SB 2016-059 - Employees Rights Act (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:52:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SB 2016-059 - Employees Rights Act (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: SB 2016-059 - Employees Rights Act (Debating)  (Read 1194 times)
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 04:56:04 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. Clyde1998 (Lab-MA)
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2017, 09:53:37 AM »

I have serious issues with Section 1, Section 2.2, Section 6 and Section 8.

For Section 1- Does this bill regulate the amount of hours one can work for just one job? Or does this apply to multiple jobs? If the latter is true, how can employers enforce this? If an individual wishes to work the maximum allowable hours at 2 jobs (90 hours per week) does that individual get charged with a crime for breaking this law? Also, for high school students and those under the age of 18, 30 hours per week is still far too high a ceiling. 20-25 is more realistic, given that students need to focus on their schoolwork as well.

For Section 2.2 - Is this a mandate, or can employers still choose to pay their employees a holiday pay right, which is usually time and a half (the total amount of money earned in a regular shift, with half of that sum added on)?

Section 6 - There are major privacy issues involved with this. Working at a job that allows constant monitoring of employees via CCTV creates a tense and untrustworthy scenario. Having worked at a job like this myself, I often feared that I would be "caught doing something", even if I wasn't doing anything wrong. There is a difference between having CCTV to detract theft from customers, but treating employees like cattle that need to stay in line violates not only personal privacy, but the whole premise of this legislation. As for bag searches, this is also a huge privacy violation. If an employee is believed to be shoplifting, most businesses have a security guard on duty who can be brought in to execute a search with reasonable cause. I would NEVER allow my employer to search my personal belongings, even though I would also never steal from my employer. Also, allowing monitoring of employees "under investigation" only furthers the "police state" vibe I get from this section. This is about protecting workers' rights, not trying to find evidence to arrest them. Employers may collect evidence without monitoring employees, and still have enough of it to fire and/or prosecute an employee.

Section 8 - Allowing businesses to opt out of this act only seems like a "slippery slope", where employers will just be allowed to overwork employees without consequence. If we're going to pass legislation to protect workers' rights (which I sure hope it isn't this bill) then there cannot be an opt out option for any business. Those workers should not be denied the same legal protections as everyone else because their employer doesn't believe they're entitled to them.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2017, 11:54:18 AM »

For Section 1- Does this bill regulate the amount of hours one can work for just one job? Or does this apply to multiple jobs? If the latter is true, how can employers enforce this? If an individual wishes to work the maximum allowable hours at 2 jobs (90 hours per week) does that individual get charged with a crime for breaking this law? Also, for high school students and those under the age of 18, 30 hours per week is still far too high a ceiling. 20-25 is more realistic, given that students need to focus on their schoolwork as well.

     Employees can opt out. I think the point is employers can't force you to work over 45 hours/week.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     It is relevant that these opt-outs must be approved by the Department of Labor. There are some industries where not all of these provisions will be feasible. Suppose a small town hospital has only one ob-gyn on staff to deliver babies; that person will likely need to work more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2017, 09:44:48 PM »

I think the thing is about section 6 is even without this bill, employers are still doing all that stuff.  The only thing that would stop them is if we made a law (in this bill or somewhere else) that prohibited it.  I don't think it makes sense to stop employers from using CCTV because they're going to use it anyway to monitor customers.  I think the point is to try to regulate it so that employees know what's going on.  I'd probably support getting rid of bag searches though.  If there's a reason to search someone's bag, the police can get a warrant.  Employers shouldn't be acting like police.

On the work hours for students, I empathize with the need to focus on school, but there's some families that really need the money to survive and I lean toward giving them the right to do that, which I think is more important than their education (sadly).
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2017, 11:29:53 AM »

     Bump. I'd like more discussion on this before we vote on this.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2017, 11:43:27 AM »

On the work hours for students, I empathize with the need to focus on school, but there's some families that really need the money to survive and I lean toward giving them the right to do that, which I think is more important than their education (sadly).

Is there legislation that makes attendance compulsory for high school students?
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2017, 01:40:47 PM »

I'll respond to these comments in a few hours when I'll have some time to respond properly, which will hopefully clarify this bill and reduce concerns that people may have with it. I'd be happy for people to suggest amendments too.

BTW, Leinad, I'm not a Representative at the moment. Wink
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2017, 03:32:25 PM »

On the work hours for students, I empathize with the need to focus on school, but there's some families that really need the money to survive and I lean toward giving them the right to do that, which I think is more important than their education (sadly).

Is there legislation that makes attendance compulsory for high school students?

I don't think there is anything in Atlasia.  The reset put everything on US law, so generally it is, but it varies based on the state.  Some states require students to stay until they're 18 and others allow them to leave earlier.  I assume the reset included state law, but I actually have no idea on that.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2017, 05:27:39 PM »

On the work hours for students, I empathize with the need to focus on school, but there's some families that really need the money to survive and I lean toward giving them the right to do that, which I think is more important than their education (sadly).

Is there legislation that makes attendance compulsory for high school students?

I don't think there is anything in Atlasia.  The reset put everything on US law, so generally it is, but it varies based on the state.  Some states require students to stay until they're 18 and others allow them to leave earlier.  I assume the reset included state law, but I actually have no idea on that.

Because, in the event that attendance were compulsory for high school students, those students who need to work instead of attend school would face legal trouble, which is obviously something we want to prevent.

Either way, I still have mixed feelings about this bill and I'm working on some amendments.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2017, 03:03:21 AM »

BTW, Leinad, I'm not a Representative at the moment. Wink

You were when you sponsored this Tongue
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2017, 04:27:54 PM »

BTW, Leinad, I'm not a Representative at the moment. Wink

You were when you sponsored this Tongue
Was it that long ago!? Huh Tongue

For Section 1- Does this bill regulate the amount of hours one can work for just one job? Or does this apply to multiple jobs? If the latter is true, how can employers enforce this? If an individual wishes to work the maximum allowable hours at 2 jobs (90 hours per week) does that individual get charged with a crime for breaking this law? Also, for high school students and those under the age of 18, 30 hours per week is still far too high a ceiling. 20-25 is more realistic, given that students need to focus on their schoolwork as well.
The bill includes an opt out to allow for people to work longer than the 45 hour limit proposed should the individual choose to. This prevents people from working more than 45 hours per week against their will. It's a system that's in place in the United Kingdom.

For people under the age of eighteen, the thirty hour limit allows for people to work without being able to replace adult workers full time. There may be situations where the student would be able to work thirty hours without impacting on their education, such as during school holidays.

For Section 2.2 - Is this a mandate, or can employers still choose to pay their employees a holiday pay right, which is usually time and a half (the total amount of money earned in a regular shift, with half of that sum added on)?
It should've been worded as a minimum mandate. Employers would be able to pay their employees more than the specified amount should they wish to. I'll propose an amendment to make that clearer.

Section 6 - There are major privacy issues involved with this. Working at a job that allows constant monitoring of employees via CCTV creates a tense and untrustworthy scenario. Having worked at a job like this myself, I often feared that I would be "caught doing something", even if I wasn't doing anything wrong. There is a difference between having CCTV to detract theft from customers, but treating employees like cattle that need to stay in line violates not only personal privacy, but the whole premise of this legislation. As for bag searches, this is also a huge privacy violation. If an employee is believed to be shoplifting, most businesses have a security guard on duty who can be brought in to execute a search with reasonable cause. I would NEVER allow my employer to search my personal belongings, even though I would also never steal from my employer. Also, allowing monitoring of employees "under investigation" only furthers the "police state" vibe I get from this section. This is about protecting workers' rights, not trying to find evidence to arrest them. Employers may collect evidence without monitoring employees, and still have enough of it to fire and/or prosecute an employee.
As mentioned by Siren, CCTV is used in retail to monitor customers. They will record employees working and they cannot be prevented from doing this. Additionally, bag searches already happen in retail where theft would be quite simple otherwise. All this bill does is make clear in legislation how far the employer can go with the monitoring of their employees.

Section 6, Clause 2 states "Employers shall tell all employees about the monitoring process that take place in their workplace.", Clause 3 states "Monitoring of employees shall not be excessive and should be justifiable" and Clause 6 states "Employees shall be made aware of the locations of every CCTV camera in their premise." This would reduce concerns that people are being monitored excessively and without a reason.

If an employee is believed to be shoplifting, most businesses have a security guard on duty who can be brought in to execute a search with reasonable cause.
Surely that would include a bag search, if they have one?

Section 8 - Allowing businesses to opt out of this act only seems like a "slippery slope", where employers will just be allowed to overwork employees without consequence. If we're going to pass legislation to protect workers' rights (which I sure hope it isn't this bill) then there cannot be an opt out option for any business. Those workers should not be denied the same legal protections as everyone else because their employer doesn't believe they're entitled to them.
As per Section 8, Clause 2: "These groups shall be approved by the Atlasian Department of Labor."

This would reduce this to be used by the emergency services, hospital staff, and other companies that the Department of Labor deems should be allowed to opt out of this. Companies would have to have a good reason to opt out and wouldn't be able to be done on a whim as you're suggesting.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2017, 03:41:02 PM »
« Edited: March 13, 2017, 03:45:56 PM by Senator PiT, PPT »

     Any more comments here? I understand that Senator Clyde intended to propose an amendment to this bill.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2017, 05:13:23 AM »

So the minor amendment that I wish to propose to the Senate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2017, 01:30:54 PM »

     Senators have 36 hours to object to the amendment.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2017, 05:42:42 PM »

     The amendment has been adopted.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2017, 06:28:32 PM »

Section 6 - There are major privacy issues involved with this. Working at a job that allows constant monitoring of employees via CCTV creates a tense and untrustworthy scenario. Having worked at a job like this myself, I often feared that I would be "caught doing something", even if I wasn't doing anything wrong. There is a difference between having CCTV to detract theft from customers, but treating employees like cattle that need to stay in line violates not only personal privacy, but the whole premise of this legislation. As for bag searches, this is also a huge privacy violation. If an employee is believed to be shoplifting, most businesses have a security guard on duty who can be brought in to execute a search with reasonable cause. I would NEVER allow my employer to search my personal belongings, even though I would also never steal from my employer. Also, allowing monitoring of employees "under investigation" only furthers the "police state" vibe I get from this section. This is about protecting workers' rights, not trying to find evidence to arrest them. Employers may collect evidence without monitoring employees, and still have enough of it to fire and/or prosecute an employee.
As mentioned by Siren, CCTV is used in retail to monitor customers. They will record employees working and they cannot be prevented from doing this. Additionally, bag searches already happen in retail where theft would be quite simple otherwise. All this bill does is make clear in legislation how far the employer can go with the monitoring of their employees.

Section 6, Clause 2 states "Employers shall tell all employees about the monitoring process that take place in their workplace.", Clause 3 states "Monitoring of employees shall not be excessive and should be justifiable" and Clause 6 states "Employees shall be made aware of the locations of every CCTV camera in their premise." This would reduce concerns that people are being monitored excessively and without a reason.

That answer doesn't seem to address R2D2's question.  Specifically what type of special monitoring is permitted on employees who are suspected or under investigation for wrongdoing?  Section 6, subsection 7 of this bill appears to allow for 'enhanced' investigation of certain employees.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2017, 06:40:32 AM »

Section 6 - There are major privacy issues involved with this. Working at a job that allows constant monitoring of employees via CCTV creates a tense and untrustworthy scenario. Having worked at a job like this myself, I often feared that I would be "caught doing something", even if I wasn't doing anything wrong. There is a difference between having CCTV to detract theft from customers, but treating employees like cattle that need to stay in line violates not only personal privacy, but the whole premise of this legislation. As for bag searches, this is also a huge privacy violation. If an employee is believed to be shoplifting, most businesses have a security guard on duty who can be brought in to execute a search with reasonable cause. I would NEVER allow my employer to search my personal belongings, even though I would also never steal from my employer. Also, allowing monitoring of employees "under investigation" only furthers the "police state" vibe I get from this section. This is about protecting workers' rights, not trying to find evidence to arrest them. Employers may collect evidence without monitoring employees, and still have enough of it to fire and/or prosecute an employee.
As mentioned by Siren, CCTV is used in retail to monitor customers. They will record employees working and they cannot be prevented from doing this. Additionally, bag searches already happen in retail where theft would be quite simple otherwise. All this bill does is make clear in legislation how far the employer can go with the monitoring of their employees.

Section 6, Clause 2 states "Employers shall tell all employees about the monitoring process that take place in their workplace.", Clause 3 states "Monitoring of employees shall not be excessive and should be justifiable" and Clause 6 states "Employees shall be made aware of the locations of every CCTV camera in their premise." This would reduce concerns that people are being monitored excessively and without a reason.

That answer doesn't seem to address R2D2's question.  Specifically what type of special monitoring is permitted on employees who are suspected or under investigation for wrongdoing?  Section 6, subsection 7 of this bill appears to allow for 'enhanced' investigation of certain employees.
Companies investigate people that breach company policy where the police don't need to be involved already - this may be something like constantly being late for work or concerns about workplace bullying - or to provide evidence to the police - such as concerns about racist comments. This would include checking CCTV recordings, asking other employees their knowledge about events that have occurred, checking websites used by the employee on work computers and checking recordings of telephone calls.

I propose to the Senate this amendment to make it harder to enter into covert monitoring and to clarify what the investigations would be for:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm still willing to hear any other proposals to amend this bill. Smiley
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2017, 12:19:10 PM »

     Senators have 36 hours to object.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2017, 10:18:00 PM »

     With no objections the amendment is adopted.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2017, 03:35:55 PM »

     Are there any more comments? If not, I will open a final vote in 24 hours.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,064
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2017, 06:04:58 PM »

Okay, it time to vote on this. Senators, please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2017, 02:26:36 AM »

Aye.
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2017, 08:13:00 AM »

Aye
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2017, 12:18:42 PM »

Aye
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2017, 01:19:45 PM »

Abstain
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 12 queries.