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: Employee Rights Act of 4153
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Labour, New Mordusia
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: November 4153
Description[?]:
| We propose an end to the law which enables employers to fire striking workers. The ability to dismiss employees for the act of striking undermines workers' legal right to strike. The law currently states that 'Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, a majority of all members, regardless of if they vote or not must approve the strike action'. If the majority have approved strike action then employers should not be able to take vindictive action against them. This policy forms part of our manifesto for the 4155 election, however we hope it can be achieved before this date. |
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: Employers cannot fire workers who have gone on strike.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:25:39, January 17, 2017 CET | From | Workers' Patriotic Front | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | The current law does not undermine the right to strike at all. If a majority vote to strike, then surely there is no "unreasonable reason" through which to fire workers? |
| Date | 01:30:16, January 17, 2017 CET | From | Populist Reform Party | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | We agree with the NSPM. If the majority vote to strike,then they can't be fired. Likewise,if only a minority of workers want the strike then they can be. |
| Date | 04:51:48, January 17, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberty Party | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | But what is considered as unreasonable? |
| Date | 06:27:58, January 17, 2017 CET | From | Populist Reform Party | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | Let's say a company has 10 employees. 4 of them decide to go on strike while the others didn't see a need too. Those 4 employees are being unreasonable. If it had been something worth going on strike for,chances are there would've been a majority going on strike. Companies also have lots of regulations in Mordusia so typically when it comes to the courts,the worker wins out. |
| Date | 18:36:09, January 17, 2017 CET | From | New Labour, New Mordusia | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | A majority of Union members (including those who abstain) is currently the threshold for strike action. If only 4/10 members voted in favour then the strike would not be legal. Trade Unions in Mordusia know this ruling & know that the courts would prevent strike action in this case. This article relates to employer retaliation against legal strikes. The employer is first judge of what is reasonable (incorrect dismissals could later be compensated for in court however) & the current article acts as a threat to workers, puting undue influence on their democratic choices. |
| Date | 00:27:07, January 18, 2017 CET | From | Libertarian Front | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | We support the bill. It's a difficult situation deciding what is 'unreasonable' - it causes more trouble having such a law in place. |
| Date | 09:06:14, January 18, 2017 CET | From | Workers' Patriotic Front | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | But if I didn't feel like going into work one morning and simply rang up to say that I was "striking", they couldn't fire me. |
| Date | 14:33:01, January 18, 2017 CET | From | New Labour, New Mordusia | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | That would be an unauthorised absence rather than a strike & could be considered misconduct by you employer. Misconduct would still lead to a dismissal, this change would not impact the rights of the employer in that regard. A strike is undertaken by a recognised Trade Union & lead by that Trade Union. Wildcat strike, action taken against the instruction of Trade Union leaders |
| Date | 14:34:01, January 18, 2017 CET | From | New Labour, New Mordusia | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | Apologies, what I meant to finish saying is that Wildcat strikes can happen but they are extremely rare. |
| Date | 23:36:47, January 18, 2017 CET | From | Workers' Patriotic Front | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | But surely if a strike has been sanctioned by a union, it is not unreasonable? |
| Date | 03:47:36, January 19, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberty Party | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | According to the definition of majority you gave us, yes |
| Date | 19:14:03, January 19, 2017 CET | From | Populist Reform Party | To | Debating the Employee Rights Act of 4153 |
| Message | We will concede,as we find the explanation that NLNM gave to be sufficient and to answer our concerns. We will be voting yes. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 553 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 197 |
| Random fact: You can view who's online (i.e. been active the last 10 minutes) at the bottom of the menu (either at the top or the side). |
| Random quote: "Corruption greases the wheels of government, and my private jet." - Sung Dae Kim, former Dranian politician |