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: Freedom of Employment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Soziale Gegenseitigkeitspartei
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: May 4334
Description[?]:
Gives union businesses greater hiring rights. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Closed shops are places of employment where only members of a specific union are allowed to work; union shops can hire non-members, but these have to become members after a certain time; agency shops can hire non-members, who have to pay a fee to cover the unions costs. All three are erected by union agreements. (Only valid if unions are legal)
Old value:: Only open shops are legal.
Current: Closed shops, union shops and agency shops are legal.
Proposed: Closed shops, union shops and agency shops are legal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 05:27:44, January 13, 2018 CET | From | Soziale Gegenseitigkeitspartei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Council. We believe that this bill will benefit both businesses and workers, allowing both an alternative means of cooperating. |
Date | 12:23:49, January 13, 2018 CET | From | Volkspartei für Freiheit und Demokratie | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | The Social Reciprocity Party simply do not understand the work of business and economics, this proposal won’t be a help, but a hindrance! Zara Hoffmann MSC Home Secretary |
Date | 13:20:15, January 13, 2018 CET | From | Grüne Demokratische Partei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Frau Schroeder, Closed, union and agency shops are deprived and depraved institutions. They restrict work and empower corrupt unions. They take money from the salaries of the desperate to fund the lifestyles of union bosses. This proposal makes the workplace a dictatorship, and the unions the dictator. Céline Schroeder State Chancellor Co-Leader of the Bright Alliance |
Date | 17:04:40, January 13, 2018 CET | From | Soziale Gegenseitigkeitspartei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Frau Hoffmann, Frau Schroeder: Perhaps you fail to realize that standard capitalist businesses are also hierarchal in nature, with profits flowing upwards to the boys? Employees generally have a role to play in unions, and this bill allows them to require membership, ensuring a certain level of democracy. The worker has a choice over where they are employed, and this bill widens that choice. Natalie Schaefer SGP Chairperson for Trade and Industry |
Date | 17:37:25, January 13, 2018 CET | From | Grüne Demokratische Partei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Frau Schroeder, We are not opposing hierarchies. They are natural human structures for management and communication. Again, you totally misunderstand everything we're arguing for. "Allows them to require membership, ensuring a certain level of democracy". That was goddamn paradoxical! It 'allows' employees to have to do something? That is double-talk, new-think, alt-think... my god, it's dystopian language. You are not allowing employees anything, you are taking away their rights and forcing them to pay for and join unions they don't want to be in so they can provide for themselves. This is forcing workers to do things. There is nothing democratic about that. This bill does not widen their choice for employment, it narrows it. No employee wants to have to pay for a union they aren't part of, or be forced into a union. You're just making it harder for people to enter employment, and the only people gaining are the unions. Before, workers could go to any employment with any union membership status. Now they'd have to pay unions they don't use, join unions they don't want to. That means they have fewer good employment opportunities. How is none of this getting to you? The SGP are masters at misunderstanding things, failing to get things, making insane argument and proposing stupid bills. They are aggravating and irritating to a level I have never before encountered. Céline Schroeder State Chancellor Co-Leader of the Bright Alliance |
Date | 19:01:06, January 13, 2018 CET | From | Soziale Gegenseitigkeitspartei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Frau Schroeder There will always be a capitalist alternative. And if there's not, that simply infers that workers prefer union businesses. You have missed the point entirely with your criticisms. You seem to see no benefits to union businesses whatsoever. Unions are concerned with industry as a whole. If they weren't, union businesses would just be more restrictive versions of standard ones, which workers would ultimately reject. By operating a closed shop, they can ensure that their workers follow certain working agreements, such as alternate mutual agreements. Suggesting that this bill limits workers choice is ridiculous. People won't join the union business of they don't agree with the terms of the union. |
Date | 19:01:22, January 13, 2018 CET | From | Soziale Gegenseitigkeitspartei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Natalie Schaefer SGP Chairperson for Trade and Industry |
Date | 19:37:36, January 13, 2018 CET | From | Grüne Demokratische Partei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Frau Schroeder, No, this is not capitalist vs socialism. This is worker's rights, full stop. Businesses that support or are affiliated with a union can exist, but they should not force employees out for not being a member. It is the choice of the employee to choose his union membership status. I will not ask why you think a contract cannot create working agreements well enough, but I do ask: has it ever occurred to you that there are people struggling outside your Haldor office's window? People who need a job desperately? How would you feel if the only way you could feed your children was to pay the salaries of union bosses? Céline Schroeder State Chancellor Co-Leader of the Bright Alliance |
Date | 03:19:13, January 14, 2018 CET | From | Soziale Gegenseitigkeitspartei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Frau Schroeder, Perhaps you choose to ignore this, but most of the labour value of a capitalist business goes to the boss anyway. A contract doesn't fulfill the needs of the worker, simply because it is signed within the capitalist system, and is essentially unequal, handing all the power over to one party, the employer. You misunderstand what we are proposing here. We're not giving unions a loophole to pay their workers minimum wage and demand it back in union payment. That still breaks minimum wage laws, and we can still step in under those circumstances. What we are in fact proposing, is a way for voluntary agreements to be made outside the workplace, as unions can work across an entire industry. Working contracts assume that one party has inferior bargaining power to another, and this is not necessarily the case with unions, which can be molded by their workers. So what we are essentially hoping to achieve here goes far deeper than a single place of employment. We are hoping to lay the foundations for a type of voluntary communism - allowing people to work in employment that is capable of making the kind of common connections that will let people work for each other rather than for profit, but only if they so choose. This is voluntary employment. It does not limit the number of choices that one has, it widens them. Your fears over unions exploiting workers are unfounded, as we already have labour laws that prevent this from happening. Natalie Schaefer SGP Chairperson for Trade and Industry |
Date | 15:59:23, January 14, 2018 CET | From | Grüne Demokratische Partei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Frau Schaefer, You have totally bi-passed the centuries of employment done under a contract system. And employer and an employee do have different levels of power, they have different roles. What you are proposing is allowing this monstrous organisations to exist. They are facile, inefficient and undemocratic. They empower unions, not employees. This is not about anything 'voluntary', this is restricting the flexibility of work - which is vital for the young people of our nation. If you want to be in a union, be in that union. Do not force people in need of a job to join a union to provide for themselves. Unions under this can and will push workers around. We aren't having any of it. Céline Schroeder State Chancellor Co-Leader of the Bright Alliance |
Date | 13:43:15, January 15, 2018 CET | From | Soziale Gegenseitigkeitspartei | To | Debating the Freedom of Employment Act |
Message | Council. This "pushes employees around" no more than an ordinary contact. Employees still have workers rights, and can find alternative employment if they so require. Natalie Schaefer SGP Chairperson for Trade and Industry |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes |
Total Seats: 459 | ||||
no | Total Seats: 103 | ||||
abstain | Total Seats: 37 |
Random fact: Cultural Protocols should generally be reflective of RP conducted within the nation and should not significantly alter or modify the ethnic, religious or linguistic composition without considerable and reasonable role-play or other justification. |
Random quote: "He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command." - Niccolo Machiavelli |