Workers' Bill of Rights Bill (Law'd)

[MasterJedi]

Workers' Bill of Rights Bill

Section 1: Labor Research and Reporting
1. The Government of Atlasia hereby establishes the Office of Atlasian Labor (OAL). This office shall be responsible for the research of labor conditions throughout Atlasia.
2. The OAL shall provide regular reports, as determined by the GM, regarding the challenges to labor and business, as well as the impact of Atlasian policy on these and other groups.
3. The labor report shall also include recommendations for changes in policy necessary for the advancement of Atlasian labor.

Section 2: Workers' Bill of Rights
1. The right of workers to organize and act in concert shall not be impeded by the government of Atlasia or any institution under the jurisdiction of Atlasian Law.
2. Workers shall have the right to a living minimum wage, to be determined by the OAL and passed by the Senate according to the most exact level of data collected.
     a. Businesses unable to afford this salary may apply to the government for assistance. Applications shall be reviewed and either accepted or denied by the OAL.
3. Workers shall have the right to address grievances and violations of their rights through the OAL legal branch, which shall here cases involving any form of employment discrimination or rights violations.
     a. The OAL shall have the power to levy fines against the culpable entity based on the determined cost of said violation.
4. Workers shall have the right to form or choose for themselves a union to represent their interests in discussions and negotiations with employers.
     a. This right shall be practiced freely through secret-ballot elections, in which a majority of all workers voting must vote in favor of unionization.
     b. This right shall be protected from any involvement or interference by employers, unions, and other outside organizations.
     c. The OAL shall be responsible for determining the date and certifying the results of the election.
5. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, political affiliation, religious affiliation, marital status, or veterans' status in membership to unions or employment, except where a government-issued waiver is granted for special circumstances, including, but not limited to: political organizations or work requiring certain attributes or skills.
Spon: Sen. PurpleState

[HappyWarrior]

I see no problem with this however I will need to read over it more carefully.

[Purple State]

Feel free to ask questions about this bill. I think it does an adequate job of protecting workers and business while leaving flexibility for the Senate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I believe the bone of contention that we ran into previously was section 2, clause 2. Specifically, leaving the determination of a "living minimum wage" up to the OAL & the Senate could lead to a substantial increase in the minimum wage in instances of the government being controlled by an excessively leftist bunch. This could have the effect of inducing inflation & forcing the subsidization of a large proportion of businesses.

     If there is no opposition, I would prefer to cap the ability of the OAL to change the minimum wage based on the rate of inflation (or just outright tie it to inflation).

[Smid]

If a business cannot profitably support the number of employees it has at the minimum living wage level, it shouldn't fall on the government to prop up the business. Small businesses need to make sound staffing decisions based on expected earnings and if businesses don't make good decisions, they shouldn't rely on government hand-outs. It would be easily abusable with business owners hiring family members, and using the government assistance to pay them.

[Purple State]

If a business cannot profitably support the number of employees it has at the minimum living wage level, it shouldn't fall on the government to prop up the business. Small businesses need to make sound staffing decisions based on expected earnings and if businesses don't make good decisions, they shouldn't rely on government hand-outs. It would be easily abusable with business owners hiring family members, and using the government assistance to pay them.

That's why the OAL has discretion over acceptance of the applications. Its not a free hand out. It is really for current businesses that would be detrimentally affected by the clause or new businesses that are viable, but require enough employees to operate and cannot hire at the livable wage.

    I believe the bone of contention that we ran into previously was section 2, clause 2. Specifically, leaving the determination of a "living minimum wage" up to the OAL & the Senate could lead to a substantial increase in the minimum wage in instances of the government being controlled by an excessively leftist bunch. This could have the effect of inducing inflation & forcing the subsidization of a large proportion of businesses.

     If there is no opposition, I would prefer to cap the ability of the OAL to change the minimum wage based on the rate of inflation (or just outright tie it to inflation).

We can include a provision making the OAL's chief Senate confirmed by a supermajority? Or simply state it is non-partisan.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    I believe the bone of contention that we ran into previously was section 2, clause 2. Specifically, leaving the determination of a "living minimum wage" up to the OAL & the Senate could lead to a substantial increase in the minimum wage in instances of the government being controlled by an excessively leftist bunch. This could have the effect of inducing inflation & forcing the subsidization of a large proportion of businesses.

     If there is no opposition, I would prefer to cap the ability of the OAL to change the minimum wage based on the rate of inflation (or just outright tie it to inflation).

We can include a provision making the OAL's chief Senate confirmed by a supermajority? Or simply state it is non-partisan.

     Maybe it would be possible to require that the OAL's chief Senate consist of one leftist, one centrist, & one rightist. I think ensuring that it is not subject to total control by either side would probably be the easiest way to prevent abuse of that particular clause.

[Purple State]

    I believe the bone of contention that we ran into previously was section 2, clause 2. Specifically, leaving the determination of a "living minimum wage" up to the OAL & the Senate could lead to a substantial increase in the minimum wage in instances of the government being controlled by an excessively leftist bunch. This could have the effect of inducing inflation & forcing the subsidization of a large proportion of businesses.

     If there is no opposition, I would prefer to cap the ability of the OAL to change the minimum wage based on the rate of inflation (or just outright tie it to inflation).

We can include a provision making the OAL's chief Senate confirmed by a supermajority? Or simply state it is non-partisan.

     Maybe it would be possible to require that the OAL's chief Senate consist of one leftist, one centrist, & one rightist. I think ensuring that it is not subject to total control by either side would probably be the easiest way to prevent abuse of that particular clause.

I had thought of that and it seems plausible. I see no problems if you want to write up language I will accept as friendly.

[Franzl]

I don't disagree with the bill in principle....and I like parts of it, but I will oppose any attempt to establish an artificial "living wage" as described in this bill. It just leaves much to much room for abuse, in my opinion.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

[Ebowed]

5. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, political affiliation, religious affiliation, marital status, or veterans' status in membership to unions or employment

Don't forget gender identity.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't disagree with the bill in principle....and I like parts of it, but I will oppose any attempt to establish an artificial "living wage" as described in this bill. It just leaves much to much room for abuse, in my opinion.

(I won't intrude on any other Senate business other than when they're of questionable legality, promise!)

I mentioned to PS that I expected that would be ripped out as soon as it was introduced. Consider me psychic.

[Purple State]

I don't disagree with the bill in principle....and I like parts of it, but I will oppose any attempt to establish an artificial "living wage" as described in this bill. It just leaves much to much room for abuse, in my opinion.

(I won't intrude on any other Senate business other than when they're of questionable legality, promise!)

I mentioned to PS that I expected that would be ripped out as soon as it was introduced. Consider me psychic.

Oh, I expected this when I wrote the bill. Living wage tends to be one of those contentious issues. But I would like some sort of provision for wage security, whether it is by a living wage or some other name.

[Franzl]

I'm not too big a fan of any minimum wage legislation....as the principle behind it is not very different from a "living wage".

The only difference is that a "minimum wage" is clearly defined as $xx.xx/hour, whereas a "living wage" could be redefined according to the opinion of whatever group responsible.

Principally speaking, a minimum wage doesn't make very much sense if it's under the amount one needs (on average) to live properly. (Although "properly" is also pretty subjective).

It's a really tricky issue.

[Purple State]

I'm not too big a fan of any minimum wage legislation....as the principle behind it is not very different from a "living wage".

The only difference is that a "minimum wage" is clearly defined as $xx.xx/hour, whereas a "living wage" could be redefined according to the opinion of whatever group responsible.

Principally speaking, a minimum wage doesn't make very much sense if it's under the amount one needs (on average) to live properly. (Although "properly" is also pretty subjective).

It's a really tricky issue.

Which is exactly why I would like to set a living wage, one that actually makes a difference, while giving the power to set that with a separate, non-partisan group, the OAL. It also makes sure that businesses that may genuinely suffer, despite a robust business model, will have help from the government.

[Franzl]

I'm not too big a fan of any minimum wage legislation....as the principle behind it is not very different from a "living wage".

The only difference is that a "minimum wage" is clearly defined as $xx.xx/hour, whereas a "living wage" could be redefined according to the opinion of whatever group responsible.

Principally speaking, a minimum wage doesn't make very much sense if it's under the amount one needs (on average) to live properly. (Although "properly" is also pretty subjective).

It's a really tricky issue.

Which is exactly why I would like to set a living wage, one that actually makes a difference, while giving the power to set that with a separate, non-partisan group, the OAL. It also makes sure that businesses that may genuinely suffer, despite a robust business model, will have help from the government.

by doing that, though, we're basically subsidizing jobs that the market doesn't really need. If somebody's work is worth so little that he can't be paid a "living wage", then that job is pretty worthless.

Seems like the state, in such a case, is discouraging competition.

[afleitch]

Ironically some of this legislation is not too far off, in spirit at least, Thatchers so called draconian 'anti-union' legislation from 25 years ago.

Shows how wide the Atlantic is

I will support it. But offer we scrap the requirement for a 'living wage.'

[Bacon King]

So this new bureaucracy has the authority to define wage rates and unitarily decide what companies recieve government payroll assistance for not being able to meet these wage rates?

While I like the concept of this bill, the OAL seems to be too powerful and potentially prone to lobbying/favoritism among companies and industry in regards to its powers over wages.

[Purple State]

Would it be better if we change the wording to the following:

2. A living wage for workers shall be strongly encouraged. Such standards shall be determined and reported to the public by the OAL according to the most exact level of data collected.
     a. Businesses that wish to enact a living wage, but are unable to afford this salary, may apply to the government for assistance. Applications shall be reviewed and either accepted or denied by the OAL.

[Franzl]

I don't want to be a pain here....but we're still subsidizing jobs that wouldn't be there otherwise. I doubt very many companies would reject state assistance to pay their employees more. It doesn't change much in effect.

[Purple State]

I don't want to be a pain here....but we're still subsidizing jobs that wouldn't be there otherwise. I doubt very many companies would reject state assistance to pay their employees more. It doesn't change much in effect.

The government wouldn't be subsidizing willy nilly. It would determine what the business could pay, if the business model was viable, etc.

[Franzl]

I don't want to be a pain here....but we're still subsidizing jobs that wouldn't be there otherwise. I doubt very many companies would reject state assistance to pay their employees more. It doesn't change much in effect.

The government wouldn't be subsidizing willy nilly. It would determine what the business could pay, if the business model was viable, etc.

That's quite a bit for the government to determine, in my opinion...

[Purple State]

I don't want to be a pain here....but we're still subsidizing jobs that wouldn't be there otherwise. I doubt very many companies would reject state assistance to pay their employees more. It doesn't change much in effect.

The government wouldn't be subsidizing willy nilly. It would determine what the business could pay, if the business model was viable, etc.

That's quite a bit for the government to determine, in my opinion...

The company won't need to provide a living wage if it doesn't want to be put through the process. It would essentially be like an audit of the company, with OAL experts advising on a case-by-case basis. I think this is a fair compromise.

I will accept my amendment (below) as friendly so at least we are working with a more acceptable version than the original:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

Alright then.....I'm still pretty unconvinced.....but let me think about it for a bit.

again though....I support other parts of this bill quite strongly

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.