Mideast Assembly Thread

[Kaine for Senate '18]

NAY

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Abstain

[big bad fab]

AYE

[Psychic Octopus]

AYE

[big bad fab]

Labor Protection Act

Article I:  Any corporation found in violation of National or Regional Labor laws shall pay the most expensive of the following fines:
   (1A): A corporate tax increase of 20% for the following tax year;
   (2A): A forfeiture of tax benefits and subsidies for the following two tax years;
   (3A): One Hundred Thousand Dollars to each employee who is able to successfully prove a legitimate labor rights violation to either the Mideast Superior Judge, or another appropriate Magistrate.

Article II:  This legislation will take effect immediately, and will be effective for all labor complaints filed on or after January 1, 2010.

I have several objections on this proposal, which, for the moment, would result in a Nay vote from me:

- taxes can't be used as fines, as sanctions, whatever the good justification of the rule you want to see applied;
taxes are financial contributions that the people, via their assembly, agree on paying to pay for some public needs;
so clause 1A should be removed.

- in clause 2A, the forfeiture of tax benefits seems really complicated: our tax code is really "heavy" and complex; please don't make it more;
as for forfeiture of subsidies, I agree on the principle, but if EVERY violation of Labour Laws, whatever its importance, results in a forfeiture of 2 years, it's not proportionate;

- in clause 3A, it's not the Law which should fix the amount, but the Courts.

Your aim, my fellow Assemblyman, is good. But I can't agree on these means. And I'm sorry not to propose amendments, as they would be too numerous and would probably too far away from what you want. I prefer to let you think if you can put forward some changes yourself.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

My intent was not to have this version passed.  My intent is to begin substantive debate on some form of legislation that will help curb labor abuses, which has been specially noted by the GM as a problem in our Region.

In fact, I invite the GM himself to address us on what he deems necessary to eliminate these abuses.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What BBF said, plus, while technically legal in the Mideast, I would discourage passing an ex post facto law.  (That's probably something we should amend).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The vote is on the motion to remove Article II from the Labor Protection Act.  This will be a 24 hour vote.

[Katherine Harris is legit]

I Nominate Hashemite to HAVE

[Kaine for Senate '18]

AYE.

[big bad fab]

AYE

Mr. Speaker, could you send the previous bill we've voted to our Governor ? Thanks in advance.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

On the final vote for The Periodical Assessment of Statute Laws for a Better Accountability of our Government Bill:

The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 1, with 1 abstention.  The AYEs have it.  The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his veto or signature.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Psychic Octopus]

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

On the motion to remove Article II from the Labor Protection Act, the AYEs are 4, and the NAYs are 0.

The AYEs have it, and the motion is agreed to.

Apparently I accidentally edited over the original post that I had - I dont know.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- Swedish Cheese

Bill has been signed. Enjoy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Per the PASLBAG Bill, debate is now open on the usefulness of the Mideast Education Reform Statute.  Debate will last no more than 72 hours.

[big bad fab]

Per the PASLBAG Bill, debate is now open on the usefulness of the Mideast Education Reform Statute.  Debate will last no more than 72 hours.

First, how can we read the entire text, without the ad banner by MediaWiki ?

Second, I've got some remarks on this text that may require a bill amending it:

- (section 2) the option for LSB to use only 1% of their budget (i.e. 1% of the 70%, i.e. 0.7% of the total money for education) is too small to have a real meaning: this limit should be put at about 7%, in order to stand at almost 5% of the total.
Of course, this remains only a possibility, not an obligation.

- (section 1) we can discuss for a long time on the numbers, but, with a bigger number for buildings (which might be required), we've got less for the LSB. So, I'm really not sure.
Maybe better appropriations would be 65-20-10-5. The buildings of our schools are ageing quickly and, for some years, the need to repair seems high (as a side note, that would be useful investments with a positive effect on the local economy).
If we decide for these numbers, my previous remark would be even softer (4.5% of the total).

I have no other remarks (section 3 is especially good and useful).

If a majority seems to appear among my fellow Assemblymen, I'm ready to put forward a bill amending this law.


Dear Mr. Speaker, are we going to vote on our colleague Benconstine's bill ? He doesn't seem to amend it and I'd like to introduce a new bill myself, but I don't want to do it before our work is finished on the previous bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sorry, I thought I had already put this up.  Voting will now begin on the following legislation.  This will be a 48 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You know, as I'm looking at the bill, there are some things I'd like to amend.  Would anybody object to suspending the vote?

[big bad fab]

You know, as I'm looking at the bill, there are some things I'd like to amend.  Would anybody object to suspending the vote?

I wouldn't. Written like that, I would cast a big "no".
But it's too far from what I think for me to propose useful amendments. So, anybody else who has ideas is welcome !

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Without objection, the motion is passed.

I move to amend the bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, I ask unanimous consent that the words "National", "Regional", and "Labor" be decapitalized.

Debate is now open on my 2 amendments.

[big bad fab]

Amendment 2 is OK !
As I've said earlier, it's a question of principle and of historical basis of democracy.

Amendment 3 : can we say how the amount is set ?
I mean, are we OK it should be the court which sets it, proportionally to the importance of the violation and of the prejudice ?
If it's the case, why not writing it ?

Decapitalization of words is always a good thing... (except in titles of bills)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now open on the following amendment.  This will be a 24 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voting is now open on the following amendment.  This will be a 24 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the unanimous consent request, seeing no objection, the request is ordered.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE


AYE