Workers' Bill of Rights Bill (Law'd)

[Purple State]

Feel free to ask questions about this bill. I think it does an adequate job of protecting workers and business while leaving flexibility for the Senate.

[Purple State]

If a business cannot profitably support the number of employees it has at the minimum living wage level, it shouldn't fall on the government to prop up the business. Small businesses need to make sound staffing decisions based on expected earnings and if businesses don't make good decisions, they shouldn't rely on government hand-outs. It would be easily abusable with business owners hiring family members, and using the government assistance to pay them.

That's why the OAL has discretion over acceptance of the applications. Its not a free hand out. It is really for current businesses that would be detrimentally affected by the clause or new businesses that are viable, but require enough employees to operate and cannot hire at the livable wage.

    I believe the bone of contention that we ran into previously was section 2, clause 2. Specifically, leaving the determination of a "living minimum wage" up to the OAL & the Senate could lead to a substantial increase in the minimum wage in instances of the government being controlled by an excessively leftist bunch. This could have the effect of inducing inflation & forcing the subsidization of a large proportion of businesses.

     If there is no opposition, I would prefer to cap the ability of the OAL to change the minimum wage based on the rate of inflation (or just outright tie it to inflation).

We can include a provision making the OAL's chief Senate confirmed by a supermajority? Or simply state it is non-partisan.

[Purple State]

    I believe the bone of contention that we ran into previously was section 2, clause 2. Specifically, leaving the determination of a "living minimum wage" up to the OAL & the Senate could lead to a substantial increase in the minimum wage in instances of the government being controlled by an excessively leftist bunch. This could have the effect of inducing inflation & forcing the subsidization of a large proportion of businesses.

     If there is no opposition, I would prefer to cap the ability of the OAL to change the minimum wage based on the rate of inflation (or just outright tie it to inflation).

We can include a provision making the OAL's chief Senate confirmed by a supermajority? Or simply state it is non-partisan.

     Maybe it would be possible to require that the OAL's chief Senate consist of one leftist, one centrist, & one rightist. I think ensuring that it is not subject to total control by either side would probably be the easiest way to prevent abuse of that particular clause.

I had thought of that and it seems plausible. I see no problems if you want to write up language I will accept as friendly.

[Purple State]

I don't disagree with the bill in principle....and I like parts of it, but I will oppose any attempt to establish an artificial "living wage" as described in this bill. It just leaves much to much room for abuse, in my opinion.

(I won't intrude on any other Senate business other than when they're of questionable legality, promise!)

I mentioned to PS that I expected that would be ripped out as soon as it was introduced. Consider me psychic.

Oh, I expected this when I wrote the bill. Living wage tends to be one of those contentious issues. But I would like some sort of provision for wage security, whether it is by a living wage or some other name.

[Purple State]

I'm not too big a fan of any minimum wage legislation....as the principle behind it is not very different from a "living wage".

The only difference is that a "minimum wage" is clearly defined as $xx.xx/hour, whereas a "living wage" could be redefined according to the opinion of whatever group responsible.

Principally speaking, a minimum wage doesn't make very much sense if it's under the amount one needs (on average) to live properly. (Although "properly" is also pretty subjective).

It's a really tricky issue.

Which is exactly why I would like to set a living wage, one that actually makes a difference, while giving the power to set that with a separate, non-partisan group, the OAL. It also makes sure that businesses that may genuinely suffer, despite a robust business model, will have help from the government.

[Purple State]

Would it be better if we change the wording to the following:

2. A living wage for workers shall be strongly encouraged. Such standards shall be determined and reported to the public by the OAL according to the most exact level of data collected.
     a. Businesses that wish to enact a living wage, but are unable to afford this salary, may apply to the government for assistance. Applications shall be reviewed and either accepted or denied by the OAL.

[Purple State]

I don't want to be a pain here....but we're still subsidizing jobs that wouldn't be there otherwise. I doubt very many companies would reject state assistance to pay their employees more. It doesn't change much in effect.

The government wouldn't be subsidizing willy nilly. It would determine what the business could pay, if the business model was viable, etc.

[Purple State]

I don't want to be a pain here....but we're still subsidizing jobs that wouldn't be there otherwise. I doubt very many companies would reject state assistance to pay their employees more. It doesn't change much in effect.

The government wouldn't be subsidizing willy nilly. It would determine what the business could pay, if the business model was viable, etc.

That's quite a bit for the government to determine, in my opinion...

The company won't need to provide a living wage if it doesn't want to be put through the process. It would essentially be like an audit of the company, with OAL experts advising on a case-by-case basis. I think this is a fair compromise.

I will accept my amendment (below) as friendly so at least we are working with a more acceptable version than the original:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

My apologies, I didn't notice you edited your post to include that. With rewording, I will accept the following amendment as friendly:

     To be inserted in Section 1, Clause 1:

a. All decisions made by the OAL shall be rendered by a three-member panel consisting of one liberal, one centrist, and one conservative member. The determination of a candidate's political leanings shall be made by the Secretary of Forum Affairs with the consent of all major party chairmen. For purposes of this statute, a major party shall be defined as any party with a member in federal government.
b. OAL panelists shall be appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the Senate. The Senate shall have the power to confirm and remove OAL panelists by a two-thirds majority vote.

[Purple State]

I will hear the objection and refrain from accepting the amendment as friendly.

So these will be fantasy people. And I am open to adjusting the system to make it as non-partisan as possible. Would you like to write something up?

[Purple State]

Nay

I leave for a day to go home and this is what I see? I knew when I wrote the bill that this would be the main sticking point and while I believe it is good, I wouldn't want to hold the bill up over it. As the amendment has enough votes to pass, I would like to call for cloture after this amendment.

[Purple State]

Aye

[Purple State]

Resounding Aye.

[Purple State]

Wiki'd

Was thinking of PMing you after I mentioned it in PiT/HW's campaign thread. Figured you would get there.