Child Labor Restriction Bill

[Jake]

Horrendously restrictive bill.

[Jake]

Nay, reasons given below.

Section 1: Applicability
1. This statute shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories which do not form part of any region.

Section 2: Definitions
1. The following definitions shall apply throughout this statute:
a.) A "school day" is defined as a day that contains more than two hours of classroom instruction.
b.) A "school week" is defined as any week (beginning noon Sunday) that contains two or more school days.
c.) "Work" is defined as receiving financial compensation for services rendered.

Section 3: Minors aged 15 to 17
1. Minors aged fifteen to seventeen years may not:
a.) Work more than 40 hours in a non-school week, and no more than 20 hours in a school week.
Would cause many businesses (any that employs teens) to A. hire more workers, increasing training costs and lowering efficiency for a period; or B. restrict the hours that they are open, lowering profit and decreasing tax revenue.
b.) Work more than 8 hours in a non-school day, and no more than 4 hours in a school day.
See above. Personal anecdote, I know this would remove any possibility of the theater where I work getting a movie over about 2 hours, as there's no time to fit prepping for a movie, the movie playing, and cleaning up into four hours. I'm guessing that's true for a lot of businesses. I also don't see why restrictions need be in place for non-school days. Do you think teens can't conclude that working 12 hours on a weekend might not be in their best interest?
c.) Work more than 6 days in a non-school week, and no more than 4 days in a school week.
I don't see why this needs to be in place either. Why shouldn't teens work every day in a week with or without school?

Section 4: Children aged less than 15
1. Employment of children aged less than fifteen years is prohibited, except those over the age of 13 years, who may work only as a newspaper carrier, and for no more than 10 hours in a week.
I don't see why this need be in place either. Few businesses would hire an under 15 to work (mostly because of transportation issues), but if there is a job they can do, why not let them?

Section 5: Hours of Work
1. Employment of any person under the age of eighteen years between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. is prohibited.
Personal anecdote again, this would remove any possibility of showing most movies twice on weekend nights where I work, as we almost always get out at 12-12:30, sometimes 1. I don't see what the harm in that is.

Section 6: Type of Employment
1. Employment of minors in any place that sells alcohol, except a supermarket or other general provisions store, is prohibited.
I can see why this would be included.
2. Employment of minors in work that requires the use of heavy machinery is prohibited.
This too, though it should be decided by the worker and employer whether the worker is capable of handling such work. Define "heavy machinery" too.
3. The Secretary of the Treasury may additionally prohibit employment of minors in certain jobs that it considers hazardous as he or she finds necessary.
Horrendous discretionary power.

Section 7: Penalties
1. Any employer in violation of Sections 3, 5 or 6 shall be fined between $500 and $1000 for each infraction.
2. Any employer in violation of Section 4 shall be fined between $2000 and $10000 for each infraction.
Extremely stiff penalties too.

Section 8: Exemptions
1. Parents may employ their own children to work in the home or at the place of their own business, except in prohibited types of employment specified in Section 6.
Now, why can teens work for their parents in these jobs, but not for someone who isn't a parent? Why not legal relatives, or family friends, etc?

In summary, I see no reason why this bill is needed at all. It's a blatant attempt to put some senator's subjective preferences into law, without good reason. Pretty stupid.

[Jake]

It's a blatant attempt to put some senator's subjective preferences into law, without good reason. Pretty stupid.

Actually, it isn't. Senator MasterJedi introduced this Bill for the President. And as for 'subjective preferences', that is the kind of line I expect from Opebo not you

'Hawk'

How are these provisions not subjective?

Answer the questions I posed in my post and try to defend the provisions of this bill.

[Jake]

That's not really it Doc. Legislation expires when a certain Senate ends. Even if it didn't, why should you be able to vote on legislation that was not introduced in the Senate term you were elected to serve? If this override is indeed going to go through, it should be done with the Senators in office last term.

[Jake]

That's what the Legislation Introduction/Reintroduction Thread is for. It doesn't just continue along.

[Jake]

Nay

And again we see a horrible abuse of Senate rules for political means.

[Jake]

The President vetoed his own legislation and Senator MasterJedi duly requested an override within the given time frame

Bro, you're having a vote to override a veto, made in the last term, to a bill passed during the last term, and having Senators vote on the bill, three of whom weren't eligible to vote on the bill when it was up for final passage. Defend that, or shut your mouth.

[Jake]

Talk about ineligible... Jake, you shouldn't even be a Senator... You just got lucky that Vlad flaked out.

Irrelevant. It's like saying the only reason you're a Senator is because a better candidate didn't run, ie, bullshit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we're going to take US Senate procedure as the basis of our operation, the legislation would've died at the end of the Senate session, vetoed, immediately blowing your argument in favor of its legality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This bill was reintroduced in the stage it was already, which again would not be done in the US Senate, and hasn't been done before in our Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, and I'm not denying that. I'm saying that bringing this bill directly to a veto override vote is against the rules of Senate procedure for the reintroduction of expired legislation.

Either, 1. this bill is still operating under the term of the last Senate, meaning newly elected Senators would be ineligible to vote on it, 2. this bill was reintroduced in the new Senate, meaning that we should be waiting until the requisite debate time has passed and then move on the voting on its final passage, or 3. we're trying to mish mash these options together by introducing a bill directly to the floor in its final state, something that Senate procedure doesn't allow.

Of course, the honorable PPT can defend his actions and state where in Senate procedure he's allowed to carryover legislation between Senates, directly to a veto override vote.

[Jake]

Masterjedi called for the override after the three of us were sworn in, if my date and times are correct... But I can see your point on the three day debate period. Even still, I want to know what it matters, considering that the previous Senator of my district, Mr. Washburn voted for the bill anyway.

However, Senator Hawk did grant permission to override the veto. I see no point in arguing the vote at this stage, unless you just want to be a prick about it.

Did you even read the second to last paragraph? I'm saying this veto override vote cannot be carried across Senate sessions. There is no Senate procedure or rule that allows it. None at all.

Furthermore, I'll ask the PPT why this bill gets carried through to the next Senate, without need for a final vote, when, for example, the Criminal Justice Bill did not get brought through in the same stage as it was left in? Try to at least be consistent when breaking Senate rules.

[Jake]

Question, Jake: why should the President be allowed to veto a bill and the Senate not be allowed to override it? Seems like this could be used by Presidents to kill bills they don't like without having to risk veto overrides by simply waiting until right after an election...

I could ask you the same thing about why the Senate could wait until the very end to approve a bill. The only answer is simple, that's the rules and procedures we operate under.

[Jake]

I'll be forced to lodge a court case challenging your actions in that case.

[Jake]

Other than act in accordance with the OSPR, I don't see what else can be done. The President vetoed the Bill on the 4th September and Senator MasterJedi gave notice of wishing to seek an override well within the 72 hours time limit

As PPT, I'm acting impartially. If the override succeeds, it succeeds; if it fails, it fails. I can live with that and move forward, can you? My own opinion on the legislation is irrelevant. I actually voted in favor of it because I recall supporting the very same piece of legislations passed by the then Southeast Regional Assembly. And one thing I'm not is a hypocrite

A Senator made a request for an override, furthermore it was seconded, which I granted because it, to the best of my knowledge, is permissable under the OSPR. I've also read the Constitution and found nothing that forbids my decision

I suspect I was overwhelmingly elected as PPT because the Senate trusts me to act in an even-handed manner, irrespective of my own personal opinions

BTW, something I should have made perfectly clear earlier today, in future, you communicate with me with civility or not at all. I don't take too kindly to being told to "shut my mouth". And if I hit a raw nerve beforehand, then, given your disgraceful tactics in the last Senate, it was no more than what you deserved. You can either be a good senator or a bad one, take your pick

'Hawk'

You again show your two great skills as a person.

1. You can write five paragraphs and still fail to make a point.
2. You can ignore other people's points, and still write five paragraphs.

You still haven't answered my concerns about the way this was carried over between senate sessions, nor have you addressed my concerns about how other legislation was carried over in comparison. Do so, and I'll probably stop making my case for why you're wrong.

Lewis, I totally agree that #2 is the correct procedure that should've been taken in this case. This legislation was quite clearly expired, and should've been reintroduced like all other legislation was in the expired legislation thread as if it was a new bill. I'm not saying this bill should be thrown out and never discussed again, I'm simply saying that moving straight to a veto override is breaking a number of senate rules and procedures.

[Jake]

The bill was not presented to the President until after the term had expired, meaning it should've gone into the expired legislation thread, just like the other bills. Case closed.

[Jake]

It was answered above. The term expired before the bill was even presented to the president for his signature, meaning it goes into the expired legislation thread.

[Jake]

It was answered above. The term expired before the bill was even presented to the president for his signature, meaning it goes into the expired legislation thread.

So technically there was no veto then either?

Not one with any legality.