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: Deregulation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Grand National 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: November 3386
Description[?]:
| A portfolio of measures that will stimulate growth in our economy: 1.) The Unity/PAC gambling reform was badly thought and furthermore harmful to job creation and competition in this area of business, by favoring big casinos over small gambling places as the latter cannot afford to abide to restrictive government regulations. 2.) It is odd that we have no restrictions on alcohol, tobbaco and soft drugs but portray industrial hemp as something that is overly harmful and requires regulation. This needs to be changed. 3.) Business autonomy is best able to regulate hiring policies, as companies will always pick those who meet their demands best regardless of sex, gender or race. Even though it is possible that some contenders will try to discriminate against certain groups, this will be corrected by market forces which will reward those corporations which merely choose their employees based on their qualifications. 4.) If we really believe in equality before the law, we must not allow government to decide which workers do have the right to strike and which don't by defining the term 'critical to society'. We thus propose giving all workers the same rights. 5.) We propose to repeal government approval for firing workers and instead wish to return to the old practice of letting courts deal with controversial cases. John Westwood (GNP) Minister of Trade and Industry |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Employer's rights in regards to firing striking workers.
Old value:: Government approval is needed before strikers can be fired.
Current: Employers can fire workers who are deemed to have gone on strike without reasonable reasons.
Proposed: Employers can fire workers who are deemed to have gone on strike without reasonable reasons.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The right to gamble.
Old value:: Gambling is legal, but only in private homes and casinos with special licences.
Current: Gambling is legal, but only in private homes and casinos with special licences.
Proposed: Gambling is legal across the nation, no regulation whatsoever.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning industrial hemp.
Old value:: Only regulated agribusinesses may produce industrial hemp.
Current: Only regulated agribusinesses may produce industrial hemp.
Proposed: There are no regulations on industrial hemp.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: No form of positive discrimination is permitted.
Current: The government sets compulsory quotas for hiring women, minorities and marginalized groups.
Proposed: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The workers' right to strike.
Old value:: All workers have the right to strike but certain categories of workers regarded as critical to society have to ensure a minimal service.
Current: All workers, except certain categories of workers regarded as critical to society, have the right to strike.
Proposed: All workers have the right to strike.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:46:14, October 26, 2012 CET | From | Frente Amplio de Acción Democrática | To | Debating the Deregulation |
| Message | "PAC will propose a counter proposal." |
| Date | 16:46:56, October 26, 2012 CET | From | Popular Party | To | Debating the Deregulation |
| Message | The Popular Parry cannot support article 5, as this would allow militant union leaders to bring the country to a standstill. We also cannot support article 4 as we believe positive discrimination is unfair. We would support the rest of the bill. |
| Date | 16:51:51, October 26, 2012 CET | From | Grand National Party | To | Debating the Deregulation |
| Message | The Popular Party's objection is generally valid, but consider that this bill would restrict the influence of unions by enabling employers to fire workers who go on strike without reasonable reasons. We just want to expand the basic right of going on strike to all groups of workers. Overall, this would mean a tougher position against unions. John Westwood (GNP) Minister of Trade and Industry |
| Date | 17:46:30, October 26, 2012 CET | From | Frente Amplio de Acción Democrática | To | Debating the Deregulation |
| Message | Or for going on strike for reasonable reasons. The Minister seems to have forgotten that little detail. We will always support the current policy as it will allow the government to directly act as the arbiter instead of indirectly in the courtroom. Which, quite frankly, costs time and money, for all sides. The current policy also prevents 'militant unions' from growing in power since the government itself will automatically and obviously act as a neutral arbiter based upon only the law of this land. The current policy is easier, a lot less time consuming, a lot less money consuming, and directly to the point by skipping through tedious court room dramas and procedures and granting a neutral body the ability it would any other court. Let it be known, however, that if this law were to pass, PAC would present an accompanying bill just to make sure equality and justice is .kept |
| Date | 18:08:26, October 26, 2012 CET | From | Grand National Party | To | Debating the Deregulation |
| Message | The government shall not act as juridical authority, this contradicts separation of powers in our state. Following your argumentation, it could also be left to the executive to rule in all legal disputes according to the law, but such controversies must be left to neutral institutions, namely the courts, as any government would, without a doubt, decide according to ideological views. A PAC government would probably decide different in a dispute between union workers and business owners than a GNP government. Furthermore, it is harmful to leave the definition of 'reasonable reasons' to the government. We need a neutral and unpolitical authority here. Sabrina McMahon GNP Parliamentary Leader |
| Date | 22:00:08, October 26, 2012 CET | From | Frente Amplio de Acción Democrática | To | Debating the Deregulation |
| Message | The GNP seems to misunderstand that all current political boundaries would be respected, as they have been. Separation of powers is key in this democracy, and PAC supports that. Maintaining the policies as is would not affect this at all. The executive power would not control this neutral government body in charge of strikes, it could well be granted to the judicial powers the right to handle this matter through this current system, and there would be no ideological influences regardless of who is in power, since the neutral body would act according to the laws. It would be the same as if in a court room, however, much more efficient and a lot less time consuming. Nevertheless, seeing as this bill will sadly pass, PAC will present an accompanying bill to make sure these 'reasonable reasons' are established for the benefit of all and not just a few. I do recall the GNP agreeing to some such thing quite a while ago, so there should be no problems now. -PAC MP |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 160 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 90 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Cultural Protocols should generally be reflective of RP conducted within the nation and should not significantly alter or modify the ethnic, religious or linguistic composition without considerable and reasonable role-play or other justification. |
| Random quote: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible." - Donald Trump |