[OOC: From the rules: the President "cannot be a Member of Parliament but may propose legislation in Parliament [...]."
]-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
]
Jack,
Your points about arms control are well taken, and I realize the rebels obviously wouldn't comply. But I think what we're doing is muddling two separate issues. Anti-Terrorism bill hits the rebels, arms control prevents private militias. Lets just say I'm EXTREMELY uneasy about these vigilante groups walking around with Kalashnikovs. Sure, they may be well-intentioned now, but what happens if there's a change in government, or someone makes a decision they don't like? We could all suddenly be looking down the business end of those rifles. There is too much power and too much danger in the hands of these vigilantes who have no checks and answer to no one. We're one charismatic leader with a dangerous message away from the formation of another terrorist group. They've already got the weapons and the network, all they need is a new motive.
Obviously not everyone would comply, but we could include a clause offering amnesty to anyone who turns in weapons that wind up being declared illegal by a certain point. Say we make automatic weapons illegal, we'd allow any organization or group to turn theirs in, no questions asked, no punishments. Only fair. Then, after the deadline, anyone caught with such an illegal weapon (or a concentration of weapons, such as the militia situation) would get hit hard. I agree results of this preliminary registration should be strictly confidential. I'd submit results of my security force, but all my compounds are guarded by Marines, so I think I'm exempt!
Of course we won't get total compliance, but I think it'd be a good start if we want to make a credible effort at arms control. But vigilantes scare me every bit as much as terrorists. We arm the police force so we don't have to rely on such people.
Secondly, I agree about the MRC. It's going NOWHERE. I think it's time us civvies [ ] just wrote something up and told them to live with it. They've had more than enough time to come up with something, and they've wasted it. Yeah, it steps on some toes, but they had a chance and blew it, I think.
Your points about arms control are well taken, and I realize the rebels obviously wouldn't comply. But I think what we're doing is muddling two separate issues. Anti-Terrorism bill hits the rebels, arms control prevents private militias. Lets just say I'm EXTREMELY uneasy about these vigilante groups walking around with Kalashnikovs. Sure, they may be well-intentioned now, but what happens if there's a change in government, or someone makes a decision they don't like? We could all suddenly be looking down the business end of those rifles. There is too much power and too much danger in the hands of these vigilantes who have no checks and answer to no one. We're one charismatic leader with a dangerous message away from the formation of another terrorist group. They've already got the weapons and the network, all they need is a new motive.
Obviously not everyone would comply, but we could include a clause offering amnesty to anyone who turns in weapons that wind up being declared illegal by a certain point. Say we make automatic weapons illegal, we'd allow any organization or group to turn theirs in, no questions asked, no punishments. Only fair. Then, after the deadline, anyone caught with such an illegal weapon (or a concentration of weapons, such as the militia situation) would get hit hard. I agree results of this preliminary registration should be strictly confidential. I'd submit results of my security force, but all my compounds are guarded by Marines, so I think I'm exempt!
Of course we won't get total compliance, but I think it'd be a good start if we want to make a credible effort at arms control. But vigilantes scare me every bit as much as terrorists. We arm the police force so we don't have to rely on such people.
Secondly, I agree about the MRC. It's going NOWHERE. I think it's time us civvies [
] just wrote something up and told them to live with it. They've had more than enough time to come up with something, and they've wasted it. Yeah, it steps on some toes, but they had a chance and blew it, I think.
If there are no objections, I am going to take the Anti-Terrorism Bill and do these things to it:
1. Delete Article III
2. Add a new article requesting that MEOSR (Most Enlightened Order of Socialist Revolution) be added to the US's "terrorist groups list"
3. Introduce it to parliament under the name "Hartwell-Langley-Morgan Anti-Terrorism Bill" (too long? How about "EUtopian Anti-Terrorism Bill") and try to persuade Jake Langley to cosponsor
1. Delete Article III
2. Add a new article requesting that MEOSR (Most Enlightened Order of Socialist Revolution) be added to the US's "terrorist groups list"
3. Introduce it to parliament under the name "Hartwell-Langley-Morgan Anti-Terrorism Bill" (too long? How about "EUtopian Anti-Terrorism Bill") and try to persuade Jake Langley to cosponsor
I haven't seen Jake Langley around in some time.
I'd hate to think that after failing to win the presidency he has retired from politics.
I'd hate to think that after failing to win the presidency he has retired from politics.
I've got the bill written up. Should I head down to the capital?
(This seems like a conference between just us two.)
(This seems like a conference between just us two.
)
Just to make sure we're on the same page: I had originally read the news story to say that the mysterious vigilantes were wielding the Kalashikovs, but after re-reading it I came to the conclusion that it was the terrorists (the members of the Most Enlightened Order of Socialist Revolution) who had the illegal weapons. These weapons were likely part of a shipment similar to those which Yuber's customs officials intercepted a few weeks before the bank robbery.
Your point is well taken, however.
I think what has happened is that where the government has failed to protect the citizenry, private citizens took up arms themselves. This, in the short term, has proven to be an effective counter to the revolutionary threat, but there are dangers in the long term, that you identify.
Though there are two separate issues here, I think they are connected. I think the establishment of a competent anti-terrorist division of our law enforcement authority would probably end the need for the vigilantes mentioned in the news. But more measures might be needed for groups with less noble motivations, so some type of arms control is likely needed.
I believe my point for this is being misunderstood. When the panic broke out on CC security forces, I thought of looking into security forces. This is not going to help the fight against terrorists and rebels, but it will provide the government with a little background on what various organisations have. I'm not sure exactly what it's use will be, but I do know it could be useful. Vice President Fitzpatrick, METI Josephus, and several members of this party have given approval and suggestioins about this. I plan to launch this within a few days, unless good reason not to is brought to my attention.
I suppose I'm just a little suspicious of why there was never any call for action against the left leaning revolutionaries, but suddenly there is a great need to protect against "private militias".
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty disturbed by rumors of the CC buying their own flying gunships and armored personnel carriers. The last thing we need are private armies.
However it seems like some of those crying out the loudest for "reigning in the vigilantes" are those, such as certain ESRP members, with less than secret sympathies for the MEOSR.
I'm obviously for keeping tanks, anti-aircraft missles, heavy artillery, etc. out of private hands.
I guess I'm just noticing what seems like a little hypocracy from some areas of the far left.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty disturbed by rumors of the CC buying their own flying gunships and armored personnel carriers. The last thing we need are private armies.
However it seems like some of those crying out the loudest for "reigning in the vigilantes" are those, such as certain ESRP members, with less than secret sympathies for the MEOSR.
I'm obviously for keeping tanks, anti-aircraft missles, heavy artillery, etc. out of private hands.
I guess I'm just noticing what seems like a little hypocracy from some areas of the far left.
Hypocrisy or good tactical sense? If you're supporting, morally or materially, an armed leftist group and the prospect of an armed rightist group emerges, wouldn't you try to get it swatted down too?
I'm not sure I'd call it hypocrisy...more like a very poor attempt at concealing their true sympathies/goals?
I'm not sure I'd call it hypocrisy...more like a very poor attempt at concealing their true sympathies/goals?
Touche'.
I don't know if the expression translates well, but can I at least say that they want to keep their cake (protect their own militant groups) but they want to eat it (a crackdown on non-left militant groups), too?
I don't know if the expression translates well, but can I at least say that they want to keep their cake (protect their own militant groups) but they want to eat it (a crackdown on non-left militant groups), too?
Anti-Terrorism
Charles,
You may want to bring your bill to the "CPR - Legislative Policy Discussion Meeting" where you can build some more support for it before a vote is taken in parliament. It looks like there's some opposition to parts of it already.
Also, this will allow Timothy to maybe discuss some of the things (if he has time between trials and criminal investigations) he was looking at when he was crafting his own proposal.
Couldn't hurt to get more people on board with your plan before a vote...
Jack
Charles,
You may want to bring your bill to the "CPR - Legislative Policy Discussion Meeting" where you can build some more support for it before a vote is taken in parliament. It looks like there's some opposition to parts of it already.
Also, this will allow Timothy to maybe discuss some of the things (if he has time between trials and criminal investigations) he was looking at when he was crafting his own proposal.
Couldn't hurt to get more people on board with your plan before a vote...
Jack
Anti-Terrorism
Charles, I'd like you to look at the MHA thread. One of the latest communique's involves an Anti-Terrorism outline and I'd like your oppinion on it.
Charles, I'd like you to look at the MHA thread. One of the latest communique's involves an Anti-Terrorism outline and I'd like your oppinion on it.
Re: Anti-Terrorism
[OOC: I wrote a letter to the editor which I must say I had tons of fun writing.]
You mean that slimey rubbish in the EUtopian Worker? Bah! Watch the Worker's next issue, and you'll see what happens to people who oppose terrorist organizations by claiming they don't exist! Bwa ha hahahahaha!
[OOC: I wrote a letter to the editor which I must say I had tons of fun writing.]
A little more seriously now:
1. The National Department of Investigation receives a tip warning of a bombing of X target.
2. The NDI investigates and intercepts a suspicious encoded letter from a suspect to another suspect.
3. The NDI cracks the code and discovers the time and place of the bombing. They then call up the Counter Revolutionary Operations Group with the info.
4. CROG agents stake out X target on the night of the bombing.
5. When bombers arrive, the CROG apprehends them and defuses the bomb.
I see these two as being covered by Article II; I wish the Department in that article would have more power to "collect and sift".
The CROG is the group I foresee in this role. Here is a typical deal as I see it:
1. The National Department of Investigation receives a tip warning of a bombing of X target.
2. The NDI investigates and intercepts a suspicious encoded letter from a suspect to another suspect.
3. The NDI cracks the code and discovers the time and place of the bombing. They then call up the Counter Revolutionary Operations Group with the info.
4. CROG agents stake out X target on the night of the bombing.
5. When bombers arrive, the CROG apprehends them and defuses the bomb.
All right...give more detail on this, please, I'm taking notes!
Yes, yes, possibly, and okay.
Mr. Morgan I think it is very difficult to tell who is 'in charge' in your proposal. Without a clearly organised organisation, who is going to determine whom to put under extra surveilance, what means to employ to gain further information, when to act on certain information. We can't get people behind bars if our intelligence service operates at random.
I say we definitly need a central processing office, handling all the information and doing essentially the things I mentioned above. I do recognise that NDI and CROG seem to fit into my proposal, but the absence of a central processing office leaves the impartiality of the secret service in doubt (because of hinting the randomness I mentioned before), and it leaves the service without the independent position from the flow of information to do a proper threat assesment.
I say we definitly need a central processing office, handling all the information and doing essentially the things I mentioned above. I do recognise that NDI and CROG seem to fit into my proposal, but the absence of a central processing office leaves the impartiality of the secret service in doubt (because of hinting the randomness I mentioned before), and it leaves the service without the independent position from the flow of information to do a proper threat assesment.
Robert & Yuber,
If you get this message, and have a chance to do so before the deadline, please register with the CRO's party registration office.
Thanks!
Jack
PS: If everyone rejoins (I know Yuber is away for awhile) the Moderate Party will the largest in Eutopia! Congratulations!
If you get this message, and have a chance to do so before the deadline, please register with the CRO's party registration office.
Thanks!
Jack
PS: If everyone rejoins (I know Yuber is away for awhile) the Moderate Party will the largest in Eutopia! Congratulations!
Michael,
I wanted to discuss this issue of the Workers Bill of Rights with you.
I didn't want to publically disagree with you after the press conference, but there are a couple of things I hope you'll take into consideration:
1)The original Worker's Bill of Rights was MUCH more generous in everything it called for. In the press statement you mention Mr. Langley but he was absent for much of the discussion leaving me as the only person willing to challenge the ECL's wish list. Even the other CC representative called for more benefits, including the mandatory break, I was successful in making sure that the employers were not required to pay for this break. A compromise bill can still be a bad bill, to be sure, but don't give Jake all the credit for trying to reign it in. After he disappeared I was able to get on the commission and succeeded, I feel in keeping things from going too far.
2) After some careful thought I don't think ENDTech will have to lay off so many employees. Although if you did it would certainly illustrate my point to the other commission members that they can price workers out of the labor market - that it can be made too expensive for employers to hire and keep good workers.
But I'm digressing. I don't think ENDTech will have to lay off so many employees because I am sure that closer review of ENDTech's books will reveal that as high tech manufacturer of arms, most of ENDTech's benefits are likely already as generous as those required under the proposal. In fact, certain provisions, such as the cap on unemployment benefits and the REDUCTION of the unemployment insurance rate to 50% for higher paid employees is sure to save ENDTech money given the number of highly-skilled workers and specialists I am sure ENDTech employs.
I don't think the homogenization of retirement rights will also adverely impact ENDTech because if these are averaged across sectors, the arms manufacturing industry would naturally be ahead of the average. Also as a government run corporation, government employees have traditionally enjoyed higher benefits. This change is intended on bringing the bottom up, not pushing the ceiling higher, so this would likely do no more than reaffirm your right to LOWER retirement benefits if you so chose. It may not be a popular move, but if the other new labor costs are to costly, you could be lower retirement benefits to the legal minimum in order to balance things out.
Double pensions one month a year seemed generous to me, but let's look at this one. Just how many pension-receiving retirees does ENDTech actually have? Would paying this small number of employees an extra month of limited pension-benefit really be that much of a burden? I'm not sure that this is something that labor is in dire need of but I don't think it's really going to bankrupt anyone either. However, if you strongly disagree, I would revisit this.
The number of breaks per 8 hour shift concerned me, but I lost this argument, winning only that the long break could be unpaid. However as ENDTech is no sweatshop, you likely already provide breaks to employees.
The two weeks vacation for someone "working only 3 months" was also something that I thought a bit generous but the commission was looking to raise this even higher. But I don't know if your description is exactly accurate. I think that if you look at the scale for earning vacation, you will see that you do not earn two weeks after the completion of three months. Three months is a probationary period after which you start to earn this time. In the course of a year you would earn the two weeks. After 3 months and one day on the job you would probably only have a day or two. And again, while these would be generous to a small business in a low-wage field, I am sure that a government corporation like ENDTech already provides competitive benefits such as these, otherwise you would lose your best workers to other engineering, communication, and hi-tech manufacturing industries around the island.
As an American expatriate, I share your thoughts on the UAW, but remember that labor has MUCH more clout here than in America. Let's put things into perspective: Our Minister of Economics, Trade and Infrastructure is the leader of Eutopia's Socialist party! By participating in the commission we were able to sensibly and constructively argue for a more reasonable and modest plan. Had we resisted every benefit they wanted they would have gone on without us and you would be looking at mandatory X-mas bonuses and all sorts of expanded powers for workers at your expense.
I don't know if any of this has convinced you to take a closer look at the proposal, but I hope you at least understand that some of us are sympathetic to your arguments. I wish you had been able to participate in the commission so as to make some of the arguments from your press release while the proposal was being debated.
If you do feel strongly about this, you can still discuss this in the CPR Legislative Policy Discussion meetings and perhaps we can agree to an amendment I could introduce?
Anyway, that's the other side of the story, for what it's worth.
Jack
I wanted to discuss this issue of the Workers Bill of Rights with you.
I didn't want to publically disagree with you after the press conference, but there are a couple of things I hope you'll take into consideration:
1)The original Worker's Bill of Rights was MUCH more generous in everything it called for. In the press statement you mention Mr. Langley but he was absent for much of the discussion leaving me as the only person willing to challenge the ECL's wish list. Even the other CC representative called for more benefits, including the mandatory break, I was successful in making sure that the employers were not required to pay for this break. A compromise bill can still be a bad bill, to be sure, but don't give Jake all the credit for trying to reign it in. After he disappeared I was able to get on the commission and succeeded, I feel in keeping things from going too far.
2) After some careful thought I don't think ENDTech will have to lay off so many employees. Although if you did it would certainly illustrate my point to the other commission members that they can price workers out of the labor market - that it can be made too expensive for employers to hire and keep good workers.
But I'm digressing. I don't think ENDTech will have to lay off so many employees because I am sure that closer review of ENDTech's books will reveal that as high tech manufacturer of arms, most of ENDTech's benefits are likely already as generous as those required under the proposal. In fact, certain provisions, such as the cap on unemployment benefits and the REDUCTION of the unemployment insurance rate to 50% for higher paid employees is sure to save ENDTech money given the number of highly-skilled workers and specialists I am sure ENDTech employs.
I don't think the homogenization of retirement rights will also adverely impact ENDTech because if these are averaged across sectors, the arms manufacturing industry would naturally be ahead of the average. Also as a government run corporation, government employees have traditionally enjoyed higher benefits. This change is intended on bringing the bottom up, not pushing the ceiling higher, so this would likely do no more than reaffirm your right to LOWER retirement benefits if you so chose. It may not be a popular move, but if the other new labor costs are to costly, you could be lower retirement benefits to the legal minimum in order to balance things out.
Double pensions one month a year seemed generous to me, but let's look at this one. Just how many pension-receiving retirees does ENDTech actually have? Would paying this small number of employees an extra month of limited pension-benefit really be that much of a burden? I'm not sure that this is something that labor is in dire need of but I don't think it's really going to bankrupt anyone either. However, if you strongly disagree, I would revisit this.
The number of breaks per 8 hour shift concerned me, but I lost this argument, winning only that the long break could be unpaid. However as ENDTech is no sweatshop, you likely already provide breaks to employees.
The two weeks vacation for someone "working only 3 months" was also something that I thought a bit generous but the commission was looking to raise this even higher. But I don't know if your description is exactly accurate. I think that if you look at the scale for earning vacation, you will see that you do not earn two weeks after the completion of three months. Three months is a probationary period after which you start to earn this time. In the course of a year you would earn the two weeks. After 3 months and one day on the job you would probably only have a day or two. And again, while these would be generous to a small business in a low-wage field, I am sure that a government corporation like ENDTech already provides competitive benefits such as these, otherwise you would lose your best workers to other engineering, communication, and hi-tech manufacturing industries around the island.
As an American expatriate, I share your thoughts on the UAW, but remember that labor has MUCH more clout here than in America. Let's put things into perspective: Our Minister of Economics, Trade and Infrastructure is the leader of Eutopia's Socialist party! By participating in the commission we were able to sensibly and constructively argue for a more reasonable and modest plan. Had we resisted every benefit they wanted they would have gone on without us and you would be looking at mandatory X-mas bonuses and all sorts of expanded powers for workers at your expense.
I don't know if any of this has convinced you to take a closer look at the proposal, but I hope you at least understand that some of us are sympathetic to your arguments. I wish you had been able to participate in the commission so as to make some of the arguments from your press release while the proposal was being debated.
If you do feel strongly about this, you can still discuss this in the CPR Legislative Policy Discussion meetings and perhaps we can agree to an amendment I could introduce?
Anyway, that's the other side of the story, for what it's worth.
Jack
Jack,
I appreciate your incredible thoroughness in going over this with me here. I'm not incredibly concerned with this bill breaking my back so to speak, but I do think that it will price workers out of the labor market across a number of sectors, and is therefore a bad bill. While it's a compromise, it's still one that defeats its own central purpose and that of the government, and to be honest I felt the need to display that in the only fashion I can. I only have so much political muscle to flex, and I flexed it. I'm speaking more for business owners all over Eutopia who were almost entirely unrepresented at this panel than for my firm specifically.
Will we be hit that badly? No. We're nationalized, and we're the arms contractor for crying out loud, we can always find money someplace. We might have to tighten our belts and scrap a few projects as well as lay off some employees, but it wouldn't be a death knell as long as I start getting some business someplace. Production on the Viking and Gorgon would certainly lag, and my production capabilities would droop as well. However, I think this bill will be incredibly detrimental to workers and employers across Eutopia, particularly in the private sector, and I do think that it would effectively make us the least attractive place on Earth to set up a new business.
On to other bits:
Sorry for not crediting you enough with attempting to reign in the bill. But as Jake was the only business rep there, and one of my main points was this was government in a vacuum, I kind of had to focus on him a bit.
Yes, we're at the already high end of the benefits spectrum. And as such, we'll be dragging a lot of little businesses up when my scientists call it a career. However, the fact that I'm already giving out such generous benefits packages doesn't necessarily put me in the position to offer even better ones. Something that may have slipped your attention is that a corporation such as mine, with such a close link to the military and with so many skilled laborers and upper management actually has a rather large pension plan, and a generous one at that. That extra month for no good reason whatsoever is, while again not fatal to my business, going to certainly "cramp my style" so to speak.
We're not a sweatshop. As such, employees get a half hour break, usually for meals, though they can divide it up over the day if they like for cigarettes and snacks. We don't stop people from using the restrooms either. But now I have to give all my employees another 20 minutes? My main question to this segment, like to much of the bill, was "why?"
I think the language on the "paid leave" portion of the bill needs to be tightened up. I can see someone who wants their two weeks after 91 days suing to get it and having a chance. Besides that, this is incredibly and needlessly generous. And does it apply to part-time help? Full-time? Seasonal? Doesn't say.
ENDTech's current vacation package does not award ANY paid leave before the first YEAR of full-time work. After that, you get 1 week paid. Then, you can get up to three weeks paid leave depending on how long you've worked. As I understand it, this is how many workplaces in America (the worker's paradise) do it, even in areas with strong union influence. I have family in St. Louis that owns a restaurant, and they had to work this deal out with the Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees local union (in a STRONG union town) and this is basically the leave package they wound up with. This is reasonable and competitive, and I don't mind giving someone two weeks off when they've put in at least 52 already. But 12? Come on.
Apparently the Socialists think money grows on trees, because the original bill would literally have put businesses across the island out of business. Perhaps this is why the communist farce didn't do so well?
In closing (finally) I think that this bill is fatally flawed, and will have a broad detrimental effect on business around the island, including my own (though admittedly not as bad as I've portrayed). Our current workers are not in any kind of "plight" and this bill was unnecessary from the start. And if the Socialists threw one together alone, would it ever pass Parliament? What I see here is a compromise that is worse than if the bill had just been allowed to die from lack of support due to the outrageous demands of the ESRP. This compromise is making possible the passage of a bill that is unneccessary and detrimental to our country's economic health. I don't think any amendment short of a "poison pill" to insure it never passed would fix this, to be honest. I appreciate your explanation and truly have tried to look at it from any side I can, but all I see is a shot in the chops to businesses around the island.
Michael
I appreciate your incredible thoroughness in going over this with me here. I'm not incredibly concerned with this bill breaking my back so to speak, but I do think that it will price workers out of the labor market across a number of sectors, and is therefore a bad bill. While it's a compromise, it's still one that defeats its own central purpose and that of the government, and to be honest I felt the need to display that in the only fashion I can. I only have so much political muscle to flex, and I flexed it. I'm speaking more for business owners all over Eutopia who were almost entirely unrepresented at this panel than for my firm specifically.
Will we be hit that badly? No. We're nationalized, and we're the arms contractor for crying out loud, we can always find money someplace. We might have to tighten our belts and scrap a few projects as well as lay off some employees, but it wouldn't be a death knell as long as I start getting some business someplace. Production on the Viking and Gorgon would certainly lag, and my production capabilities would droop as well. However, I think this bill will be incredibly detrimental to workers and employers across Eutopia, particularly in the private sector, and I do think that it would effectively make us the least attractive place on Earth to set up a new business.
On to other bits:
Sorry for not crediting you enough with attempting to reign in the bill. But as Jake was the only business rep there, and one of my main points was this was government in a vacuum, I kind of had to focus on him a bit.
Yes, we're at the already high end of the benefits spectrum. And as such, we'll be dragging a lot of little businesses up when my scientists call it a career. However, the fact that I'm already giving out such generous benefits packages doesn't necessarily put me in the position to offer even better ones. Something that may have slipped your attention is that a corporation such as mine, with such a close link to the military and with so many skilled laborers and upper management actually has a rather large pension plan, and a generous one at that. That extra month for no good reason whatsoever is, while again not fatal to my business, going to certainly "cramp my style" so to speak.
We're not a sweatshop. As such, employees get a half hour break, usually for meals, though they can divide it up over the day if they like for cigarettes and snacks. We don't stop people from using the restrooms either. But now I have to give all my employees another 20 minutes? My main question to this segment, like to much of the bill, was "why?"
I think the language on the "paid leave" portion of the bill needs to be tightened up. I can see someone who wants their two weeks after 91 days suing to get it and having a chance. Besides that, this is incredibly and needlessly generous. And does it apply to part-time help? Full-time? Seasonal? Doesn't say.
ENDTech's current vacation package does not award ANY paid leave before the first YEAR of full-time work. After that, you get 1 week paid. Then, you can get up to three weeks paid leave depending on how long you've worked. As I understand it, this is how many workplaces in America (the worker's paradise) do it, even in areas with strong union influence. I have family in St. Louis that owns a restaurant, and they had to work this deal out with the Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees local union (in a STRONG union town) and this is basically the leave package they wound up with. This is reasonable and competitive, and I don't mind giving someone two weeks off when they've put in at least 52 already. But 12? Come on.
Apparently the Socialists think money grows on trees, because the original bill would literally have put businesses across the island out of business. Perhaps this is why the communist farce didn't do so well?
In closing (finally) I think that this bill is fatally flawed, and will have a broad detrimental effect on business around the island, including my own (though admittedly not as bad as I've portrayed). Our current workers are not in any kind of "plight" and this bill was unnecessary from the start. And if the Socialists threw one together alone, would it ever pass Parliament? What I see here is a compromise that is worse than if the bill had just been allowed to die from lack of support due to the outrageous demands of the ESRP. This compromise is making possible the passage of a bill that is unneccessary and detrimental to our country's economic health. I don't think any amendment short of a "poison pill" to insure it never passed would fix this, to be honest. I appreciate your explanation and truly have tried to look at it from any side I can, but all I see is a shot in the chops to businesses around the island.
Michael
Understood.
I've noted your official comments (from the press release) in the commission and have asked them to look at two specific points, but I believe the consensus will be that they have completed their work and the bill, as a compromise, will go forward.
Just to clarify one thing, though: I truly don't think the paid leave benefit will work as you state. It was intended so that after a probationary period leave time accumulates based on time worked. Thus, a worker would NOT have two weeks (10 working days) off after the probationary period ended, they could accumulate up to ten days of leave time, gaining so many days for so many weeks worked. So, for example, seasonal employees would be never receive 10 days of vacation, because if they are seasonal they wouldn't work the many weeks needed to accumulate that much time. Likely they would barely receive any paid leave due to the length of the probationary period.
This whole issue brings up the lack of business representation in Eutopian politics. At one time we had some groups dedicated to Commerce and Business but they have long since faded away. Though ENDTech is a government corporation, and not truly in the private sector, your leadership could be helpful in reinvigorating some sort of Business Roundtable or other organization that could serve as a voice for business so that it can receive a fair hearing with labor in these issues.
Just a thought,
Jack
I've noted your official comments (from the press release) in the commission and have asked them to look at two specific points, but I believe the consensus will be that they have completed their work and the bill, as a compromise, will go forward.
Just to clarify one thing, though: I truly don't think the paid leave benefit will work as you state. It was intended so that after a probationary period leave time accumulates based on time worked. Thus, a worker would NOT have two weeks (10 working days) off after the probationary period ended, they could accumulate up to ten days of leave time, gaining so many days for so many weeks worked. So, for example, seasonal employees would be never receive 10 days of vacation, because if they are seasonal they wouldn't work the many weeks needed to accumulate that much time. Likely they would barely receive any paid leave due to the length of the probationary period.
This whole issue brings up the lack of business representation in Eutopian politics. At one time we had some groups dedicated to Commerce and Business but they have long since faded away. Though ENDTech is a government corporation, and not truly in the private sector, your leadership could be helpful in reinvigorating some sort of Business Roundtable or other organization that could serve as a voice for business so that it can receive a fair hearing with labor in these issues.
Just a thought,
Jack
- Status