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: Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813
Details
Submitted by[?]: Communist Party of Solentia (CPS)
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 3814
Description[?]:
| We agree to stop mandating Democratic Worker Concils if a part of economy becomes nationalized. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on Democratic Workers' Councils.
Old value:: The government requires most industries to be fully run by Democratic Workers' Councils.
Current: Democratic Workers' Councils are not permitted to run a business.
Proposed: The government encourages the formation of Democratic Workers' Councils through subsidies and tax exemptions.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Current: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Proposed: Certain industries are owned by the state, all others are under private ownership.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:47:24, March 10, 2015 CET | From |  Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | As we have discussed during close negotiations with your party, we do agree to this reform. It is reasonable to have some industries owned by the state. And it is certainly favorable to have some industries owned by the state if it means that private industries are free to function. It is of vital importance to encourage entrepreneurship. Having nationalized industries in some areas (such as energy production, trains, etc.) would not prevent this. Currently the law mandating that companies must be run by Democratic Workers' Councils actively discourages entrepreneurship. Someone could have their business taken after years of hard work to get it off the ground and successful. In conclusion: This is a great compromise position and the Reform Option welcomes the SDP's genuine efforts to compromise with our party as well as other parties in Solentia. It is great to see that we are overcoming political grandstanding and instead taking strides to help our great nation! |
| Date | 20:49:51, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Radical Republican Party (RRP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | This is a backlash for socialism. Adam Reed FT spiritual leader |
| Date | 20:54:02, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | You mean it is a backlash against Socialism? Why do you believe so? There would be more nationalized industries than before. And Democratic Worker's Councils in existence today would actually receive subsidies and tax exemptions that are not offered to other forms of businesses. The only thing it changes is that it would allow an entrepreneur to also succeed without fear of his success being taken away from him. What could be wrong about that? Also important to note, the entrepreneur does not get any funding or tax exemptions. So this bill actively encourages the formation of Democratic Worker's Councils whilst taking no stance on other forms of business structures (beyond enforcing our labor laws). -Jessica Chambers, Head Speaker of the Reform Option Council |
| Date | 21:00:22, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Radical Republican Party (RRP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | The ideology clearly states that it seeks workers control over production. Meaning DWC > Nationalization. Adam Reed FT spiritual leader |
| Date | 21:01:03, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | "If any industry is owned by the state, we are a socialist nation. We'd rather have private enterprise than weaker unions." ~Ted Johnson, Head Chairman of the LPS |
| Date | 21:04:51, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | We do see what you mean there. Indeed, the Reform Option also prefers worker's control over nationalization. It prefers any private control (worker run or otherwise) to national control. Thankfully this bill does not take away control from any workers. Worker's Run companies are free to exist and even given funding and support so that they can prosper and compete with other forms of businesses. Beyond that, only some industries are nationalized by this proposal. So again, there would still be many worker's run companies. They are not adversely affected whatsoever. By the same token, however, why not allow other forms of businesses to function? Please explain this: Let's say I open a small shop. I am successful and expand it. Eventually I am so successful that I build another location, then another one, eventually there are over a hundred locations. At which point in the above scenario do you believe that the workers should seize control over the company? Should they seize control even when the shop first opens? Should they seize it when the shop expands its size? Should they seize it after it expands to a new location? When do you believe that the entrepreneur should be punished for his success? -Jessica Chambers, Head Speaker of the Reform Option Council |
| Date | 21:06:20, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | LPS, this does allow just that. Currently a company can arbitrarily be seized by the workers. This bill would prevent that. All it does is have some nationalized companies alongside private ones. -Jessica Chambers, Head Speaker of the Reform Option Council |
| Date | 21:11:48, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | "The question is if you'd rather have companies be owned by workers or the government. The answer to that is workers. Essentially, article 1 changes from government supporting businesses to the government owning some business. Article 2 changes from unions owning some businesses to unions being supported by the government. This is the definition of socialism. The government betrays the people in favor of having more power. That's not good in our opinion. We prefer a government that stays out of people's lives." ~Ted Johnson, Head Chairman of the LPS |
| Date | 21:12:32, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Radical Republican Party (RRP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | It's easy, the workers ought to run it together. Meaning that everyone whom works at given company should own and run it together in a directly democratic form. No matter the size. "When do you believe that the entrepreneur should be punished for his success?" - What gives anyone the right to profit from others labour? |
| Date | 21:49:50, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | "The question is: workers (people who were not forced to work there), government (a small group of elitists), businessmen that are given money from the government if their business is failing, or businessmen who are given nothing from the government and risked their livelihood to start there company? We choose the latter. The NLP choose the first, the SDP chooses the second." ~Ted Johnson, Head chairman of the LPS |
| Date | 22:18:03, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | If I create the business itself and put in 80 hours a week then I deserve to reap the rewards of my success. I would not be "profiting off others labour" those people would not have labour in the first place if I had not started the business and expanded it. |
| Date | 22:20:20, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | Quote from the LPS: "Article 2 changes from unions owning some businesses to unions being supported by the government." - Not true, it changes workers owning most businesses (90%) to workers being given subsidies and tax breaks to operate businesses democratically. It also allows private businesses to operate freely, as opposed to being seized as they are now. Read the current law: MOST industries have to be run by the workers, not some industries. If it said some industries then sure we would agree with you that the current laws are better than this reform. |
| Date | 22:30:52, March 10, 2015 CET | From | Radical Republican Party (RRP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | So because you faounded the company you diserve to make money our of other people's labour? You wouldn't be able do expant if it wasn't for them, if you wish to truly reap the reward of your sucess you need to work for it yourself. You do not own the people whom work at the company you founded, nor do you have any right to take a part of their profit and make it your own. The company is nothing without the workers, that goes for all companies. In short, you deserve pay for those 80 hours a week you put in, but that has to come out of your own labour, not from others hard work. |
| Date | 02:15:58, March 11, 2015 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | "The NLP is completely wrong with that philosophy, but we are declining based entirely off article 1. We are against government more than we are against overpowered unions." ~Ted Johnson, Head Chairman of the LPS |
| Date | 18:32:38, March 11, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Compromise between SDP and ROS regarding DWC and industry ownership act of 3813 |
| Message | Sure, workers should be rewarded as well. But if I put in all of the work, managed the company successfully, had new ideas to innovate the shop and decided where to place items, paid for advertising, etc. then it is clearly reasonable for me to get paid more for MY labour. It is very difficult to quantify what the value of the labour of a cashier is. And even if you could, I guarantee you it is not the same money as what the owner and manager should be making. You are paying them more for their labour, not for anyone else's labour. Standing at a cash register or stocking shelves for a few hours is only worth a few dollars. But creating the right promotions, knowing who to hire and who to fire, knowing what kind of policies to establish for a successful workplace, etc. these are all things that you as the owner decide. So to be paid thanks to those efforts being successful means you are being paid a profit from your own labour. Not from anyone else's labour at all! The problem with democratic ownership is simple fact that everyone does not understand how to best run a company. A democratic workplace would lead to the majority basically being lazy and dictating tasks that they don't want to do onto the minority at the workplace. Let's say no one wants to clean the bathrooms and there's one person at the shop that everyone hates. The majority would continually vote for that person to clean the bathrooms. If you have effective management then the management can say: No, everyone will clean the bathrooms, we will rotate who does so. It would also allow for those who should not be working there and are not productive to be fired much more easily. Good luck getting a majority to vote out those who are truly unproductive. Such a form of ownership just does not make sense any way you look at it. Does some random cashier really know about accounting? Does this person know how to effectively manage a company? Does this person know how to create and distribute advertisements? Do they know what kind of promotions would be best to establish? Do they know anything about how many items of different products to get? Do they know anything about pricing so that the products are sold in a profitable manner? There are absolutely no logical arguments for why workers should democratically run a workplace. Unless all workers know everything there is to know about the above areas it would simply not work well. It would be a massive failure because you need experts who actually know about accounting to run accounting. You need people who know about management to actually manage the company and the employees. Etc. -Jessica Chambers, Head Speaker of the Reform Option Council |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 228 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 197 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Did you know you can change the official name of your nation? All you need to do is draw up a new name that is in accordance with the Nation Renaming Guide, pass a bill proposing the name change with a two-thirds majority and then post a request to Moderation on the "Renaming Requests" thread. You can change city and region names in this way too. |
| Random quote: "The first step in freeing yourself from social restrictions is the realization that there is no such thing as a 'safe' code of conduct, one that would earn everyone's approval. Your actions can always be condemned by someone, for being too bold or too apathetic, for being too conformist or too nonconformist, for being too liberal or too conservative. So it's necessary to decide whose approval is important to you." - Harry Browne |