Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: March 5461
Next month in: 01:54:41
Server time: 02:05:18, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): hexaus18 | Neo_kami | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Trade Union Accord Bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: Green Workers 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: January 2297

Description[?]:

For too long, Lusitanian workers have been slaving longer and harder for wages that either been frozen or reduced. Family life has been increasingly affected by standards of work that work make a 19th Century poor-house look desirable, while any workers' protests at their appalling conditions have been met with brutal force and imprisonment.

We propose a restoration of the legitimate rights of trade unions to function as the representatives of workers, and for such authority be codified, and recognised by the state.

Article 1:
How can workers defend their interests if by not withdrawing the one power they have - their labour power? We all know that reasoning, and politely asking for wage rises or improved conditions doesn't work - it only leads to a boot in the face or worse. Employers and unions need to be forced by common interest into a formal arbitration process to solve disputes. The threat of sacking must be removed to ensure this happens.

Article 2:
Obviously, the law must be re-written to recognise freedom of association for workers as legal and just.

Article 3:
The right to strike in sympathy is important, as it ensures that smaller and weaker groups of workers get the public attention they need for their cause. Imagine if a company is determined to run down the wages and conditions of a group of cleaners. Should not the public servants in the building support their cause, or merely other weak, small groups of cleaners? Solidarity strikes should be allowed as a legal right to defend workers' rights.

Article 4:
The right to strike should be enshrined in law, but certain professions (such as police, nurses, ambulance officers and other critical jobs) should be required to maintain a skeleton staff in the public interest. However, we maintain that such workers should be allowed the right to strike, or otherwise their important role will be used as a blackmail to prevent them defending their work rights.

Article 5:
If a majority of workers gather and vote to go on strike, then it should be recognised! Plenty of organisations, and political parties, are run with only a certain part of their force participating in every meeting or action. Let not the apathy of a few members prevent the approved decision to strike by a group of workers.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date12:54:23, October 09, 2006 CET
FromLibertarian Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageTotally against.

Date17:56:47, October 09, 2006 CET
FromSocial Liberal Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageI am opposed to union rights and I feel that outlawing them as the Popular Party has is simply brutal and these rights must be restored.

Article 1: The Social Liberal Party in it's centrist view, believes that the right to strike is an essential part of a healthy and sustainable worker-employer relationship. However we feel it would be best to change the law to: "Employers can fire workers who are deemed to have gone on strike without reasonable reasons." This way we are able to preserve the right to strike while allowing the employers to fire those take excess advantage of union rights on the spot.

Article 2: Agreed.

Article 3: I disagree with the principle of the sympathy strike, but I don't think it should illegal. I would support changing it to "Only closely related trade unions can walk out on a sympathy strike in support of other striking workers"

Article 4: Agree completely.

Article 5: I am not necessarily opposed, however I feel it may be overly restrictive to unions and would prefer a system based on individual workers rights. In other words: "Trade Unions are not required by law to hold a ballot before striking."

Date18:09:16, October 09, 2006 CET
FromSocial Liberal Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageAs a correction to my last post in the first line where It reads: "I am opposed to union rights"
It should read.... "I am NOT opposed to union rights"

Obviously.

Date00:31:05, October 10, 2006 CET
FromGreen Workers Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageAgreed. We shall amend the legislation as such.

Date00:36:19, October 10, 2006 CET
FromSocial Liberal Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageOutstanding. Bring on the vote.

Date01:15:52, October 10, 2006 CET
FromLibertarian Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageWe can't believe that the Social Liberal Party approves a Law that makes Government approval compulsory before workers can be fired. This is TOTALITARIAN far left-wing politics!

Date01:19:33, October 10, 2006 CET
FromLibertarian Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageThe Social Liberal Party is a FRAUD. It even opposes, by passing this bill, SOCIAL LIBERAL principles.

Date01:27:23, October 10, 2006 CET
FromSocial Liberal Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageWait a minute here. Hold on to your anger LP.

Article one is not what the SLP had asked for. As a matter of fact is likely the worst possible options and we thank the LP for bringing this to our attention. We had asked to negotiate the article into:

"Employers can fire workers who are deemed to have gone on strike without reasonable reasons."

The SLP cannot possibly accept article 1 as it is.

Date01:33:04, October 10, 2006 CET
FromLibertarian Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageThe LP apologises the SLP for its angry reaction. We are glad to see that the SLP has rectified its position.

Date01:42:54, October 10, 2006 CET
FromSocial Liberal Party
ToDebating the Trade Union Accord Bill
MessageIt quite alright. Part of the game.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 77

no
  

Total Seats: 111

abstain
  

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position.

Random quote: "Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn't commit." - Eli Khamarov

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 81