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: Trade Union Democracy
Details
Submitted by[?]: Grand Republican 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: May 2172
Description[?]:
| The Grand Republican Party believes that Trade Unions are a valuable and neccessary ideal in this day and age for the protection of workers rights. Thus, it is with this ideal in mind that the GRP calls for the legislature to pass a law forcing all Unions to have a ballot of all registered members before going on an official strike. Such a balot will allow the genuine feelings of the workers to be felt, and give them the democratic control that they deservce, and obviously wish for by joining such Unions. OOC: Not spamming, I promise. I needed to do this, as tomorrow I won't be on for ages and I'd forget., Last one for a day or so. |
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, majority approval of those that vote is needed from its members.
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 | 21:41:14, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Trade Union Democracy |
| Message | The GRP is also open to the third option, that a majority of members, irregardless of whether they voted or not, must agree before striking. Either option will be acceptable. |
| Date | 23:14:16, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Trade Union Democracy |
| Message | We do not believe the Federal government has the right to interfere in the affairs of private organisations, such as trade unions. This proposal infringes on Rutanian civil liberties, and the RFP is forced to oppose. |
| Date | 01:01:37, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Trade Union Democracy |
| Message | The GRP fails to see how calling upon Unions to actually allow their members to vote on whether they want to strike or not is in fact restricting civil liberties. |
| Date | 01:48:39, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Trade Union Democracy |
| Message | They can always leave. This bill does not have our support, as it would only serve as a delaying tactic to halt unions from striking by tying them up in endless regulations and red tape. Strong commerce, A Strong Labor, A Strong Rutania. |
| Date | 09:06:14, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Trade Union Democracy |
| Message | Limited Support |
| Date | 21:00:35, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trade Union Democracy |
| Message | Aye. We believe that unions msot definately SHOULD actually be working with the support of their membership before they destroy businesses, the economy and peoples' livelihoods. |
| Date | 12:57:55, January 15, 2006 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Trade Union Democracy |
| Message | Is that not regulation? In laissez-faire companies are able to negotiate the prices of products without government interference, so why shouldn't unions be allowed to negotiate the price of labour without government interference? |
| Date | 13:06:13, January 15, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trade Union Democracy |
| Message | Because the Unions would have an automatic monopoly on the governance of someone else's company. That could be called theft. |
| Date | 17:12:21, January 16, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Trade Union Democracy |
| Message | No they wouldn't, they would be able to "stop" the supply of labour, just as companies can just "stop" the supply of products if those who wish to purchase it don't pay enough. The price of labour is in laissez-faire also subject to the laws of supply and demand, companies which go under the market price in "purchasing" labour won't get their supply of labour any longer. And government interference in the internal structure of trade unions is something we oppose, let the unions and their members decide that from themselves in their union statutes. If the workers want a union which takes initiatives without waiting for a vote on it, they can join one of those unions. If they want a union which holds a vote first, they can join one of those. I've heard you defend this on numerous occasions in relation to companies and privatisation, etc... So why shouldn't it apply to unions? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 217 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 316 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 66 |
| Random fact: Information about the population of each country can be found on the Population Information thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8663 |
| Random quote: "The only place where democracy comes before work is in the dictionary." - Ralph Nader |