Mideast Assembly Thread

[big bad fab]

Or how would we feel about just making it so that they lose their tax benefits for 2 years and have to pay any civil penalties as well - basically they'd have to pay numbers 1 and 2 not 1 or 2.

Yes, but in this case, 2 years is big when it's a fault of small importance. That's my problem.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Or how would we feel about just making it so that they lose their tax benefits for 2 years and have to pay any civil penalties as well - basically they'd have to pay numbers 1 and 2 not 1 or 2.

Yes, but in this case, 2 years is big when it's a fault of small importance. That's my problem.

How would we feel about 1 year then?

[California8429]

And if the bill is written like this ?

Labor Protection Act

Article I:  Any corporation found in violation of national or regional labor laws shall undergo a forfeiture of tax benefits and subsidies for a period lasting between one quarter to two tax years.

Article II: Any employee who is able to successfully prove a legitimate labor rights violation in a court of law may be awarded up to one hundred thousand dollars as compensation for a violation of a national or regional labor law.[/size]

Could we agree on something like that ?

Article I I'm fine with, but II isn't good. All you'd have is a bunch of employees trying to find tiny kinks in their companies to get a load of cash. Business won't trust the workers anymore and productivity will go way down. my two cents

[big bad fab]

Or how would we feel about just making it so that they lose their tax benefits for 2 years and have to pay any civil penalties as well - basically they'd have to pay numbers 1 and 2 not 1 or 2.

Yes, but in this case, 2 years is big when it's a fault of small importance. That's my problem.

How would we feel about 1 year then?

I would prefer a range, from one quarter to one year.

[big bad fab]

As the debate on Ben's proposal isn't yet finished (even if I hope it will end soon),
I don't want to wait any longer and I introduce the 2 following proposals, the first of them within the framework of PALSBAG law :


Mideast Education Reform Statute Update Bill

Considering the need to maximize the effort to repair school buildings and installations,
Considering the need to give Local School Boards a bigger ability to fund School Vouchers Programs,
the Mideast Assembly hereby updates the Mideast Education Reform Statute.

Article I: In Section 1, the numbers "65", "20", "10", "5" are substituted to the numbers "70", "20", "5", "5".

Article II: In Section 2, Clause 1, the words "7%" are substituted to the words "1%".


Sobriety in the Mideast Public Finances Bill

Article I: From the beginning of the next fiscal year, a maximum of half of Mideast Government officers and employees retiring after the age of 60 shall be replaced.

Article II: The rule of Article I above does not apply to Mideast Government agencies working in the following fields:
- internal security,
- health and medical care,
- teaching and training,
- courts,
where employement rules shall continue to depend on the amouint of tasks to be dealt with.

Article III: The rule of Article I above shall remain in force until the Mideast Government budget is balanced.

[big bad fab]

May I suggest that, for the next debates on 2005 and 2006 laws under the PASLBAG framework, each Assemblyman explicitly say that he doesn't want to change the law, so that the debate can be closed quickly when there is no change proposed ?

As for me, even if I have this proposal on the Education Statute Law, I already know that for many other laws, I won't put forward any change or update.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Sobriety in the Mideast Public Finances Bill

Article I: From the beginning of the next fiscal year, a maximum of half of Mideast Government officers and employees retiring after the age of 60 shall be replaced.

Article II: The rule of Article I above does not apply to Mideast Government agencies working in the following fields:
- internal security,
- health and medical care,
- teaching and training,
- courts,
where employement rules shall continue to depend on the amouint of tasks to be dealt with.

Article III: The rule of Article I above shall remain in force until the Mideast Government budget is balanced.

Well, while this all sound very good in theory if you wish to cut down costs, it'd be impossible to implement in practice with so little detail and flexibility in the law. There'd need to be a more detailed plan as to which jobs we will remove, and which we would keep, so that the Mideast goverment don't crash because we have too much work but too little personnel. We'd need to know which jobs are going to disappear, and how we devide their work and responisibilities on a much smaller group of people.

The plan also need to have an end date to it, as it'd obviously be impossible to keep only replacing half of the retiering staff forever.

[big bad fab]

Sobriety in the Mideast Public Finances Bill

Article I: From the beginning of the next fiscal year, a maximum of half of Mideast Government officers and employees retiring after the age of 60 shall be replaced.

Article II: The rule of Article I above does not apply to Mideast Government agencies working in the following fields:
- internal security,
- health and medical care,
- teaching and training,
- courts,
where employement rules shall continue to depend on the amouint of tasks to be dealt with.

Article III: The rule of Article I above shall remain in force until the Mideast Government budget is balanced.

Well, while this all sound very good in theory if you wish to cut down costs, it'd be impossible to implement in practice with so little detail and flexibility in the law. There'd need to be a more detailed plan as to which jobs we will remove, and which we would keep, so that the Mideast goverment don't crash because we have too much work but too little personnel. We'd need to know which jobs are going to disappear, and how we devide their work and responisibilities on a much smaller group of people.

The plan also need to have an end date to it, as it'd obviously be impossible to keep only replacing half of the retiering staff forever.

On the contrary, I think the executive branch, the Administration, has to remain free to decide where not to replace retiring employees.
For example, it may be decided that 3 out of 4 employees in Agricultural offices aren't replaced, while only 1 in 10 isn't replaced in Tax services. Overall, it should be 50%, but the executive branch should keep the flexibility to choose.

And I insist on the fact that it's only 50% of those retiring after 60: anyone retiring earlier or just quitting will still be replaced.

As for the end of the law, Article III may give a clue. If my fellow Assemblymen are OK, we can rewrite this Article so that the law ends after 3 years of surplus.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Or how would we feel about just making it so that they lose their tax benefits for 2 years and have to pay any civil penalties as well - basically they'd have to pay numbers 1 and 2 not 1 or 2.

Yes, but in this case, 2 years is big when it's a fault of small importance. That's my problem.

How would we feel about 1 year then?

I would prefer a range, from one quarter to one year.

With who determining the length of time?  If you have an idea, put forward an amendment and I'll weigh in.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Sorry my mistake Fab, I missed the 3rd article for some reason. So there's no problem with the eventual end then, just me who have trouble reading apperently.

Although I consider it an aimiable goal to reduce the Mideast Regional personnel, we cannot just set a number of employees that we must get rid of without taking other factors into account first. How will the workload be devided? What percentages of Regional Goverment employes will retire within the next five years? ... and so on. This plan is not flexible enough. I admit that the fact that the Goverment can decide which ares to cut jobs makes it better, but this is still not flexible enough.

I think it's important that we cut spending, and personnel is an area which of course also needs to be reduced to get a balanced budget. But I believe that with this plan you begin at the wrong end. We can reduce our emplyees, but unless we also reduce their workload, we will just create problems by being very under staffed.

Therefor what we need to do is to begin by getting rid of all unecessary programs that currently is taking up staff. There after we investigate in which areas it would be possible to cut personnel without the new workload getting to heavy, and then we make an estimate of how many emplyees we realisticly can spare. That's the number we should aim for.

But you know Fab, if you're very eagar to cut unecessary employees there's a place where I think you can begin Assemblymen doesn't work for free. They too cost valuble tax money, and we currently have two more than we actually need. 

[big bad fab]

Or how would we feel about just making it so that they lose their tax benefits for 2 years and have to pay any civil penalties as well - basically they'd have to pay numbers 1 and 2 not 1 or 2.

Yes, but in this case, 2 years is big when it's a fault of small importance. That's my problem.

How would we feel about 1 year then?

I would prefer a range, from one quarter to one year.

With who determining the length of time?  If you have an idea, put forward an amendment and I'll weigh in.

The courts will determine it (like in the other article of the bill), we just set a range, inside which the courts are free to decide.
Am I correct ?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How does this sound:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[big bad fab]

For me, it's perfect. Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

[big bad fab]

Sorry my mistake Fab, I missed the 3rd article for some reason. So there's no problem with the eventual end then, just me who have trouble reading apperently.

Although I consider it an aimiable goal to reduce the Mideast Regional personnel, we cannot just set a number of employees that we must get rid of without taking other factors into account first. How will the workload be devided? What percentages of Regional Goverment employes will retire within the next five years? ... and so on. This plan is not flexible enough. I admit that the fact that the Goverment can decide which ares to cut jobs makes it better, but this is still not flexible enough.

I think it's important that we cut spending, and personnel is an area which of course also needs to be reduced to get a balanced budget. But I believe that with this plan you begin at the wrong end. We can reduce our emplyees, but unless we also reduce their workload, we will just create problems by being very under staffed.

Therefor what we need to do is to begin by getting rid of all unecessary programs that currently is taking up staff. There after we investigate in which areas it would be possible to cut personnel without the new workload getting to heavy, and then we make an estimate of how many emplyees we realisticly can spare. That's the number we should aim for.

But you know Fab, if you're very eagar to cut unecessary employees there's a place where I think you can begin Assemblymen doesn't work for free. They too cost valuble tax money, and we currently have two more than we actually need. 

I think the law is here to set global aims. The executive branch will have to make choices at an infra-level.

The other issue is that, even with the same public policies, the rate of public employment is now excessive. Reorganizations and different methods and ways of working would be enough, in many cases, to deal with a diminishing level of public employees.

What is more, many administrative offices have "created" tasks and methods to justify their own existence, even when a program is dropped.

Again, it sounds big, but it's rather moderate. And it applies only to the regional government, not to local councils.
In France, currently, you've got 2,5 millions government employees and the same measure represents 40 000 to 50 000 suppressed jobs each year, i.e. about 2%.
It's really manageable.

As for the Assembly, a number of 3 or 5 for all the Mideast doesn't really make a difference.
But you're right, our 5-member Assembly hasn't confirmed hopes we could have on a more efficient work. My aim is also to try to deal with this .

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I move that the following be adopted as Amendment 5 to the Labor Protection Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]


Voting is now open on Amendment 5 to the Labor Protection Act.  This will be a 24 hour vote.

[big bad fab]

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Kaine for Senate '18]

AYE.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

aye

[Purple State]

May I advise defining what the region's labor laws are?

[Psychic Octopus]

Aye

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

On Amendment 5, the AYEs are 5 and the NAYs are 0.  The AYEs have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now open on the following bill, brought up under the rules of PASLBAG.  This will be a 48 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[big bad fab]

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE