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: Strike Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Aldurian Conservative 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 2141
Description[?]:
| This bill will reform strike-related laws to require unions to vote on whether or not to strike and to keep sympathy strikes under control. |
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, a majority of all members, regardless of if they vote or not must approve the strike action.
Proposed: 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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:38:43, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Social Liberty Party | To | Debating the Strike Reform Act |
| Message | opposed. Like always the right likes to protect rich and powerful corporations |
| Date | 22:20:45, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Strike Reform Act |
| Message | We will oppose. How can a party that seek to reduce the influence of the government propose to limit the private interests of the workers. Oh... ok ... its because the are not rich ... |
| Date | 02:00:13, November 13, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Moderates | To | Debating the Strike Reform Act |
| Message | Please keep party bashing to a minimum or at least have the decency to place OCC before it. |
| Date | 02:46:20, November 13, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the Strike Reform Act |
| Message | The second article really doesn't matter to us. Either way. We do protest to the first though. We do see the reasoning though, we simply prefer letting the sympathy strikes be free. You may see the possibility of a national economic paralysis, but that should not occur if the workers are well educated, well informed and well treated. |
| Date | 20:56:16, November 13, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the Strike Reform Act |
| Message | It is essential in a free market economy for trade unions to allowed to do as they will...and the same goes for private enterprise. We will not support the creation of more restrictions and laws. |
| Date | 04:18:03, November 14, 2005 CET | From | New Aldurian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Strike Reform Act |
| Message | Our primary concern with respect to this bill is as follows: The leadership of union A pushes for a contract with which they have little support among the workers. It gets them better benefits, but it also makes the corporation with which they work unprofitable. So the leadership forces a strike, and most workers join them, not wanting to be seen as scabs. Then, several unions whose leadership is close with the striking unions (although they're not in related industries) decide to force their workers on strike. Suddenly you have a few million people on strike because of a good old boy network within the unions. Theoretically, the workers shouldn't be easy to pull along like this, but if you mix a little bit of rabble-rousing...you get the idea. If that sounds like a corporate executive network, there's a reason. Both groups have interests, and both can be downright corrupt in pursuing them. The only thing we can do is to hope to regulate the excesses on both sides while leaving the area not covered by the excesses observed. That, in a nutshell, is the role of government. |
| Date | 16:59:31, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Strike Reform Act |
| Message | OOC: It is in context. There is no real rich or poor people concerned, they are simulated. Also the player of the NACP may be a social democrat in real life, how can I know. It was not personnal, it was against the party. We agree with the new Article 1 however. Syndicate are not dictatorship of their executives. |
| Date | 01:36:56, November 15, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the Strike Reform Act |
| Message | Well, this new one here doesn't seem so bad. Makes perfect sense. But there are always complications. Still, we shall assume that our system is above these complications for now... |
| Date | 15:16:57, November 15, 2005 CET | From | Jacobites | To | Debating the Strike Reform Act |
| Message | a union shouldn't be able to go on stike if only a small minority of its workers want to go on strike. This law is very sensible and gives greater power to the majority of union members, rather than their ideological leadership. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 314 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 87 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The voters enjoy active parties who take upon themselves the initiative to create laws. |
| Random quote: "I'm not an environmentalist. I'm an earth warrior." - Darryl Cherney |