation, but they are not actively enforced on industry.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in places of employment, with the exception of places that primarily serve liquor.
Current: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Proposed: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 19:58:28, October 24, 2005 CET | From | Ministerial Party | To | Debating the Remove Government Interference in Companies |
Message | If you're allowing workers to set regulations, companies will soon bribe them into agreeing with everything in the company, whether healthy or not. The smoking thing is redundant - if you need to do it, do it at home. |
Date | 20:41:11, October 24, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Remove Government Interference in Companies |
Message | Trying to bribe an entire work force seems costly, and cannot think of when a union would allow that level of risk to its members. When yhou have a national regulatory body what will happen is the company will clean up its practices when an inspection is coming (they always know somehow and have seen this occur many times) leaving it to local enforcement allows constant monitoring and an increased likelihood of problems being reported. Don't get your second point. |
Date | 22:33:38, October 24, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Remove Government Interference in Companies |
Message | What is the point of recommending safety and health regulations if they're going to be optional? This will turn Malivias industries back to 14 hour days when injuries were commonplace. And oppose the second one too. Second hand smoke is very harmful to people, and passing this will eventually lead to increased costs in Malivias health care system. |
Date | 00:14:17, October 25, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Remove Government Interference in Companies |
Message | We'll only support this if you add a clause requiring all businesses to be run by democratic workers' councils. It's the only way to prevent the abuses that have already been pointed out. |
Date | 03:02:16, October 25, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Remove Government Interference in Companies |
Message | Thats not going to be passing over my living body, libcom. |
Date | 16:56:04, October 25, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Remove Government Interference in Companies |
Message | Though a DWC is nice, we feel that the unions can handle these issues. Our laws require a union in each company, our laws require a worker to be a member, and thus if the workers feel the conditions are unsafe, the negotiate and if need be strike. The government provides guidelines to help the unions look for issues which may be troublesome. We cannot expect every union to have a engineer to work out the proper ergonomic methods and such. THus the government provides a resource to turn to for these issues, yet the final say is left to the union and company's negotiations. TIt does no good to have regulations which are only enforced when convenient, or during an inspection. We would like the article to be left to local governments as they can ban it in areas they feel is appropriate. Our current law is set so there is no smoking in a park, or anywhere that is public. Does it address bars or restaurants, are they public? The option of stepping out to have one is not permitted because they will be in a public place. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes | Total Seats: 103 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 76 | ||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 122 |
Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval. |
Random quote: "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." - Martin Luther King Jr. |