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: Fairness Reform Act III
Details
Submitted by[?]: Fair Capitalism 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 2139
Description[?]:
This means workers can accept a wage that they want - instead of being unable to get a minimum wage job that is free for which they are underqualified, they can choose a job that has a wage that is acceptable for where their income is. For example, if you are being subsidised by your parents or savings, you may not need a particularly high wage. And remember, THEY ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO TAKE THE LOWER WAGE. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on minimum wage regulation.
Old value:: There shall be a minimum wage at a level that a full time worker on it can support a family of four without falling under the poverty line.
Current: There shall be a minimum wage at a level considered a "living wage," well above the poverty line for a full time worker.
Proposed: There is no provision for a minimum wage.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 23:02:34, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Aloria Green Socialist Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act III |
Message | Of course they don't have to take the lower wage, this also gives them the option of unemployment. This bill is a catalyst for exploitation. Against. |
Date | 23:32:41, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act III |
Message | It's in the interest of the employer to pay them at least subsistence. That way they are happy, are more productive, don't go off sick too much etc. Also if they don't pay a high enoug wage they will notice the profound absense of workers - it works both ways. |
Date | 00:41:30, November 11, 2005 CET | From | People's Equality Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act III |
Message | This is ridiculous, abolishing the minimum wage would merely lead to workers being abused, and as the Fair Capitalism Party stated it is in everybodys best interest that there is a minimum wage. |
Date | 01:46:26, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act III |
Message | "It's in the interest of the employer to pay them at least subsistence. That way they are happy, are more productive, don't go off sick too much etc." Which is why there are sweatshops in third world countries, RIGHT? |
Date | 17:28:02, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Fairness Reform Act III |
Message | They are forced to do that. Any forced labour here would be punished. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes | Total Seats: 145 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 255 | ||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting. |
Random quote: "It all came from there." - Lech Walesa (pointing to a TV when a reporter asked him why communism fell) |