YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
Posts: 15,722
Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2019, 11:32:26 PM » |
|
Okay, first of all thanks for replying Reactionary. The past few days hasn’t been easy for the game, in which we saw a Fremont MP resign, resulting in a SOS opening while we had while the senator who sponsored this bill is getting BTFO in a Labor primary while there was an unexpected change in the Fed nominee for president and all these take time and energy and require sufficient attention even if for a short while. So I appreciate that someone spent a sufficient amount of time and energy for many players and I’d be surprised if Reactionary wasn’t one of them to a certain extent.
So, with that aside let’s get to the bill. People in this game don’t have high attention spans so I’m not really a fan of long bills that are complex or have many parts to it that some here may not fully understand. So, on principle bills like this even if the substance is good is something I’m weary of. I’d point out that IRL corporate Democrats love to talk about equal pay for equal work because it sounds good yet doesn’t piss their Wall Street donors off.
Principles about the process aside, let me give my thoughts on the changes.
Section 4 - seems kind of vague but it’s not the end of the world if that gets included in the final bill.
Section 5 - tend to agree with Reactionary but I’d see why someone would be in favor of some broad training of sorts for disadvantaged woman to at least make them aware of the current pay problems.
Section 6 - Considering it’s not a lot of money I’m not personally opposed to it per se but it’s more the kind of thing I’d expect to debate on the Fremont Parliament floor and not in Congress.
Section 7 - see Section 6
Section 8 - useless, at least for small businesses, but I can see why someone would favor making large corporations do this although fairness can be challenged.
Section 9 - useless except for maybe the wage discrimination cases bit but let’s just say it risks opening the doors to abuse as well
Section 10 - probably doesn’t belong in this bill but given the tax system is in limbo in a bill in the Senate I’d be okay if we kept that in the House version.
Now, there’s a number of ways to move forward we this. We could have a principle vote or a formal vote on each section except maybe the last. Or we could just scrap the Senate version although by honoring the earlier principle listed in my second paragraph. Or we can continue further debate. What I don’t want to see is another 5-3 vote; it’s just not good for the game to blindly ram stuff through on party line votes. There’s enough of that IRL; I play this game as an escape from IRL politics after all. Now to be fair, this isn’t all of Labor fault and I’d argue the attempt to introduce an amendment of the failed Senate amendment to not be ideal because the sponsor and honestly introducing a separate bill just creates confusion with the headers that will just create more work for me. Or for that matter the useless attempt to table a bill after an honest mistake from the sponsor that he‘s already fixed.
|
