Workers' Bill of Rights Bill (Law'd)

[Purple State]

My apologies, I didn't notice you edited your post to include that. With rewording, I will accept the following amendment as friendly:

     To be inserted in Section 1, Clause 1:

a. All decisions made by the OAL shall be rendered by a three-member panel consisting of one liberal, one centrist, and one conservative member. The determination of a candidate's political leanings shall be made by the Secretary of Forum Affairs with the consent of all major party chairmen. For purposes of this statute, a major party shall be defined as any party with a member in federal government.
b. OAL panelists shall be appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the Senate. The Senate shall have the power to confirm and remove OAL panelists by a two-thirds majority vote.

[Bacon King]

objection to the taking of PiT's amendment as friendly.

While not neccesarily something I disagree with completely, I am concerned with the need for partisans in such a post, as well as the potential for the selection of the Atlasian equivalance of a RINO/DINO or whatever. There's also possibility for abuse as to the definition of left/right/center parties, as well as the potential that a controversial party chairman (read: DWTL ) could filibuster the whole selection process by neglecting consent of anyone's officials at all.

Also, it should probably clarify whether this OAL board will consist of real people that we actually appoint or "fantasy people" that we just pretend exists.

[Franzl]

objection to the taking of PiT's amendment as friendly.

While not neccesarily something I disagree with completely, I am concerned with the need for partisans in such a post, as well as the potential for the selection of the Atlasian equivalance of a RINO/DINO or whatever. There's also possibility for abuse as to the definition of left/right/center parties, as well as the potential that a controversial party chairman (read: DWTL ) could filibuster the whole selection process by neglecting consent of anyone's officials at all.

Also, it should probably clarify whether this OAL board will consist of real people that we actually appoint or "fantasy people" that we just pretend exists.

^, yes, agreed.

[Purple State]

I will hear the objection and refrain from accepting the amendment as friendly.

So these will be fantasy people. And I am open to adjusting the system to make it as non-partisan as possible. Would you like to write something up?

[Bacon King]

I honestly don't see the problem with a single chairman, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If a potential for partisan bias exists then we should remove/fix aspects of the bill through which bias can be exerted rather than trying to prevent it from happening through regulating the organization's leadership.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I honestly don't see the problem with a single chairman, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If a potential for partisan bias exists then we should remove/fix aspects of the bill through which bias can be exerted rather than trying to prevent it from happening through regulating the organization's leadership.

     I think with the rewriting of section 2, clause 2, the possibility for partisan abuse is greatly diminished, actually. Unless someone points out another clause that needs to be dealt with, I'd say that it is fine as is.

[Smid]

     What about my amendment?

     To be inserted in Section 1:

2. All decisions made by the OAL shall be rendered by a panel consisting of three members, one each from a party officially identified as left-wing, a party officially identified as centrist, and a party officially identified as rightist. The determination of a major party's political leanings shall be made by the Secretary of Forum Affairs with the consent of that party's chairman.

3. If no major party exists to fill one of the seats on the panel, an independent or minor-party member may be empanelled with the approval of three-quarters of the Senate.

     The current clauses 2 & 3 of section 1 shall accordingly be renumbered clauses 4 & 5.

     Offered as friendly.

We did something similar in Australia for assessing minimum wage increases - The Fair Pay Commission. The various commissioners came from various walks of life: a unionist, an economist, a business representative, (if they all walked into a bar, it would probably be a joke).

http://www.fairpay.gov.au/fairpay/AboutCommission/

[MasterJedi]

My apologies, I didn't notice you edited your post to include that. With rewording, I will accept the following amendment as friendly:

     To be inserted in Section 1, Clause 1:

a. All decisions made by the OAL shall be rendered by a three-member panel consisting of one liberal, one centrist, and one conservative member. The determination of a candidate's political leanings shall be made by the Secretary of Forum Affairs with the consent of all major party chairmen. For purposes of this statute, a major party shall be defined as any party with a member in federal government.
b. OAL panelists shall be appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the Senate. The Senate shall have the power to confirm and remove OAL panelists by a two-thirds majority vote.

Just bringing this to PiT's attention. Do you accept this or still want a vote on your old amendment?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'm fine with Purple State's judgment in regards to that section.

[Franzl]

I would like the following amendment to be voted on:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doubtful that PS would accept it as friendly (), and even if....I'd like to see where my fellow senators stand.

[MasterJedi]

Ok, 24 hours and no debate on this amendment so: I hereby open up the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye

[Franzl]

Aye

[HappyWarrior]

AYE

[RI]

Aye.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Bacon King]

Aye

[Purple State]

Nay

I leave for a day to go home and this is what I see? I knew when I wrote the bill that this would be the main sticking point and while I believe it is good, I wouldn't want to hold the bill up over it. As the amendment has enough votes to pass, I would like to call for cloture after this amendment.

[MasterJedi]

With 6 Ayes, 1 Nay and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.

[Franzl]

I move to invoke cloture.

[MasterJedi]

We are voting on cloture, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

[Franzl]

Aye

[RI]

Aye.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Bacon King]

aye

[afleitch]

Aye