-
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
Seeing as their as been a laspe in the activity of the GA I will once again remind you that we have not decided on the fate of Energy Efficenty bill. Here is it to refresh your memeroies.
Since there hasn't been any objections to the energy efficiency bill, I will second it. Assuming there aren't any problems with the energy effciency bill, and we are ready to vote on it, I would like to propose another bill for consideration.
I see some potential problems with part A. Imagine this:
I own casinos. A group of religious activists starts coming into my facilities every day and actively discouraging gambling because it violates their religious principles. I start losing money, so I prevent them from doing this. They sue me because I'm preventing their free practice of religion. I now have to fight a legal battle and my reputation is permanently tarnished.
The bill needs some type of restraint on public expression in private places.
I own casinos. A group of religious activists starts coming into my facilities every day and actively discouraging gambling because it violates their religious principles. I start losing money, so I prevent them from doing this. They sue me because I'm preventing their free practice of religion. I now have to fight a legal battle and my reputation is permanently tarnished.
The bill needs some type of restraint on public expression in private places.
I think that by enforcing with the law equality and love between different comunities, we would probably get the opposite result.
So i'm not supporting that law, both A and B points.
So i'm not supporting that law, both A and B points.
The idea isn't to have all the different ethnic and political groups come together in a giant hippie love fest. The idea is to make discrimination illegal. For instance, if a group wanted to protest gambling, they would be allowed to protest in a public place across from a casino. They wouldn't be allowed to protest on the casino grounds and hurt the owners business. This is more about protection for individuals. For example, if a janitor at the casino is fired or discriminated against because they wear a cross or pray during their breaks, that would be wrong.
But you proposal doesn't really offer explicit protection to such a janitor.
I think we need a section C to deal specifically with employment. Feel free to word it however you like, but I was thinking of something like this:
C) Disrimination in the workplace will be prohibited. No employee shall be hired, terminated, or otherwise dealt with on the basis of race or religion.
I think we need a section C to deal specifically with employment. Feel free to word it however you like, but I was thinking of something like this:
C) Disrimination in the workplace will be prohibited. No employee shall be hired, terminated, or otherwise dealt with on the basis of race or religion.
Phalanx said:
That sounds good. It's definitely in the spirit of what I was trying to propose. What if we wrote the law so part A was the part C you propose and then part B stays the same? That way discrimination in the workplace will be prohibited as would any literature advocating violence against a particular religious or ethnic group.
What do you think?
The point of Per O'Floinn is acceptable for me, and also the modification you suggest. My main problem was with your A point, in my view it seemed a bit too "large" and unspecific to be applicated.
Alright, given the apparent consensus between the UMP and ESA on the modified PRRFA, and the lack of objection from CUE, it is now up for voting.
O'Floinn, slightly puzzled about the ESA's silence at CUE's journey into traditionally socialist territory, stands up to speak.
I'm slightly in doubt as to what this bill seeks to accomplish. We've never had a problem with labor unions in Eutopia, other than a minor altercation a couple of terms back, and it had a quick, peaceful resolution.
Anyway, actual issues with the bill:
1) Perhaps change in leadership should be leadership election. If unions are happy with current leadership, they shouldn't be required to change it.
2) Is it necessary we dictate the electoral method they have to use?
3) Again, we're dictating.
4) Looks fine.
I'm slightly in doubt as to what this bill seeks to accomplish. We've never had a problem with labor unions in Eutopia, other than a minor altercation a couple of terms back, and it had a quick, peaceful resolution.
Anyway, actual issues with the bill:
1) Perhaps change in leadership should be leadership election. If unions are happy with current leadership, they shouldn't be required to change it.
2) Is it necessary we dictate the electoral method they have to use?
3) Again, we're dictating.
4) Looks fine.
Very well then, point taken, though Article 3 I will not forsake. What do our Socialist comrades have to propose. I am open to any suggestions.
Perhaps instead of simply dictating an electoral process, we should make labor unions certify their method with the CRO.
Then any union with unsatisfactory methods would be shut down by the CRO if they refused to reform.
Then any union with unsatisfactory methods would be shut down by the CRO if they refused to reform.
Very well then. How about this: Union charters shall be examined by the courts, on the recommendations of the CRO.
Do we really need to drag the judicial system into this?
The whole purpose of the CRO is to hold elections and monitor/register official organizations. Unless you have some hidden rationale for arbitrarily taking supervision of Unions away from the CRO and putting them under the courts, I see no reason why we should.
The whole purpose of the CRO is to hold elections and monitor/register official organizations. Unless you have some hidden rationale for arbitrarily taking supervision of Unions away from the CRO and putting them under the courts, I see no reason why we should.
Very well then. If the
CRO can take care of it by itself, so be it. I am trying to reduce corruption in the Unions, that is all. That is the 'hidden rationale' behind this law.
CRO can take care of it by itself, so be it. I am trying to reduce corruption in the Unions, that is all. That is the 'hidden rationale' behind this law.
I think that not can the CRO take care of it, but the CRO has been taking care of it.
As I said, I am unaware of any rampant corruption in the Unions.
But, perhaps the ESA representative can shed some light on the subject. After all, mutual support between the main socialist party and the main labor union has been virtually unbroken in Eutopian political history. Per Olsen, have you anything to say on the LEIA?
As I said, I am unaware of any rampant corruption in the Unions.
But, perhaps the ESA representative can shed some light on the subject. After all, mutual support between the main socialist party and the main labor union has been virtually unbroken in Eutopian political history. Per Olsen, have you anything to say on the LEIA?
- Status