HB 1364: Wage Insurance Act (Passed)

[Wikipedia delenda est]

So this is a legal bill, but is there a reason to have this when social security already exists?

There is indeed. Welfare is a bare minimum, and I believe that it is only right that people get the money they deserve after being laid off, especially considering that many firings are entirely without justification. Also, since many of these layoffs occur due to trade deals negotiated by the government, the government has an obligation to look after people who those trade deals leave behind.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Did we remove unemployment benefits in Atlasia? How is this different? I also would think we need to define "laid off" in this bill as being fired without cause.

My apologies, I accidentally made some errors while writing the (admittedly rushed) first draft of this bill. I'm going to edit the bill to make its differences between UI more clear, as well as introduce a definition of "laid off".

[Wikipedia delenda est]

The sponsor stated that he is going to introduce an amendment which has yet to be seen, so if a motion to vote is made now I will object.

No motion for a final vote was held. And the changes were already included in the House Legislation Introduction thread.

Indeed. In effect, I modified the bill so that instead of being basically unemployment insurance, the insurance is instead given to make up the difference in wages when a lower-paying job is accepted.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Sis snapped!

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Does anyone else have anything to add? If not, then I will motion for a final vote.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

This bill really does nothing to solve real problems.

Then do you have any suggestions to improve it? You can always propose an amendment if you find the current bill unsatisfactory.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I don't think this is necessary. I don't see why someone who loses their 50,000 a year job and gets a 45,000 a year job afterwards is entitled to recovering the difference. We already have social security.

It is indeed necessary. What may seem like a small sum to you can have large impacts on people's lives. Since social security does not cover wage losses due to changing jobs, and since many of these job changes result in government-negotiated trade deals, the government has a responsibility to repay wages to those left behind by such trade deals.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I move for a final vote.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

The motion is withdrawn. I'll try again to find out how much such a program would cost, but if I still can't find an amount I'll amend the bill so that the GM Department is responsible for cost analysis rather than the Department of Internal Affairs.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I withdraw my previous amendment.
I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Wikipedia delenda est]

"within the federal government" is a bit vague, no?

Game logistics aside, I support this bill.

Basically, it just means that it would be a federally mandated program. I thought it best to remove all references to the Department of Internal Affairs given the objections raised here.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I move for a final vote.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I previously said the amendment was friendly, but upon further review the time changes proposed are rather arbitrary, while the original lengths of time were adapted from real wage insurance proposals. So I object.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Nay

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I move for a final vote.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Aye