SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Internal Affairs

[Napoleon]

Chair: Napoleon

Members: Napoleon, Snowstalker, Sbane

We are short one member unfortunately but I am eager to get started.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. Chairman (or rather soon to be, but that technicality will be resolved soon),


could you please include the preface "SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE:" in front of the Internal Affairs?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

So it's just you and me, Napoleon...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why not haul Snowguy in to see when he will start implementing legislation that has been passed.


I asked this in the Committee membership thread, but could it be possible to wait until after the special election to fill the third spot? You might get a more engaged member that way.

[Napoleon]

I don't intend to wait for a third member to get to work so let's go Snowy (both of you).

First up:

Right to Recreate Act (general)

1. It shall be illegal to terminate employment on the basis of one's use of legal substances outside of the workplace. Employers found to be in violation of this act shall be levied a fine no less than $50,000 and no greater than $100,000.

2. This act shall not be interpreted as to prohibit employers from terminating employment for the use of substances prohibited in the workplace or for being under the influence of substances prohibited in the workplace.

3. Employers shall have the right to seek exemption from this act if the employer can provide the Department of Internal Affairs with reasonable justification as to why their employees would be unable to fulfill their employment requirements by using legal substances outside of the workplace.

Let us discuss.

[Napoleon]

The Committee will now hear from citizen BRTD as he tells his story.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I had reservations with Section 1, but those were all covered in Section 2. I would support this bill.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Thank you Senator Napoleon.

I want all of you to think of if you'd ever be willing to work a shift from 6AM to midnight. And the day after Christmas at that. I knew a guy who did. And it wasn't the last time he did either. The devotion and hard work of this guy was second to none. He signed up to work on Thanksgiving, even though it was also his normal day off, and he was also sacrificing one of his weekend days to boot. But his dedication had a reason, he was saving the money from his overtime hours to open and start up his own clothing line and was planning on getting the money for a press of T-shirts with his own designs. You'd think any business would love to have this guy around and would probably look at him for promotion.

But he's not around anymore, and it's all because he one day came in with the obvious stench of marijuana on his clothes. That's it. Truthfully the site probably would've preferred to keep him, but the zero tolerance corporate policy didn't give them any choice. And herein is the problem. Now you can argue that was reckless and irresponsible, perhaps it was. It's not unreasonable to expect employees to come to work sober and well aware. But if a guy wants to stay at home one day getting high and calls in and it just counts as a sick day, that's quite a bit of a different consequence. Being sent home without pay for the rest of the day and it counting as an unexcused might not be unreasonable for someone behaving recklessly, but saying that person can never work ever again and bring what they offer to the table all because of that one incident is quite a bit different.It's even worse if this is all due to some randomly selected drug test from a person who never caused issues or trouble at work.

I strongly support this bill and ask all people to support it as well. Your employer has the right to ask you to do a satisfactory job up to standard. Your employer perhaps even has a right to ask you to be free of certain influences during work hours. But your employer does not have the right to dictate what you do in your free time as long as it does not affect your work. Companies don't fire employees if they discover that are cheating on their spouses with each other, or for non-work related but dangerous offenses like DUIs, all of which are far worse than the personal use of legal substances. Let's get some common sense into company policy, something that I know even many middle managers and HR directors would prefer.

[Napoleon]

Thank you for your time, BRTD. Your input is appreciated.

Now this is where I had hoped to bring Big Daddy in, when I wrote the bill, because I had this all planned out, but he's left us, at least for now, so that might be all I have for this bill.

I'll give snowstalker a chance to report here before moving on, or if Snowguy wants to chime in with anything.

[Napoleon]

Okay, next bill to be considered:

Napoleon Tax Cut Bill (General)

9.5K-35K     10%                     
35K-80K      20%                       
80K-170K    25%                     
170K-368K  33%                     
368K-1M     40%                       
1M+    50%                           

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

What are the current rates again? That would more or less determine whether I'd support this or not.

[Napoleon]

What are the current rates again? That would more or less determine whether I'd support this or not.

             
 9.5K-35K     10%                       
 35K-80K      22%                       
 80K-170K    28%                       
 170K-368K  35%                       
 368K-1M     40%                       
 1M+    50%                             

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Can I amend in committee? If so,

9.5K-35K     10%                     
35K-80K      20%                       
80K-170K    25%                     
170K-368K  33% 30%                   
368K-1M     40%                       
1M+    50% 55% 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There are no processes to amend in committee, since the role of the committee in the legislative process is not binding on passage or failure. Now an amendment can be crafted during the deliberative process of the committee and then during the recommendation vote, vote to recommend that the Seante also pass or reject said amendment.

[Napoleon]

There are no processes to amend in committee, since the role of the committee in the legislative process is not binding on passage or failure. Now an amendment can be crafted during the deliberative process of the committee and then during the recommendation vote, vote to recommend that the Seante also pass or reject said amendment.

That's something we can try ti fix with the resolution currently being debated. As you may have noticed, the bill to aid the refugees has been amended in committee. I wouldn't object to an informal application of this, especially in cases like the National Security Committee's where the sponsor has indicated acceptance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It has? I didn't notice where the NSC had actually altered the original text. Certainly the Chariman of the committee hasn't administered such a process, that I see. Not to mention that I just posted this same comment in that thread and he concured with my interpretation of the present rules.

Plus removing the ability of the whole Senate to consider amendments may actually lead to a situation where the committees doom a bill. Committees don't always reflect the opinion of the Senate as a whole, such as when all three members of the GOR rejected the VP Reform amendment at a point in time when most thought it was on the road to passage.

The other problem is it would be an arbitrary system since not all bills get considered by a committee.

[Napoleon]

Can I amend in committee? If so,

9.5K-35K     10%                     
35K-80K      20%                       
80K-170K    25%                     
170K-368K  33% 30%                   
368K-1M     40%                       
1M+    50% 55% 

I'd like to know your reasoning for this, but I think the consensus is that we aren't going to exceed 50% on the top bracket.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The former is just a minor preference to even things out. The latter represents my opposition to the "consensus". I wish to mount the peak of the Laffer Curve as closely as possible without going over.

However, seeing as this committee only has two members, I'll hold the amendment until the general session.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I am aware of the tax cut proposal, and I'll have an analysis shortly.

[Napoleon]

Bump...24 hours and we are moving on.

[Napoleon]

Next up!

Living Wage Act (general)

1) The federal minimum wage for those ages 18 and over shall be raised to $11.50 on July 1st, 2013 and to $12.50 on January 1st, 2014.
2) After the second raise, inflation-adjusted increases shall continue to occur as mandated in the Reasonable Minimum Wage Act.

Cosponsor: Snowstalker

[Sbane]

What is the current minimum wage?

[Napoleon]

What is the current minimum wage?

$9.

[Sbane]

I propose an amendment to raise the minimum wage more gradually:
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Though ideally I'd prefer the original version, sbane's amendment strikes me as more likely to pass and easier to swallow for some smaller businesses which pay minimum wage but don't rake in massive profits.