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: Labour Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive 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: December 2237
Description[?]:
| Regulates Labour conditions |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning child labour.
Old value:: Child labour is allowed, but with additional regulations to those of adult labourers.
Current: Child labour is forbidden.
Proposed: Child labour is forbidden.
Article 2
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.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on minimum wage regulation.
Old value:: There is no provision for a minimum wage.
Current: There shall be a minimum wage at a level that a single full time worker on it can adequately subsist.
Proposed: There shall be a minimum wage at a level that a full time worker on it can support a family of four without falling under the poverty line.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Trade union strike ballots.
Old value:: Trade unions are not required by law to hold a ballot before striking.
Current: 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.
Proposed: Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, majority approval of those that vote is needed from its members.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:54:55, May 31, 2006 CET | From |  Radical Conservative Party | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | The Labor Act... By the way, I hate all of these. |
| Date | 04:39:37, May 31, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | You hate the prohibition of child labour? You hate minimum wages? Why? being a conservative i can understand you not liking the strike law proposals. But child labour?! You would let a 7 year old children go to a factory to work? |
| Date | 14:44:50, May 31, 2006 CET | From | Fasces Kromina Conservatives | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | Why not? |
| Date | 18:27:13, May 31, 2006 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | Ok, we will vote no. Our positions on the specific articles are: 1. We oppose. If a kid wants a paper route, or wants to do babysitting or whatever for extra pocket money, the government should not have the power to intervene; 2. Absolutely oppose. The state should not destroy the principles of freedom of association and freedom (and enforceability) of contract; 3. Oppose. The minimum wage is simply a way for the state to dictate who gets to work and for how much. If a person's labour is only worth TRA8/hour and you set a minimum wage at TRA10/hour, that person will not get work. It guarantees unemployment for all those whose skills are worth less than the (arbitrary) minimum wage. The state should not have the power to enforce unemployment on low skilled individuals. 4. Don't care. Unions are private arrangements between individuals and they can make decisions however they like. It's up to them, not me. |
| Date | 23:41:44, May 31, 2006 CET | From | Radical Conservative Party | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | Free the market! And yes, I hate minimum wages. They destroy the economy along with unions. Child labor...whatever. If there's regulations, it's cool. |
| Date | 09:15:45, June 01, 2006 CET | From | Fasces Kromina Conservatives | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | What he said ^ |
| Date | 14:12:52, June 01, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | 1. Child labour is not a necessary obstacle for children to perform small tasks, while being remunerated, or to help their parents. And even if it did, i suppose it's more important to prohibit children to work 8 hours a day and to put them at school than to stop children to gain a few extra euros. In case you are all pakistanese, child labour is prohibited by a UN Declaration, ratified by the great majority of the nations of the world; 2. Yes. Stopping patronate to fire any worker who goes on strike is a limitation of their freedom of contract. But strike is te only way to protect workers' rights. And why? Because workers' negocial weight is very limited by their lack of economic power. So its a question of balance - greater economic power vs. labour force. And that is protecting freedom and the dignity of the majority of society; 3. If labour force is the only value a worker as to society, and if that is his only way of subsistence, then it is impossible for all workers to have minimum conditions of living. So, minimum wages are a way to diminish poverty and also a way to stimulate demand. Being the majority of citizens, an increase of wages would have almost imediate effects on demand, thus increasing production and sales. That increases companies' income, so they have more money to distribute, and so on. So it is also a way to stimulate the market. 4. Its only a way to protect companies and general society from unexpected and unjustified strikes, as well as workers from forms of non democratic labour unionism. So, i'm open for negotiation on proposals 2 and 4. |
| Date | 22:03:20, June 01, 2006 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | 1. "Child labour is not a necessary obstacle for children to perform small tasks, while being remunerated". True enough, however FORBIDDING child labour IS a necessary obstacle for labour. This bill seeks to prohibit child labour and therefore most definitely will present an such an obstacle. If you don't want your kids to work, that's fine, but don't think you are entitled to tell my kids what they can or can't do. "In case you are all pakistanese, child labour is prohibited by a UN Declaration, ratified by the great majority of the nations of the world" To the best of my knowledge, none of the players here in Trigunia IRL are from Pakistan, although I'm not sure how it could be relevant. You will notice that the Trigunian government is not bound by UN declarations either the real-life UN or the in-game UN. 2. Strike is not a protection of workers' rights. It is the creation of an entirely new power for certain privileged workers to casually disregard agreements that they voluntarily made while making them binding on the group of people (employers) whom you dislike. We agree completely that there are occasions where some people are in a stronger bargaining position than others, but those circumstances are by no means limited to just employees and certainly doesn't apply to ALL workers at all times. Moreover, if it were merely an issue of 'bargaining power' then presumably you would remove striking rights during periods where there are employee shortages and workers have a stronger bargaining position than employers (e.g., in industries like oil-field services at the moment) and impose restrictions allowing employers to refuse to pay employees until they agree to the employer's demands, while prohibiting the workers from quitting? Finally there are other ways that workers can increase their bargaining power without resorting to the coercive power of the state. For example, they can unionise and pursue collective bargaining agreements, alternatively they can pursue recognised training to make them more valuable to employers and thus give them more choice (for example, anyone can call themselves an accountant, but if they qualify and join a professional membership body, they can charge more money and have more flexibility in the job market). 3. Minimum wages do not diminish poverty. They increase earnings for a small group of people but increase unemployment for other low-skilled workers. It also leads to reduced production, which leads to reduced growth, which reduces national wealth and therefore increases poverty. As Hazlitt eloquently observes, "The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall he paid less than $30 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $30 a week to an employer will he employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you snhstitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation. The only exception to this occurs when a group of workers is receiving a wage actually below its market worth. This is likely to happen only in special circumstances or localities where competitive forces do not operate freely or adequately; but nearly all these special cases could he remedied just as effectively, more flexibly and with far less potential harm, by unionization." Minimum wages do not stimulate demand. You are suggesting that by implementing a minimum wage, wages generally will rise. You didn't mention anything about the people who will end up unemployed and therefore not producing anything, but let's imagine for a moment that even in your fantasy land there was no unemployment and everyone is earning higher nominal wages. Where does this money come from? People are being paid more but productivity declines, so there is more paper money in the system but no more wealth. In essence you have simply created inflation. Inflation does not create wealth, however much Keynes might wish otherwise. 4. You don't need to protect companies from strikes. When workers strike because they imagine that they are not earning enough the company will fire all those workers (absent your proposal 2) for breach of contract. They will then hire replacement workers at the market rate. Life goes on. Why do workers need to be protected from 'non democratic labour unionism'? They can just choose not to join a non-democratic labour union if they are obsessed with democracy. |
| Date | 22:35:33, June 01, 2006 CET | From | Radical Conservative Party | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | I thought the Europeans would make fun of my American spelling of labor... |
| Date | 18:08:14, June 02, 2006 CET | From | Fasces Kromina Conservatives | To | Debating the Labour Act |
| Message | Haha, you spelled labour wrong! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 419 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 136 |
| Random fact: Culturally Open nations can adopt advisory/non-enforceable Nation Descriptions. See http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6242 |
| Random quote: "It is the hallmark of great society to debate and disagree without resorting to violence." - Mathew Jameson, former Hutorian politician |