SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Law'd)

[Napoleon]

My administration would like to ensure that employers may not discriminate based on current employment status. Does the Senate think that could work its way into this bill?

[Napoleon]

My administration would like to ensure that employers may not discriminate based on current employment status. Does the Senate think that could work its way into this bill?

Employment discrimination on account of anything is already illegal, if I'm not mistaken.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That isn't included in the Worker's Bill of Rights Act.

[Napoleon]

Thank you Senator Scott. This amendment can help ease people out of long term unemployment and reliance on the state. I believe that as a package, this bill can bring about positive change to our economic state.

[Napoleon]

The removal of Section 3 wouldn't really bother me.

[Napoleon]

Unless there's a reason for why the section should be removed, I'd prefer that it stay in the bill.

Well, as Shua has said, normal work hours are reduced to 32 for larger companies starting in 2013. That's actually a 20% decrease from the 40 hour work week. It seems that the goal of Section 3 will already be accomplished, unless you are trying to take that even further.

[Napoleon]

Unless there's a reason for why the section should be removed, I'd prefer that it stay in the bill.

Well, as Shua has said, normal work hours are reduced to 32 for larger companies starting in 2013. That's actually a 20% decrease from the 40 hour work week. It seems that the goal of Section 3 will already be accomplished, unless you are trying to take that even further.

Yes, but the goal of the section is to give employees in struggling businesses the ability to temporarily cut their work hours so that they can keep their jobs and continue to receive pay in the case that 32 hours is still too much for a company to afford.

Do you think we could find a way to make sure that employers don't use this as an opportunity to cut hours or salaries for their workers on the taxpayer's dime, if those companies aren't making cuts that are necessary? And if we pass this right now, that subsidy will go out but the hours cuts are going to come into effect anyway so its likely that employers can reduce their employees hours from 36 to 32 (or whatever) and the employee gets the subsidy but the work hours likely would have been reduced anyway to avoid overtime payments, making it a freebie.

[Napoleon]

No, I'm not saying we have to take all of it out, but if you want to do that we should delay it or something. I think we can constructively eliminate the loophole.

[Napoleon]

A long winded set of restrictions, maybe?

I'm not sure what those restrictions would be.  There'd have to be a certain criteria we could use to determine if a business is truly struggling and would therefore need to resort to layoffs.

It is the only to do it though. My suggestion would be to just start writing down standards and think of as many continencies for abuse as possible so as to address them.

Can other Senators try contributing even a little bit? It's like the same three or four people doing everything, I don't imagine that can be very fun.

[Napoleon]

I cannot, as President, participate in erasing the Snowguy legacy. Sorry, guys. You can work around me on that if you want but I find a lot of what we accomplished in that era to be central to our economic future. I will gladly speak in defense of these policies if explanation is needed.