SB 2018-175: The Federal Government as a Model Employer Act (Rejected)

[Mr. Reactionary]

Can we get a cost estimate? This wont be cheap.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Can we get a cost estimate? This wont be cheap.

It's funny you would mention cost, which was one of my concerns when Pericles first brought up this idea to me. However, according to this article, cost might not be as big of a problem as you'd think:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't speak for what the GM department will find, but in real life this hasn't been a huge burden at all.

I imagine the GM department will have fewer biases than the Center for Soros Progress.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I am inclined to oppose this for the following 10 reasons:

1.) It will be very expensive and we have a deficit.

2.) It crowds out new/minority owned firms.

3.) It offers unnecessary graft and kickbacks to unions just because they are unions.

4.) It appears to engage in viewpoint discrimination regarding funding, with vague language too.

5.) It ignores the realities of cost of living differences, and will disproportionately hurt Southern businesses.

6.) It penalizes contractors in fields where a stable, 40 hr a week job may not be possible given the nature of the work.

7.) Parts conflict with existing law, particularly the list of minimal essential coverage which deviates from the minimal essential coverage required by Atlascare.

8.) It purports to offer what appears to be an unconstitutional legislative veto in 2-2(c).

9.) It allows absolutely no time for the bureaucracy to adjust to such a drastic change. It's not as though all government contractors are in a database which track working conditions. All contracts would have to be canceled to ensure compliance which would shut government procurement down for months at best.

10.) Possible exemption is solely limited to cost and not other factors such as potential conflicts of interests.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'm definitely questioning this bill, especially because of the Minimum wage section.

As far as I know, the South lacks a minimum wage at this point, Lincoln's minimum wage only exceeds 14$ in the cities, and I'm unsure on the exact Federal Minimum wage, but I'm pretty sure it's below 14$ as well.  Can someone tell me Fremont's minimum wage as well?  I'd like to know if this bill is going to only preference one Region's companies and Cities, and even if it doesn't, I don't believe that the minimum wage requirement should be that high.

Governor Dip was kind enough to point me to the Real Living Wage Act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As an aside, I wish to note that because of the hardships of that particular federal law, the Southern Region has been unable to implement the Minimum Wage Commission Act, which would provide for minimum wages set by cost of living on a county-by-county determination. We believe this would be the best way to boost wages where needed without pricing out workers in lower cost areas. I will likely be introducing a bill soon to allow the Southern Region to opt-out and implement our law.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I hereby request unanimous consent to proceed to a final vote on this bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Boo!

[Mr. Reactionary]

I motion that we proceed to a final vote on this bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I withdraw my motion for a vote.

I hereby motion for cloture to end debate.

My bad yall.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay