SENATE BILL: The "You can't fire me, I quit!" Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TNF

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this.

[President Tyrion]

I would definitely like to hear the pros and cons of this.

[TNF]

The point of this legislation is to allow for more flexibility in terms of leaving one's job and finding a new one. Current law prohibits persons from drawing unemployment insurance if they lose their job or if they are fired. I do not believe this is a moral or proper situation. How many of us would quit the jobs we work now or have worked in the past if we could be sure we'd have some money to help tide us over until we could find another job? This will punish bad employers, encourage employers to retain their employees, and give workers the opportunity to seek out new opportunities without having to starve in the process.

The last section plugs a hole in the unemployment insurance system, which, as a result of a few Supreme Court rulings in the 1930s, is divided between the federal and state governments (in this context, and without any legislation telling me otherwise, I would assume that in Atlasia it is split between the Feds and the Regions). This leads to variable standards from state to state on how much can be drawn and under what circumstances; it also creates a problem wherein state governments are responsible for funding large aspects of the system, draining vital dollars from education and law enforcement. My proposal is thus straightforward -- allow the federal government to take full responsibility for unemployment insurance and establish a blanket series of standards and regulations.

I am open for questions.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The current law prohibits someone who is fired OR who leaves? How does one draw unemployment then?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The current law prohibits someone who is fired OR who leaves? How does one draw unemployment then?

Layed off for economic reasons. If you quit, it is seen as you voluntarily chosing to become unemployed, if you are fired, it is because you threw the job away somehow. It is called insurance because it insures you financially against a situation you didn't seek occuring. It would be like your home insurance covering you for a fire that happened because something happened whereras getting fired or quitting would be the equivalent of you setting it on fire yourself, which wouldn't be covered. 

I am of mixed feelings about this. I grew up with a household that experienced constant job loss and some times where unemployment was denied. On the other hand there were numerous instances where this situation was justified because of the said relative's decisions and lack of consideration for the consequences, especially the impact with regards to us. Thus I also know from personal experiences that sometimes this is situation is very much deserved and disincentivizes such irresponsibility, at least for those who give a damn about what a loss of income would mean to their family.

[President Tyrion]

Do we need employment insurance at all after Nixcome?

[TNF]

Do we need employment insurance at all after Nixcome?

Absolutely. Nixcome alone will not provide for the kind of money that laid off folks need in order to maintain a decent standard of living.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Really? My mother was fired last November and was able to draw unemployment for a few months. I didn't know fired people couldn't draw it.

If not, I absolutely support this change.

Edit: since we live in an at will state, she wasn't given a reason. With the changes in our law to eliminate that, is this still necessary? If someone is fired for a crime or some other reason, I'm not sure if we need to also pay them until they are hired again. I'll think about it. I'd also like to see more debate.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Do we need employment insurance at all after Nixcome?

That is a good point Tyrion and I think that TNF is exagerating here. I have no doubts that those who were fired deserves an unemployment benefit but I don't know why would someone that voluntarily quit should get this benefits, sounds a little bit opportunistic to me. Furthemore, since we have Nixcome now, we've got another reason not to give an unemployment benefit for those who quit and are not fired. I will strongly advise President Duke to repeal this legislation, since it will be useless because the fired unemployed are already covered by Nappy's CSSRA.

[President Tyrion]

Do we need employment insurance at all after Nixcome?

Absolutely. Nixcome alone will not provide for the kind of money that laid off folks need in order to maintain a decent standard of living.

While that's possible, we'd be increasing government payouts to the unemployed rather substantially. In other words, their quality of life would be much better with the unemployment now than with the same unemployment insurance before Nixcome. The question becomes how much quality of life should we guarantee to those who voluntarily leave work, or are fired for due cause, and that's a much more difficult question to answer.

[Napoleon]

I'm unwilling to foot the bill for those who voluntarily leave a job.

[TNF]

Do we need employment insurance at all after Nixcome?

Absolutely. Nixcome alone will not provide for the kind of money that laid off folks need in order to maintain a decent standard of living.

While that's possible, we'd be increasing government payouts to the unemployed rather substantially. In other words, their quality of life would be much better with the unemployment now than with the same unemployment insurance before Nixcome. The question becomes how much quality of life should we guarantee to those who voluntarily leave work, or are fired for due cause, and that's a much more difficult question to answer.

I don't think it is, honestly. It's pretty clear cut to me that we should guarantee that every person at least doesn't starve, regardless of whether or not they chose to leave their job or got fired.

I'm unwilling to foot the bill for those who voluntarily leave a job.

The point of this bill is to allow people who might be in sh**y jobs to quit them and find better work elsewhere. The old adage goes that if one doesn't like where they work, they should just quit and find something better. That's not how it works in the real world, though. With this bill, that's how it would be. This bill would encourage employers to treat their employees better to retain them and greatly expand the individual freedom of the employee to seek out better work if his or her job is inadequate for his or her needs or is just an awful job, period.

[Napoleon]

If you quit, you should have another job or enough money to sustain yourself. No one gets a free ride because they don't love their job. That's insane!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm not sure it's financially feasible to allow someone who quit to get paid by the government. Typically if you have a crappy job, you find a new job you can go to after leaving your crappy one. We just passed a labor bill that really forces the employer to treat their employees with respect and disallows them to fire them for no reason. I feel like parts of this bill are redundant.

I'm fine with someone who gets fired getting benefits provided they didnt get fired for a crime of any sort. Keep in mind we can only pay people so much and so often who aren't working before we have a detrimental effect on our economy and budget.

[TNF]

If you quit, you should have another job or enough money to sustain yourself. No one gets a free ride because they don't love their job. That's insane!

Unless they've got a trust fund, of course.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are passed the minimum debate time. Since no amendments have been offered, is a final vote desired?

[Sec. of State Superique]

You guys ignored me

[Sec. of State Superique]

If you quit, you should have another job or enough money to sustain yourself. No one gets a free ride because they don't love their job. That's insane!

Unless they've got a trust fund, of course.

They do have in fact, it's called Nixcome!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Right, wouldn't nixcome cover some of this? I would support allowing fired persons to draw unemployment provided commiting a crime was not what led to their firing. I'd be afraid that too many would game the system otherwise. Maybe that's just me though.

[President Tyrion]

Do we need employment insurance at all after Nixcome?

Absolutely. Nixcome alone will not provide for the kind of money that laid off folks need in order to maintain a decent standard of living.

While that's possible, we'd be increasing government payouts to the unemployed rather substantially. In other words, their quality of life would be much better with the unemployment now than with the same unemployment insurance before Nixcome. The question becomes how much quality of life should we guarantee to those who voluntarily leave work, or are fired for due cause, and that's a much more difficult question to answer.

I don't think it is, honestly. It's pretty clear cut to me that we should guarantee that every person at least doesn't starve, regardless of whether or not they chose to leave their job or got fired.

Is Nixcome not sufficient? I would rather go back and increase Nixcome payouts specifically if that were the case.

Honestly, my view here is that if we're going to have a basic income guarantee, let's make it stick by making it substantial enough that we needn't interfere any longer. I would rather do that than pass a bill which seems to only protect people who have been fired with cause (since we've eliminated at-will employment).

You guys ignored me

No, my response was in part to you as well! I just didn't quote you. My bad

[Maxwell]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose this amendment.

[Sec. of State Superique]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose this amendment.

We don't need that law at all! Just take a look at that

[TNF]

Amendment is hostile.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will strongly advise President Duke to repeal this legislation, since it will be useless because the fired unemployed are already covered by Nappy's CSSRA.

Not for nothing, but that bill was far more then just Nappy's. I wouldn't doubt that the section in question may have orginated from one of his amendments though. I cannot remember offhand, since it was over two years back.

Also don't you mean "veto", instead of "repeal"?

You guys ignored me

I was indisposed on the 14th man.

Is Nixcome not sufficient? I would rather go back and increase Nixcome payouts specifically if that were the case.

Also lets let the BIG get implemented completely before trying to ratchet up payouts.