The Restoring Full Time Work for Atlasia Act (Passed)

[Barnes]

I'm not sure if the vote on Senator PiT's amendment is still open, but if so I vote Nay.

[Senator Cris]

The amendment failed to pass.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, bold moves don't always work. That's why we call them bold.

[windjammer]

I have the feeling someone will go mad quickly when he will be sworn.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have the feeling someone will go mad quickly when he will be sworn.

Not really, since I told Adam about this before introduced it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When these bills were passed, the author gave not two sh**ts about the economic context when he ramraided through a bunch of economic anvils following his theoretical textbook from 1917. His ideology blinded him to the consequences of his actions in the short term, but no one gave a damn then about the unemployment, it was oh how awesome he is for having the balls to be so bold an aggressive.

Well it is the combination of bills like these, that have given us the unemployment rate we have now. It is not going to be an even trade between hours and jobs. More than likely, they will just stay lean unless they absolutely have to hire on help. This doesn't mean more jobs, it means people being worked harded to accomplish the same tasks in a fewer number of hours. I have seen that happen enough to now how these companies act. Restoring the flexibility to give more hours at standard pay rates, will allow for companies to operate more effectively creating demand for their suppliers and giving more money to the workers who will spend it. Many companies probably treat 32 the way 40 is now and many now punish and heavily discourage getting more than 40 hours in various ways. So they aren't getting much benefit from that on paper time and a half if the company never lets them work overtime. However, if they can work additional four hours at standard pay rates, that is likely money in their pockets.

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

[Associate Justice PiT]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

     Eh, that is supposition. Given the fact that unemployment has remained largely unchanged, there is little concrete reason to believe that the law being repealed had any actual impact on employment numbers.

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

     Eh, that is supposition. Given the fact that unemployment has remained largely unchanged, there is little concrete reason to believe that the law being repealed had any actual impact on employment numbers.

There are many other reasons our unemployment has largely unchanged, due to a lack of stability in our regional governments, excessive deficit hounding, and not enough support for our armed services. I think that attempting to make a stark reverse course not only limits the number of people potentially able to work, but significantly affects stability, seeing as this is a major workplace policy.

[Associate Justice PiT]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

     Eh, that is supposition. Given the fact that unemployment has remained largely unchanged, there is little concrete reason to believe that the law being repealed had any actual impact on employment numbers.

There are many other reasons our unemployment has largely unchanged, due to a lack of stability in our regional governments, excessive deficit hounding, and not enough support for our armed services. I think that attempting to make a stark reverse course not only limits the number of people potentially able to work, but significantly affects stability, seeing as this is a major workplace policy.

     Are you the GM? Or do you just enjoy speaking as if you have the facts?

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

     Eh, that is supposition. Given the fact that unemployment has remained largely unchanged, there is little concrete reason to believe that the law being repealed had any actual impact on employment numbers.

There are many other reasons our unemployment has largely unchanged, due to a lack of stability in our regional governments, excessive deficit hounding, and not enough support for our armed services. I think that attempting to make a stark reverse course not only limits the number of people potentially able to work, but significantly affects stability, seeing as this is a major workplace policy.

     Are you the GM? Or do you just enjoy speaking as if you have the facts?

Isn't this supposed to be a debate? You are arguing that removing this bill has no effect. I'm trying to argue of other potential factors for our stable level of terrible employment numbers. If this turns to a whole LOL THERE'S NO GM YOU CAN'T DEBATE then what's the point of the amendment, the senate, or even the whole game? Why are we even putting up bills? because we think they'll have an effect.

[Prince of Salem]

I propose the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Senator Cris]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Maxwell]

While this amendment is better than the last one, I must object still. Working hours at this point is non-negotiable.

[Barnes]

I was also going to object to Senator JoMCaR's amendment.

Senators should also be aware that by repealing the full Act, they will be ripping away minimum wage equalization for tipped and non-tipped employees.  Something that would be cruel and perfidious on our part.

[Associate Justice PiT]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

     Eh, that is supposition. Given the fact that unemployment has remained largely unchanged, there is little concrete reason to believe that the law being repealed had any actual impact on employment numbers.

There are many other reasons our unemployment has largely unchanged, due to a lack of stability in our regional governments, excessive deficit hounding, and not enough support for our armed services. I think that attempting to make a stark reverse course not only limits the number of people potentially able to work, but significantly affects stability, seeing as this is a major workplace policy.

     Are you the GM? Or do you just enjoy speaking as if you have the facts?

Isn't this supposed to be a debate? You are arguing that removing this bill has no effect. I'm trying to argue of other potential factors for our stable level of terrible employment numbers. If this turns to a whole LOL THERE'S NO GM YOU CAN'T DEBATE then what's the point of the amendment, the senate, or even the whole game? Why are we even putting up bills? because we think they'll have an effect.

     The potential factors you talk about don't even make sense. The Senate deficit hounding? Seriously? I'm not even sure we're talking about the same country at this point.

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

     Eh, that is supposition. Given the fact that unemployment has remained largely unchanged, there is little concrete reason to believe that the law being repealed had any actual impact on employment numbers.

There are many other reasons our unemployment has largely unchanged, due to a lack of stability in our regional governments, excessive deficit hounding, and not enough support for our armed services. I think that attempting to make a stark reverse course not only limits the number of people potentially able to work, but significantly affects stability, seeing as this is a major workplace policy.

     Are you the GM? Or do you just enjoy speaking as if you have the facts?

Isn't this supposed to be a debate? You are arguing that removing this bill has no effect. I'm trying to argue of other potential factors for our stable level of terrible employment numbers. If this turns to a whole LOL THERE'S NO GM YOU CAN'T DEBATE then what's the point of the amendment, the senate, or even the whole game? Why are we even putting up bills? because we think they'll have an effect.

     The potential factors you talk about don't even make sense. The Senate deficit hounding? Seriously? I'm not even sure we're talking about the same country at this point.

Every year in Atlasia I can remember we've run surpluses or at least relatively close to balance. This is probably due to excessive taxation, but nevertheless you can not deny this unless you are under selective denial. And we've usually done it on the backs of our men and women in the armed services.

Yep, the last two budgets I can find on wiki:

2012 - Surplus of over $80 Billion.
2014 - Surplus of around $17 Billion.
2015 - Surplus of around $15 Billion.

In my mind, during something which could be categorized as a serious, multiple year recession, running surpluses is pretty unnecessary.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Generally speaking, I agree that surpluses are unnecessary; we should aim to run close to even since a surplus equates to wasteful taxation. It's just odd to blame deficit hawks for this given the historical political leanings of Atlasia.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

The bill doesn't roll back to 40, it rolls back to 36. 40 was PiT's amendment that just failed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was also going to object to Senator JoMCaR's amendment.

Senators should also be aware that by repealing the full Act, they will be ripping away minimum wage equalization for tipped and non-tipped employees.  Something that would be cruel and perfidious on our part.

Then offer an amendment to move it to a bill that actual deals with the mininum wage like the "Set it Leave It Alone Minimum Wage Act for instane. Further cleaning up statutes, I love it when a plan comes together.

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

The bill doesn't roll back to 40, it rolls back to 36. 40 was PiT's amendment that just failed.

It allows the regions to roll it back all the way to 40.

[Senator Cris]

A vote on the JoMCaR's amendment is now open. Please vote.

I propose the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

Nay

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

NAY