NE2: Repeal of the Employees Fair Treatment Act (Failed)

[cinyc]

Repeal of the Employees Fair Treatment Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Deus

Debate on this bill will remain open for 72 hours, or until around 6:30PM on January 18, unless modified or extended.  Representative Deus is encouraged to speak on behalf of the bill within the next 36 hours.  If he does not speak, because there is other legislation in the proposed legislation thread, the bill will be tabled and we will move on to the next bill.

The floor is open to debate.

[cinyc]

For reference, the Employees Fair Treatment Act states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cincinnatus]

I'd like to see the sponsors reasoning behind repealing this bill first, but, I seriously doubt I can support it.  Supporting business flexibility and independence is one thing, however, not to the extent in which it is a detriment to the majority, the worker. 

[TNF]

I'm not sure what the rationale could be behind Rep. Deus literally asking the Northeast Assembly to make it easier for bosses to fire people for no reason. I guess "business flexibility" is more important to him than people being able to eat.

[Deus Naturae]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have several reasons for proposing the repeal of this bill.

First of all, it seems to me that this bill greatly hampers competitive innovation in our region. It's possible I'm misunderstanding the bill, but this law would seem to make it illegal for companies to fire employees as a result of increased automation within the company. This is clearly detrimental to the technological future of our economy. In addition, it would also seem that this law does not employers to fire employees as a result of consolidation, thus discouraging efficiency within firms. Terminating employees for this reason obviously increases unemployment in the short term, but more efficient, high-tech operations result in greater long-term growth, not to mention better, cheaper consumer goods.

Secondly, the 12-month salary compensation requirement is economically harmful. By mandating this requirement, we are actually increasing unemployment by adding yet another cost for employers to factor in when they decide whether or not it would be profitable to hire a potential employee. This leads to less hiring overall.  In addition, it seems to me that many companies would be uncomfortable setting up operations in a place where they would have to provide that level of compensation to any worker who they must fire, which businesses often have to do in response to market conditions that are beyond their control.

I am of course open to any changes, such as possibly only repealing part of this law if members of this body or Governor Sirnick are not willing to accept a full repeal.

[cinyc]

I support this bill as drafted, repealing the ill-thought-out Employees Fair Treatment Act in its entirety.  The government should not tell employers when they can hire or fire someone except in extreme cases.  Employees and employers should be free to contract for wages in any manner they see fit.  Employers should be able to hire or fire with or without cause.  Throwing firing decisions into court is a waste of judicial resources.   And forcing companies to pay severance will, like the rest of the Employees Fair Treatment Act, lead to less hiring and higher unemployment.  Living without a job is the ultimate unfair treatment for employees.

[Lincoln Republican]

The Employees Fair Treatment Act is certainly not perfect, but I am opposed to the wholesale repeal of this act.

I would be more willing to look at modifications to the act, but I will not support the complete repeal of the act.

[Deus Naturae]

The Employees Fair Treatment Act is certainly not perfect, but I am opposed to the wholesale repeal of this act.

I would be more willing to look at modifications to the act, but I will not support the complete repeal of the act.

Which parts of the act do you wish to keep?

[Earthling]

Companies can still fire people, but not without cause.

This bill, like the other Labor laws, are designed to protect workers from unjust treatment by employers. There is no proof that these bills are hampering business in the Northeast but they give the average employee more security in their job and therefor more willingness to spend money, increasing economic activity in the region.

As I remember correctly, the GM did look at the bills and said they won't have any negative effects on unemployment or activities of companies on the long run.

Furthermore, it also protects certain groups from being fired, just because the company does not want them anymore: older workers and pregnant woman might be vulnerable without this bill.

I don't see any reason to repeal the Employees Fair Treatment Act, other than to please big business.

[DemPGH]

It's called "Just Cause," and I really cannot fathom why anyone would not want it, or why it hinders business in any way. Unionizing is a right protected by the Constitution as well, and I believe (although not sure) that there are federal laws on some of these things (like discrimination), so repealing to would be pretty extreme.

[sentinel]

I might be alone on this one, but I've always felt if an employer [in the private sector] wanted to fire someone, the employer should be able to. Don't like your yellow pants? Boom, fired.

[Earthling]

And you are a member of the Labor Party? For what?

You are nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothes.

[sentinel]

I support unionization and unions, but to an extent,if employers can hire whoever they want, they should be able to dismiss someone too.

I don't appreciate the name calling, Earthling.

[Earthling]

Being pro union does not make you pro labor. After all, you want employers to have the right to fire workers because they are union members. After all, they don't need any reason to fire someone. How is this being pro Labor?

[sentinel]

I never said I was against protections for employers. My anecdote was admittedly overly simplified but we shouldn't make it a burden for employers to fire someone especially if that worker isn't carrying his or her own weight. I've always been concerned that this law was too burdensome for the employer.

[bore]

It's worth noting that this bill passed unanimously, with two relatively conservative legislators, goldwater and poirot, voting for it. Anyway, I don't see anything objectionable to this bill. Maybe the language in sections 3 and 4 could be tightened up a bit, but the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.

[Earthling]

I never said I was against protections for employers. My anecdote was admittedly overly simplified but we shouldn't make it a burden for employers to fire someone especially if that worker isn't carrying his or her own weight. I've always been concerned that this law was too burdensome for the employer.

Employees can still be fired. But employers need to make a case for dismissal, instead of just firing someone who wears the wrong pants.

[sentinel]

I never said I was against protections for employers. My anecdote was admittedly overly simplified but we shouldn't make it a burden for employers to fire someone especially if that worker isn't carrying his or her own weight. I've always been concerned that this law was too burdensome for the employer.

Employees can still be fired. But employers need to make a case for dismissal, instead of just firing someone who wears the wrong pants.

Failure to abide by a company's dress code is a case for dismissal by the way.

[Earthling]

If the company has a dress code and it is included as part of the contract you sign.

[Cincinnatus]

I think it should be noted that if this bill were to be voted on now, it would fail.  I suggest the sponsor look into ways that strengthen the language, within the spirit of this legislation.

[Deus Naturae]

I'll be happy to amend it, but I'd like to know which part the law you (as well as Representative Winfield) wish to preserve.

[Goldwater]

FTR, when I voted in favor of the Fair Treatment Act, I assumed that sections 2 and 3 of the bill were already federal law. Unless Atlasia doesn't have any anti-discrimination laws, which would surprise me.

[Lincoln Republican]

The Employees Fair Treatment Act is certainly not perfect, but I am opposed to the wholesale repeal of this act.

I would be more willing to look at modifications to the act, but I will not support the complete repeal of the act.

Which parts of the act do you wish to keep?

I would not change parts 1 or 2.

Part 3 could be amended in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits arising from employment disputes.

Part 4 is rather unclear, in my opinion.  It stipulates up to 12 months compensation can be paid depending on the length of service of the employee.  But it does not stipulate any time frames.  We should keep in mind as well, some settlements are much more than 12 months salary, especially at the executive level.  Provisions should be in place to ensure that employees who have been dismissed, rather than for infractions or not obeying company policies and procedures, are not ripped off by their former employer.  But any settlement should be fair to both parties.   

[Deus Naturae]

The Employees Fair Treatment Act is certainly not perfect, but I am opposed to the wholesale repeal of this act.

I would be more willing to look at modifications to the act, but I will not support the complete repeal of the act.

Which parts of the act do you wish to keep?

I would not change parts 1 or 2.

Part 3 could be amended in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits arising from employment disputes.

Part 4 is rather unclear, in my opinion.  It stipulates up to 12 months compensation can be paid depending on the length of service of the employee.  But it does not stipulate any time frames.  We should keep in mind as well, some settlements are much more than 12 months salary, especially at the executive level.  Provisions should be in place to ensure that employees who have been dismissed, rather than for infractions or not obeying company policies and procedures, are not ripped off by their former employer.  But any settlement should be fair to both parties.  

My problem with Part 1 is that it I'm not sure what qualifies as reasonable cause. If there were a new technology that allowed a company to automate worker positions, would that qualify? What if the company decides to consolidate? It seems to me that Part 1 significantly hampers essential business decisions. I'm not sure how we could fix this without repealing the stipulation, but I am open to suggestions.

As for Part 2, I wouldn't mind keeping it. However, I do think it is unreasonable to disallow age discrimination in employment. There are some occupations where age is a factor that merits consideration.

[Goldwater]

As for Part 2, I wouldn't mind keeping it. However, I do think think it is unreasonable to disallow age discrimination in employment. There are some occupations where age is a factor that merits consideration.

I remember thinking the same thing when the act was originally debated, although I'm not sure if I actually said it. But that was part of the reason I wanted the bill to clarify that poor performance was a just cause, because I figured that would cover cases where age was an important factor, since the only cases I can think where it would be is when old age leads to worse performance.