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: The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176
Details
Submitted by[?]: The Mordusian Green 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: September 2178
Description[?]:
| Although we believe that some workers - those who are reponsible for public welfare - may be fired if they go on strike, we suggest that companies must receive government approval before firing these workers, so that that the government can determine the balance between the public good and workers' civil rights in the matter. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Employer's rights in regards to firing striking workers.
Old value:: Employers can fire workers who are deemed to have gone on strike without reasonable reasons.
Current: Employers can fire workers who are deemed to have gone on strike without reasonable reasons.
Proposed: Government approval is needed before strikers can be fired.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:42:39, January 27, 2006 CET | From | Left-Hand Path | To | Debating the The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176 |
| Message | Of course not. You walk out on your job, you get fired. Why should the government have any say in it? |
| Date | 21:49:41, January 27, 2006 CET | From | National Thomasian Party | To | Debating the The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176 |
| Message | every worker has the right to strke as long as the reasons for doing so are sensible and achievable. To be honest though we see problems with all options. For the government to allow or prevent strikers to be fired could easily be used to gain support for the government from a particular group. For the current law the employers can fire workers if the reasons for striking aren't reasonable and when looking at the other options available we see this as the best option as long as the the worker to appeal to the courts on the gorunds of unfair dismisal. |
| Date | 21:59:34, January 27, 2006 CET | From | Left-Hand Path | To | Debating the The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176 |
| Message | We don't deny the right of workers to strike, but if you don't show up to work, you must face the consequences. Would you require that employers continue to pay striking workers? If not, what's the difference between firing them and not firing them? |
| Date | 22:08:51, January 27, 2006 CET | From | Agrarian Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176 |
| Message | WTF has the Government got to do with A) a strike B) an employer and C) someone who strikes voluntarily? |
| Date | 22:39:08, January 27, 2006 CET | From | The Mordusian Green Party | To | Debating the The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176 |
| Message | LHP: Of course we wouldn't require that companies pay striking workers. We believe that there are situations where strikes are valid, and situations where strikes should be illegal. Likewise, there are situations where striking workers are within their rights, as well as situations where they are outside their rights. There should be an authority that determines these issues, and we do not object in this case if that authority comes from the government. This is a way to a) give workers a system for valid strikes, and b) a way for employers to receive legall redress concerning whether a strike is legal and/or in the public good. |
| Date | 23:20:37, January 27, 2006 CET | From | Agrarian Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176 |
| Message | It is not so much a legal redress concerning whether teh strike is legal, it is a legal redress concerning whether it is ok for them to sack their employees. Of course every employer has the right to sack his/her employees. |
| Date | 22:14:50, January 29, 2006 CET | From | The Mordusian Green Party | To | Debating the The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176 |
| Message | Not so fast, MDP. There is the well-known RL American case in the 80s when, if the President had allowed air traffic controllers to strike without comment, lives could have very well been put in danger. Of course, we would object such an executive command, but judicial review of such a matter is not so objectionable. |
| Date | 05:09:50, January 30, 2006 CET | From | Country Labor Party | To | Debating the The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176 |
| Message | The PATCO union (air traffic controllers) has a clause in their contract that explicitly did not allow them to strike. They went out on strike anyway. Reagan fired them. |
| Date | 06:37:18, January 30, 2006 CET | From | The Mordusian Green Party | To | Debating the The Striking Workers Termination Act of 2176 |
| Message | And we believe that was beyond his authority - judicial approval should have been sought in that case. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 105 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 213 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 281 |
| Random fact: Selucia is Particracy's modern take on Ancient Rome, located on the continent of Majatra. |
| Random quote: "In an underdeveloped country, don't drink the water; in a developed country, don't breathe the air." - Changing Times magazine |