Talk Elections

Child Labor Restriction Bill


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.
b.) Work more than 8 hours in a non-school day, and no more than 4 hours in a school day.
c.) Work more than 6 days in a non-school week, and no more than 4 days in a school week.

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.

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.

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.
2. Employment of minors in work that requires the use of heavy machinery is prohibited.
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.

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.

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.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. MasterJedi

This could have been up two days ago. I missed that, 4 bills were up and one was in the fifth slot so we get this now, enjoy.

Horrendously restrictive bill.

Of course I'll be voting nay.  There shouldn't be any more restrictions of work for 14-17 than the current mandatory schooling laws.

I hereby open up the final vote on this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

Aye. Boy, intense debate over this one. :P

I seem to recall voting in favor of a similar, if not the same piece of legislation, back in the days of the Southeast Regional Assembly, so I can hardly vote any other way in the Senate. True it is restrictive but it's for all the right reasons. I, therefore, vote  Aye  on this Bill

'Hawk'

NAY.  Blatant discrimination.  I can decide when I want to work, thanks anyways.

So is having a voting age and an age of consent, then.

Aye

Yup

This is worse, but truly yes on both of those counts, though the differences between a teenager and a toddler have to be recognized.

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.

aye

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'

This bill has enough votes to pass. Senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

Aye, for the record.

How are these provisions not subjective?

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

With 7 Ayes, 2 Nays and 0 Abstentions I hereby present this to the President for his signiture.


I know I'm not PPT anymore but I guess I'm Dean now and no Q so here we go. This had enough votes to pass while I was gone so it can be signed now and not reintroduced.

Jake made a good case.

VETO

Maybe so, but don't you have any confidence in your own case given the fact it's your Bill?

Still, given that you have seemingly gone full circle in the past on such issues as abortion and free trade, this veto doesn't, in the least bit, surprise me ::)

'Hawk'

I'll be going for a veto override.

Second the motion.

Oh, brother.  "Passing" the bill after the Senate session has ended is one thing, but holding a veto override with a new set of Senators is even more tacky.


I have not been reluctant to veto my own legislation before, if I am convinced that it is no longer a good idea or that it has become unacceptable through the Senate's amendments, and the former was the case here.


Well, I'm glad you've had the exact same position on every issue since you were politically aware.  Sorry for not living up to your standards.

Youve got my backing on the attempt.

Am I correct in recalling that you think the alcohol age should be 21, but the marijuana age should be 16?

I dunno, all I know is that at this moment, I would prefer both be 18.

Showing a little hostility aren't we? I don't see what difference it makes how long we have served? I support Senator Masterjedi in calling for a veto override, and urge my collegues to vote for it.

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.

Then it should be reintroduced. New Senators should take up where the old ones left off, as it is in the United States Senate. When the new Senator is sworn in, they take the old one's place. The Senators that are no longer in office should not have a vote.

In any case, when it is reintroduced, I will vote on it, as I'm sure the other non-incumbants will.

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

I think it would be a whole lot easier if the Senate Rules, Regulations and Procedures were amended to allow any outstanding legislation from the previous Senate to be reintroduced in their existing state

By outstanding legislation, I am referring to what was actually on the floor at the time the Fourteenth Senate expired namely this Bill, together with the Wage Enforcement Bill, the Consolidated Criminal Justice Bill and the Copyright Reform Bill. I just think it would be a much more efficient :) way of conducting business around here

Nevertheless, if they have to be reintroduced then they have to be reintroduced. And they will take precedence. Not to mention the continuing saga of the Resolution on the Middle East Conflict, which has been on the floor of the Senate from around the same time Noah built his Ark

'Hawk'

I want a veto override. I'll wait for the new PPT to open it though.

As the sponsor of this Bill, Senator MasterJedi, seconded by Senator Virginian87, has requested an override; therefore, I hereby open up the veto override vote on this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

'Hawk'

 Aye

'Hawk'

Aye.

Aye

Nay

Nay

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

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

And given your behaviour during the last Senate, you are in no position to criticise. You either win the argument or you don't, and if you don't you jolly well get over it, rather than timewasting and wilfully obstructing because you can't get your own way

'Hawk'

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.

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

I don't understand what you mean by calling the three of us who are new ineligible? The U.S. Senate does NOT bring back old Senators to vote on legislation that has been vetoed, and since Senator Masterjedi called for a veto override, that means that this Senate must vote on it.

Prime example, let's say Rick Santorum loses to Casey. If Bush vetoes a bill, and it is reintroduced, Casey has the right to vote on it if he has already taken the oath, and Santorum doesn't.

So, Senator, either live with the three of us voting on the veto or resign. There's no rule in the Senate regulations of this forum that denies newly elected or appointed Senators the right to vote on any legislation brought before them... That includes a veto override.

This Bill was vetoed by the President on the 4th September 2006. Senator MasterJedi requested a veto override that very same day (i.e. within 72 hours). Request for the veto override granted

'Hawk'

Aye

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


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.


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.


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.

Ok, I refuse to play in your ballpark on that. It is also irrelevent to call the three of our votes ineligible, then. The three of us are now Senators, there's nothing you can do about it, the same as we can't get rid of you, no matter how much we want to.

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.

Aye.

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.

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.

But shouldn't the bill die at the end of a Senate then? Or else the outgoing Senators should be allowed to vote on it? This seems like a rather authoritarian grant of power to the President then...

Well, if Senator Hawk sees fit, he can withdraw my vote. However, I hold that my vote is legal, and I refuse to withdraw it myself.

Aye

All I can do is refer to Article 5 of the OSPR Section 3: Rules on Veto Overrides:

1. If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the President, the sponsor of the bill must let the PPT know publicly on the Senate floor within seventy-two (72) hours of the veto being placed whether he wishes to have a vote to override the veto.  If he replies in the negative or fails to reply within the given time, the legislation will be withdrawn from the Senate floor.

This particular Bill was vetoed by the President on the 4th September 2006 . That very same day, Senator MasterJedi, as sponsor, gave notice that he would seek an override vote. This met the necessary 72 hour time limit

Therefore, as the newly elected PPT, I granted his request in accordance with the aforesaid Clause 1 of Section 3, Article 5 of the OSPR

It is my intention to count all votes cast as valid

'Hawk'

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

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'

*slips a Nay in and runs from flames being thrown around Senate chamber*

:'(

While 1. is clearly not an option, 2., at least on the face of it, sounds like the correct procedure.

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.

When was this legislation vetoed by the President and when did Senator MasterJedi request that a veto override be taken? Answer: 4th September 2006

On the 30th August, Senator MasterJedi, then PPT, announced that the Bill had enough votes to pass giving senators 24 hours notice to change their votes. However, he gave public notice that he had to take leave of absence and he did not return until 2nd September 2006. On his return, he, as Dean of the Senate and bearning in mind the absence of the Vice President, saw fit to present the Bill to the President for his signature. The Bill having secured 7 votes in favor, 2 against, with 0 abstentions. So, in effect, the Bill had been legitimately all done and dusted before the end of the Fourteenth Senate, which expired noon Eastern on the 1st September 2006

The President vetoed the Bill on the 4th September 2006 and Senator MasterJedi gave due notice (i.e. within the 72 hours as stipulated by the OSPR) that he would seek a veto override, which I granted

'Hawk'

Speaking of 3, it is my intention to propose an amendment to the OSPR that would allow all legislation currently on the floor at the end of the one Senate term to remain on the floor in its final state for the new Senate term

If nothing else, it would a be a more efficient way of going about business. I have attempted to explain the background with regards to this Bill in the previous post. It is bearing this in mind, that I have granted the override

The President vetoed the Bill on the 4th September and Senator MasterJedi gave notice to request an override that very same day, which was well within the 72 hours time limit specified under Article 5, Section 3, Clause 1 of the OSPR

I have contacted Senator MasterJedi requesting that he contact me as a matter of urgency regarding this matter

'Hawk'

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.

As I've said, I'm waiting to hear from the Senator as regards this matter

'Hawk'

I agree with this.

I have contacted Senator MasterJedi regarding this matter and I'm awaiting his reply

'Hawk'

It's not legitimately all done and dusted until it's either signed by the President or passed over his veto.

I can understand that*. But as of now, there seems to be no such legislation.

*well, in a case such as this one. But think of all eventualities, please. What about a vote that's still open, with the result unclear, when the term expires? Who gets to be allowed to vote?

It, seemingly, had passed the appropriate stage to be presented to the President before the end of the Fourteenth Senate and I'm trying to ascertain, whether it was on these grounds, that the Senator saw fit to present it to the President on his return, which was evidently after the Fourteenth Senate expired

The absence of a functioning Vice President did not help the situation and it's wrong that business should have to grind to a halt because of it. The Senator gave due leave of absence

I'm seriously minded, after all this carry-on, to propose an amendment to the OSPR that would permit all legislation on the floor of the previous Senate to be stay on the floor for the new Senate. Because, as things stand, its grossly inefficient. It isn't good enough :(

'Hawk'

I see no reason why new senators can't pick up from where the old ones left off, at whichever stage the legislation is at, provided they have taken their oath of office. This is an issue that can be readily debated by the Senate once I propose the changes I feel are necessary, in order, to make this place function more efficiently

'Hawk'

My point remains.

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?

Be it the case that if Senator MasterJedi incorrectly presented the Bill to the President, it follows that it was inappropriate for the President to veto it

'Hawk'

Not one with any legality.

Senator Jake and the SoFA have both put forward the case that this is expired legislation and, therefore, should be reintroduced

I, however, granted the override on the grounds that Senator MasterJedi gave due notice to seek a veto override within 72 hours of the President vetoing this Bill; however, it is the opinion of Senator Jake and the SoFA that this was not permitted by the OSPR

Therefore, unless, Senator MasterJedi gives legitimate reason as to why I should allow this override to stand within the next 24 hours, I shall draw a line under this once and for all

'Hawk'

I really don't have a reason. As I said before and I'll say now, if I was PPT I would have gone ahead with the override.

Now whether this Senate does and there is a court case is not my decision, I just said what I would have done if I was still in the position.

Well Senator, that's not a very strong arguement. If that's the case, then Senator Hawk, this legislation should be stricken and reintroduced as Senator Jake has said.

If possible, we should really avoid a court case. If Senator Hawk does decide to strike it, and have it reintroduced, I would like to add, that my vote will not change. I will vote Aye on this legislation if it takes six days or six months to get it back on the floor.

That said, I would like to formally ask Senator Hawk to close this up, and let's just start again on it.

First of all, I'd like to thank the Senator for his response

While, they is no doubt in my mind, under normal circumstances, my granting Senator MasterJedi's request for a veto override was legitimate under Article 5, Section 3, Clause 1 of the OSPR, these are not normal circumstances

It has become transparent that this Bill ought not to have been presented to the President and that he ought not to have responded

To all intents and purposes, the Child Labor Restriction Bill is expired legislation and will be treated as such. This veto override has been withdrawn and the Bill will be reintroduced

'Hawk'

Why is the buck being passed to me here?  I only responded to what I was given.  In hindsight, sure, I could have brought up concerns with the bill being passed after the Senate session ended.  Though it could be argued that, according to precedent, the voting period ends at the designated time regardless of whether the PPT posts so or not, because MasterJedi did not count a vote change by Jesus on the whaling bill because it was posted after the 24 hour period ended, but before Jedi had posted as such.  (Not that this is a precedent I am particularly comfortable with.)

Just making an observation. I'm not levelling any criticism. In hindsight, I wouldn't have allowed the veto override in the first instance. Still, I hope this matter is now resolved

It is my intention to propose an amendment to the OSPR soon, which if approved, would allow incomplete legislation on the floor of the Senate when it expires to be brought forward to the new Senate in its existing state. If nothing else, it would be a hell of lot more efficient than present. And there is a lot that can be said for efficiency :)

'Hawk'

Well, at least that got cleared up.