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: Solidarity Act of 4470
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Kalistani Worker’s Front
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 4471
Description[?]:
| An effort to return the powers of Collective Bargaining to the Kalistani Workers and overturn the Reactionary Second Striking Abolition Act of 4464 |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Secondary strike action.
Old value:: Secondary strike action is illegal. Workers and unions can only go on strike for their own pay and conditions.
Current: Any trade union can go on a sympathy strike in support of other striking workers.
Proposed: Only closely related trade unions can walk out on a sympathy strike in support of other striking workers.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Trade union strike ballots.
Old value:: 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.
Current: Trade unions are not required by law to hold a ballot before striking.
Proposed: Trade unions are not required by law to hold a ballot before striking.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:24:49, October 15, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | We will support this bill when it comes to a vote. Its time to roll back the Right wing attitudes that threaten to ruin collective bargaining in Kalistan. |
| Date | 22:47:09, October 15, 2018 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | We support article 2, but will vote against do to our opposition to article 1. |
| Date | 00:37:41, October 16, 2018 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | To our Colleagues in the NCP, why such steely opposition to Article One? If workers in an unrelated industry support the movement of another, why should they not be allowed to express solidarity by a Secondary strike? Remember, this bill does not guarantee the use of secondary strikes, it just allows the possibility of them. |
| Date | 02:44:56, October 16, 2018 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | Our UKWF comrades, we oppose Secondary Strikes as it is unfair to employers of workers that decide to go on strike. We simply find it unjust for a company which treats its workers with great respect to have those workers go on strike for a completely unrelated company in possibly a completely different industry. Why allow a good company be punished for the sins of a bad one? We understand and share the stance of our socialist comrades in which the rights of the workers must be respected and held to a very high regard, but we mustn't at the same time discard the concerns and rights of companies. |
| Date | 04:55:01, October 16, 2018 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | Would the NCP then be more in favor of a revision of Article One allowing for Only closely related industries to secondary strike? |
| Date | 13:15:04, October 16, 2018 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | It still seems a bit unjust, but that is still preferable to the current bill. We'll support if you make that change. |
| Date | 13:42:30, October 16, 2018 CET | From | Agramontian League (AL) | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | We urge the authors of the bill not to compromise on secondary strike action. A key part of ensuring worker's rights and protecting our citizens from exploitation is empowering them to make demands of their employers. For workers in small or developing industries, unionising may not be sufficient to force employers to meet these demands. As such, it is essential that workers in other industries can use their own power to lift up their sisters and brothers. Secondary strike action is a hallmark of democracy and freedom. Guillermo Berrocal, Leader of the Agramontian League |
| Date | 17:00:08, October 16, 2018 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | Agramontian League- The advancement of Worker’s Rights, even if it is less than initially intended, matters more than digging our heels in the sand and refusing to compromise. The stark reality is, until the Kalistani Left controls a Majority, compromise is a necessity. William Foster, UKWF General Secretary |
| Date | 02:45:52, October 18, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | This is a step in the correct direction. We can call for stronger secondary strike action once this bill passes. |
| Date | 08:41:01, October 19, 2018 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | Of course. It just felt more important for the bill to pass and get something out of it than it was to dig our heels in and get nothing. |
| Date | 11:10:26, October 19, 2018 CET | From | Agramontian League (AL) | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | The bill would have passed without the change. It shows a lack of willingness to stand up for your principles that the Worker’s Front was so quick to concede. Guillermo Berrocal, Leader of the Agramontian League |
| Date | 12:14:14, October 19, 2018 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | It would now, yes. But at the time of writing, the SPoK and I simply did not have the seats to compete with opposition from the Reform Party, Kalistan First, and the NCP. We suggest the Agramontian League stop being so antagonistic and look at it from a practical angle. |
| Date | 16:24:21, October 19, 2018 CET | From | Agramontian League (AL) | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | Practically speaking, workers rights are not as robust as they would have been if the Front had listened to our suggestion. Guillermo Berrocal, Leader of the Agramontian League |
| Date | 19:14:23, October 19, 2018 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | And practically speaking, had we listened to your suggestion, the bill would not have passed in the first place. |
| Date | 19:19:14, October 19, 2018 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Solidarity Act of 4470 |
| Message | It would now, yes. But at the time of writing, the SPoK and I simply did not have the seats to compete with opposition from the Reform Party, Kalistan First, and the NCP. We suggest the Agramontian League stop being so antagonistic and look at it from a practical angle. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 97 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 32 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 121 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected." - Will Rogers |