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: Economic Reform, V
Details
Submitted by[?]: Wildrose Alliance
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: September 3658
Description[?]:
| It does what it says. Will be direct-to-vote. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The government may not seize private property.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Guarantee of minimum income.
Old value:: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a reasonable, though not high, standard of living by the government.
Current: There shall be no direct cash payments to individuals to guarantee a minimum income.
Proposed: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government. However, the provision of this is not to exceed a certian period of time.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The decision is left up to local governments.
Current: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Proposed: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government policy regarding housing.
Old value:: The state provides public housing to low-income families.
Current: All housing is privately-owned.
Proposed: All housing is private but rent is subsidised for low-income households.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Renewable energy sources (eg. solar power, wind power).
Old value:: The decision on renewable energy sources is left up to local governments.
Current: The government does not take any position with regards to renewable energy.
Proposed: The government does not take any position with regards to renewable energy.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: Hiring policies are regulated by local governments.
Current: The government sets compulsory quotas for hiring women, minorities and marginalized groups.
Proposed: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on minimum wage regulation.
Old value:: There shall be a minimum wage at a level considered a "living wage," well above the poverty line for a full time worker.
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 shall be a minimum wage at a level that a single full time worker on it can adequately subsist.
Article 8
Proposal[?] to change Closed shops are places of employment where only members of a specific union are allowed to work; union shops can hire non-members, but these have to become members after a certain time; agency shops can hire non-members, who have to pay a fee to cover the unions costs. All three are erected by union agreements. (Only valid if unions are legal)
Old value:: This issue is decided by local governments.
Current: Only open shops are legal.
Proposed: Only open shops are legal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:59:40, April 27, 2014 CET | From | Labor Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform, V |
| Message | No. This bill guts union protections and Labor will vote No on this bill. |
| Date | 21:00:46, April 27, 2014 CET | From | Wildrose Alliance | To | Debating the Economic Reform, V |
| Message | How does this bill gut union protections? |
| Date | 21:01:51, April 27, 2014 CET | From | Wildrose Alliance | To | Debating the Economic Reform, V |
| Message | How does this bill gut union protections? |
| Date | 21:11:41, April 27, 2014 CET | From | Labor Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform, V |
| Message | This bill destroys the safety net that an honest day's hard work should ALWAYS correlate to an honest day's living wage. Instead you are letting management reduce salaries below a minimum threshold of support for a worker and family. Forcing them to live on government assistance, housing, pharma care. You then only allow open shops. Gutting unions collective bargaining position, hiring scabs to eventually push us out of our jobs. While you do this in an effort to support a free market. Labor affirms that a free market must also be a fair market, where hard working Alorians have the right to know that there hard work will results in a reasonable wage. You gut living wage requirements, and then gut labor union and out ability to fight for better wages and benefits. This is not a free market, this is a corporatism. |
| Date | 21:44:14, April 27, 2014 CET | From | Wildrose Alliance | To | Debating the Economic Reform, V |
| Message | I tend to disagree. Individuals workers should have the freedom to not partake in a union. If you don't want to pay union dues (indeed many of these go to various political causes) on principle, you should have the right to do so and still not be precluded from work. This is a fundamental protection of workers' rights. As for a safety net, we are in support. People fall on hard times and need support to help get them back on their feet. Indeed government work and training programs are the best way to proceed. It is much harder to get a job when you are homeless and hungry; these concerns ultimately take precedent. The policies on housing, current ones on childcare, etc. also help facilitate that as currently proposed. We do not want people to fall into a welfare trap however; our goal is to empower people to create their own successes. Finally, an unnecessarily high minimum wage is at the expense of fewer working hours and/or higher unemployment. Also, ideally, minimum wage is only a "temporary" situation and one hopefully goes through the required training to warrant higher pay. In tandem with our policy on welfare, we feel this is established. |
| Date | 01:44:11, April 28, 2014 CET | From | United Alorian Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform, V |
| Message | We can support Article 2, and on Article 6 we would prefer no positive discrimination allowed at all. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 92 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 89 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 44 |
| Random fact: Moderation reserves the discretion to declare RP laws invalid if the players supporting them are doing so in an excessively confrontational way. |
| Random quote: "When was the last time you talked about race with someone of a different race? If the answer is never, you're part of the problem." - Bill Bradley |