Agricultural Policy Act of 2015 (Final vote)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TNF

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

So we're going to do some Mao policies. Yikes.

[TNF]

Certainly nothing Maoist about giving farmers the right to collectively bargain and distribute their produce for a fair price.

[Cranberry]

Now, I will not start with calling this necessarily maoist, but I do have my points with this bill.
Firstly, the basic idea behind this bill is one I see myself supporting. In Austria, similar ideas, that are cooperatives of individual farmers, which are to an extent often state-backed, exist since the mid-19th century, helping farmers by providing micro-credits, lending out equipment, and giving farmers better prizes for seeds as well as products.

The thing now obviously is, that farming in Austria is structured fundamentally differently than in Atlasia, especially in my region of Austria. Here, the vast majority of agricultural products, especially with cattle farming, are still produced by smaller family farms, often with both farmers working in another job and farming in one. I understand that in Atlasia, the structure of farming is very different, so an approach different from the Austrian is needed.

Let's go through this bill now step-by-step, shall we? Firstly, as I said, I like the idea behind this so-called "AAA". I do however have my problems with establishing an all-Atlasian, governmental organization for this purpose. In farming, famers often face regional or local problems or difficulties, such who could more effectively be tackled by locally-based organizations. Secondly, I do not really see a need for running such a project by the government. Farmers themselves often know their problems better than any government agency could, and as such, I would propose we rephrase 1.1 totally, establishing that we encourage formations of cooperatives or unions if you want to of (family) farmers that would have the same workfield as this AAA.
1.2 equally has some problems for me, in effect this "a return on their product equal to the wage of the average skilled worker". These excess products mentioned here will undeniably vary by great lengths among each other, and receiving just this average regional wage for products that on the free market could score far higher prices is not really that an incentive for farmers.
1.3 is no less than bullying hard-working family farmers into cooperative farming, methods that are not really existent in practice - I would guess for a reason - and I can see no situation in which I would support such.

I do like the other sections, my only point here is section 2, the definition of a working farmer in particular. I do not know if the Senator is familiar with the practices of family farming, but it will just not be possible for most farmers to not employ a farmhand of other during harvest time, for example - there is however no reason to think whatsoever that those farmers are any less members of the working class - which the Senator I believe wants to "empower" with said bill - than any other farmer who falls into this definition. There is certainly room for improvement in this definition.

I do think that something workable and agreeable for everyone can be crafted from this bill, and I am eager to hear the sponsor's responses as well as the other Senators' input.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There are some elements I could see myself supporting, but it needs to be scaled back dramatically.

[Cranberry]

Since the sponsor has not yet responded to my criticism/questions/input, and this will be my last day before a week-long LOA, I guess I will have to offer something to spur debate and to offer my point of views here for when I am absent. I will thus present the following, which is not intended as an amendment, rather as an impetus for debate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As said, this is not an amendment, rather an impetus to debate. I do understand if the sponsor is not so happy with such fundamental changes to his bill being offered, yet, I will be absent the following week, so I would want to get my points across here, and such is the most effective way, I thought.

Furthermore, if possible, I would request the Senators to hold off of any final vote until I have returned; this topic is of great interest to me, and I would like to bring myself into this debate a bit more. Thank you.

[TNF]

I object to the proposed amendment.

[Cranberry]

I object to the proposed amendment.

This is not an amendment, and never intended to be one, rather an impetus for debate... Good to see you all read my post

It even says "not an amendment" on top of the quote...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If farmers want to start a cooperative on their own, let them. I don't see why we have to push them to it and create the framework ourselves.

I think the suggested changes would be good.

While we're talking about farming, I'm also a big fan of agritourism if it's done properly. It's a good way to connect the people working at sites of production with the people living at sites of consumption. It can also open markets for local food (and the diversification is great for farmers). The Pacific Stimulus I authored last summer included a farm tourism piece, but I think it could find a home here as well for something more permanent.

[Senator Cris]

The changes proposed by Senator Cranberry are right and sensible for me and I encourage him to present it as an amendment.

[Talleyrand]

I'm not a big fan of section 2 either; I feel like it could put so called working farmers at a competitive disadvantage and ultimately pull many of them out of business.

[TNF]

I'm not a big fan of section 2 either; I feel like it could put so called working farmers at a competitive disadvantage and ultimately pull many of them out of business.

How would giving farmers the right to form unions put them at a disadvantage?

[Talleyrand]

I'm not a big fan of section 2 either; I feel like it could put so called working farmers at a competitive disadvantage and ultimately pull many of them out of business.

How would giving farmers the right to form unions put them at a disadvantage?

Don't you think the food distributors would then be far more likely to seek business from the major farms   (i.e. those with farmhands and with many paid workers)?

That said, giving them the right to bargain is a different thing than forcing them to join a union, so that's why I haven't proposed an amendment to remove that section.

[Flake]

Just going to come in here and say that Cranberry's post is on the nose, and I think the version that he put forward (even if its not an amendment) should be brought forward as an amendment to TNF's bill. I'm concerned with much of what TNF proposed, namely the big jump of government involvement in agricultural activity (speaking as someone who passed a bill banning the use/production/sale of quite a few pesticides in my region).

[TNF]

I'm not a big fan of section 2 either; I feel like it could put so called working farmers at a competitive disadvantage and ultimately pull many of them out of business.

How would giving farmers the right to form unions put them at a disadvantage?

Don't you think the food distributors would then be far more likely to seek business from the major farms   (i.e. those with farmhands and with many paid workers)?

That said, giving them the right to bargain is a different thing than forcing them to join a union, so that's why I haven't proposed an amendment to remove that section.

I'm okay with adjusting the nature of that section if need be. The idea was to give collective bargaining rights specifically to those who don't employ others, which would be keeping in line with our general idea of collective bargaining as being a process for workers. Farmers who don't employ anyone else have more in common with workers than do big time farmers who employ a lot of farmhands, who are closer to capitalists by nature.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Food distributors and food processors are not employers, so I don't understand why collective bargaining is necessary. Individual farms can bargain with buyers however they see fit, and enter into a contract they like. If they don't like it, they can sell their products somewhere else. If they can't find something better, well... that's what the market has priced their products at. Organizing doesn't seem to me like it would achieve much either because then it would remove the power of individual farmers to be competitive and innovate (assuming each member would be required to charge the same amount for the same products).

I'm afraid I just don't see the point, other than "unions!!1111" This isn't what agriculture is in Atlasia, and I don't think it's what it should be, either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Farmers unions do exist in some countries but they aren't really trade unions; they generally function more as industrial lobbying organisations. The NFU in Great Britain also does insurance (presumably other farmers unions do the same). Farmers (even tenant farmers) work for themselves, remember. Historically that was actually how a 'farmer' was defined. What you're really arguing for are agricultural marketing co-operatives.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Incidentally, unless you are proposing compulsion you would have a hard time getting many people onto the government schemes proposed here. The incentives aren't there.

[Cranberry]

And I had the fear you would close this up before I return.

Anyway, I can only reiterate my points, echoing one made by the Attorney General: this bill as it stands is simply not fit for, I dare even say ignorant of, the current state of Atlasian agriculture. As such, I will work over this impetus of mine a bit this afternoon, and thereafter officially offering it.

[Talleyrand]

Windjammer, can we get a vote on this amendment?

[Cranberry]

Not yet offered, so no.

To counter this, here is a version that is suited to be proposed as an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Opinions hereon? I doubt that the sponsor will like this version bill, but I shall sure hope that this version is more feasible with reality and a majority of Atlasians and Senators...

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[Cranberry]

Senators? Your opinion on this?

[TNF]

Amendment is unfriendly

[Cranberry]

Which is what I asumed