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: Worker Protection Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Sojuz Ljudej (People's Union)
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: December 2177
Description[?]:
| Prohibiting the breaking of strikes though firing striking workers. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Employer's rights in regards to firing striking workers.
Old value:: Employers are free to fire workers who go on strike.
Current: Employers are free to fire workers who go on strike.
Proposed: Employers cannot fire workers who have gone on strike.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:51:56, January 27, 2006 CET | From |  Liberty Party | To | Debating the Worker Protection Act |
| Message | Why should employees not be bound by their employment contracts? |
| Date | 01:52:31, January 28, 2006 CET | From | Sojuz Ljudej (People's Union) | To | Debating the Worker Protection Act |
| Message | Without controls on the employers ability to fire striking workers, employers will just fire workers and make unions irrelevant, which reduces the number of unions and tips the scale far in the favor of the employers. |
| Date | 03:02:51, January 28, 2006 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Worker Protection Act |
| Message | No, the employers will only fire workers who are in breach of contract. If you don't like the job you are offered, just don't take it, don't lie and pretend you'll work for the agreed money and then once you've got the job go back on your agreement. It is very simple, if an employee is *really* underpaid (as opposed to just being paid less than the worker would like), then the employee will be able to negotiate a higher wage since by definition it is worth more to the company to keep the worker than to try to replace him with someone equally talented and then train the replacement. If the employee is not really underpaid, then the employee will not be able to negotiate a higher wage, since it would not be economic for the employer to keep the employee at the higher wage. Striking is just a way for employees to renege on agreements they voluntarily entered into. If they really want to strike that badly, they should want it enough to be willing to sacrifice their job. Unions would still not be irrelevant, since they would still be in a position to negotiate on behalf of many employees (which is really the point of unions (as opposed to being able to extort money by choosing to be selectively bound by contracts)). The union is in a position to say to an employer: "all our employees are underpaid, if you don't pay them more, they will quit" (as opposed to striking). If the union is telling the truth and the employees are really underpaid, then the employer will not be able to replace all those staff if they leave for less than the union is asking and therefore they will accept a higher wage. If the union is lying about the staff being underpaid, and once they are stripped of their power to demand the unreasonable, then the employer will not agree to the wage hike. Obviously the staff will not really quit, as they know they can't get more money elsewhere and therefore by definition they are not underpaid. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 116 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 374 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 65 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? Four. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln |