SB 2018-183: Fairness to Workers Act (Passed)

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Senator Reactionary.

[Mr. Reactionary]

To reemphasize the findings:

1. Pollution is bad.

2. Atlasian industry cannot reasonably be expected to incur increasing capital costs of compliance with environmental controls while its foreign competitors enjoy a substantial and widening competitive advantage as a result of remaining unfettered by pollution control obligations.

3. The significant and serious competitive advantage enjoyed by our foreign competitors from cost savings derived from the absence of effective pollution controls results in cheaper foreign imports which capture United States market share and injure United States industries.

4. The failure of a government to impose effective environmental controls on production and manufacturing facilities within its borders should be recognized for what it is--a significant and unfair subsidy which must be addressed now in order to halt irreversible damage to the world environment and provide real economic incentives to effective pollution control abroad.

Basically, this will allow us to impose countervailing duties on foreign imports that were not produced or manufactured under similar (or greater) environmental protections as we have here. The amount is limited to the price advantage, and the money raised goes into a fund to help  fund research into pollution control technology. This prevents unfair treatment of our workers, and will reduce the tension between workers and environmental regs as they no longer become a competitive disadvantage. This is good for Atlasian workers and good for the environment.

This bill was based on an idea Sen. Boren of Oklahoma had pre-Nafta.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

This seems like a solid bill to protect Atlasian workers' rights while protecting their jobs and the environment from unfair practices by foreign countries.

[Lumine]

Interesting, and if I may say so rather innovative. The spirit of the bill I share, I find it rather disgraceful how several nations get away with environmentally questionable practices. Can the sponsor elaborate a bit on what the consequences of this bill might be for our current free trade arrangements and what sort of backlash we might expect?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Interesting, and if I may say so rather innovative. The spirit of the bill I share, I find it rather disgraceful how several nations get away with environmentally questionable practices. Can the sponsor elaborate a bit on what the consequences of this bill might be for our current free trade arrangements and what sort of backlash we might expect?

Sorry for my tardiness. I will answer this soon. With maps.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Below are all countries Atlasia currently has free trade agreements with (The 3 pending are the lighter blue ones).



As far as our current FTAs, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and Botswana are expressly exempt from the lacey act.

As far as compliance issues are concerned, I would say China, and the Latin American and African countries would be the most likely to be affected, although the African, Singapore, S. Korean, Morocco, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, and CAFTA all have specific language already allowing for countervailing duties for other unfair trade practices, so I wouldnt think this would cause too many trade issues with free trade partners other than China (which was forced on us anyway).

Vietnam and India on the other hand...

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

This seems like a solid bill to protect Atlasian workers' rights while protecting their jobs and the environment from unfair practices by foreign countries.

I agree strongly.

Below are all countries Atlasia currently has free trade agreements with (The 3 pending are the lighter blue ones).



As far as our current FTAs, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and Botswana are expressly exempt from the lacey act.

As far as compliance issues are concerned, I would say China, and the Latin American and African countries would be the most likely to be affected, although the African, Singapore, S. Korean, Morocco, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, and CAFTA all have specific language already allowing for countervailing duties for other unfair trade practices, so I wouldnt think this would cause too many trade issues with free trade partners other than China (which was forced on us anyway).

Vietnam and India on the other hand...

This seems unrelated, but I would love to have more trade deals with Asia and Europe, and I believe we can have good business in South America as well. How will the specific countries be affected? Seems like a solid bill though.

[Lumine]

China certainly should not get away with many of their practices without us taking actions to counter them, and so when it comes to Beijing I won't object.

I do have some concerns regarding Colombia, Peru and Chile given their status both as developing countries and as more or less reliable allies in the past few decades, mostly on account of the hit they might receive.

So I guess my question here might be what do you think of exceptions to certain countries as a possibility, or whether you believe this will work better if applied in general. I think there's an argument for both, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I propose the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I’m friendly to it, let’s get this passed.

[Lumine]

The amendment is considered as passed. I'll propose my own:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

I consider this friendly. If there is too much of a trade imbalance we can revisit the issue in the future.

[Lumine]

Amendment adopted. Myself I'm ready to support a final vote, any outstanding concerns from the rest?

[_]

Nah I've got no concerns, let's pass this!

[Lumine]

I motion for a final vote, 24 hours for objections.

[Pericles]

I object-to any objections! I fully support the motion.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Let’s get this passed!

[Lumine]

Senators, a final vote has started. Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye!

[_]

AYE

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Aye

[Pericles]

Aye.

[Lumine]

Aye.

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

[Sestak]

Affirmed Aye.