NE2: Amendment to the Employees Fair Treatment Act (Law)

[cinyc]

Amendment to the Employees Fair Treatment Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. Deus naturae

Debate on this bill shall remain open for 72 hours, or until around 8:30PM on Monday, April 14, unless modified or extended.  The sponsor, Rep. Deus, is encouraged to speak on behalf of the bill within the next 36 hours.  If he does not, the bill will be tabled, as there is other pending legislation in the queue.

The floor is open for debate.

[cinyc]

FYI, the Employees Fair Treatment Act states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The sections of the Employees Fair Treatment Act that would be repealed by this bill are vague and counterproductive. Section One sets criteria that is not even defined except for in one instance. Either the law is implying that cutbacks (which is itself a highly vague and undefined situation) are the only time in which an employer can dismiss, or it is leaving the issue up to the discretion of legal courts. If the former, I must say that that is somewhat ridiculous. What has to happen in order for a company to validly "cut back?" If a new technology is invented, can a company automate positions? Can a company consolidate departments if it means letting go of some employees? If the Northeast were, some time in the future, to institute a highly expensive regulation or reinstitute the corporate tax, would companies be able to leave the region? The idea that a business might not be allowed to do these things makes the Northeast a much less attractive place for businesses to locate to, which means less work for Northeasterners. If the latter, that is also pretty ridiculous. It would allow an employee to sue in literally any situation. The massive costs to the judicial system would be highly unfair to the taxpayer, and the massive legal costs to employers would provide a pretty big incentive not to create jobs here.

Section Three strikes me as harmful for several reasons. First, Atlasia already has a Federal Unemployment Insurance program that businesses pay Federal corporate taxes to fund. Why disincentivize hiring when you already have a program designed to help Atlasians who lose their jobs? Second, this requirement seems counterproductive. If a company is forced to fire employees due to cutbacks, is costing them even more money really going to improve the situation? By imposing this burden, we're creating a situation where, when an employer has no choice but to cut back, they're forced to cut back even more because of the initial costs of cutting back due to law. Third, this law disincentivizes hiring by adding another potential cost an employer must consider when hiring a potential employee. The purpose of this law may have been to protect Northeastern jobs, but it also prevents new jobs from being created, ensuring that unemployed Northeasterners have less opportunity to find work, the ultimate unfair treatment.

[sentinel]

While I was iffy about this bill when it passed, the GM report proves a few of your points wrong.

[Deus Naturae]

While I was iffy about this bill when it passed, the GM report proves a few of your points wrong.

What do you mean?

[sentinel]

While I was iffy about this bill when it passed, the GM report proves a few of your points wrong.

What do you mean?

There was a GM report, go pull it up.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I'd sign this.

However, I think we ought to have a sunrise clause for the repeal of section four. There might be some people relying on that salary who haven't looked into other social welfare programs (like Nixcome) due to the expectation that they have a flow of income.

So perhaps a repeal of Section Four shouldn't be effective until 2015?

[Deus Naturae]

While I was iffy about this bill when it passed, the GM report proves a few of your points wrong.

What do you mean?

There was a GM report, go pull it up.

Who was GM at the time?

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about this?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about this?

That looks good to me.

[sentinel]

While I was iffy about this bill when it passed, the GM report proves a few of your points wrong.

What do you mean?

There was a GM report, go pull it up.

Who was GM at the time?

Adam I believe. If not then SJoyce

[Deus Naturae]

While I was iffy about this bill when it passed, the GM report proves a few of your points wrong.

What do you mean?

There was a GM report, go pull it up.

Who was GM at the time?

Adam I believe. If not then SJoyce

According to the Wiki, Adam was Gm at the time. However, I was unable to find anything pertaining to this law in his thread.

[cinyc]

The debate period is over.  It is time to vote on the bill, as amended:

Amendment to the Employees Fair Treatment Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote shall remain open for the earlier of 48 hours or when all Representatives have voted.

[Deus Naturae]

Aye

[cinyc]

Aye

[sentinel]

Aye

[SWE]

Aye

[cinyc]

By a 4-0 vote with one absence, the bill passes and goes to the governor's desk for his signature or veto.

[cinyc]

This bill has been signed into law by the governor.