Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 15, 2019, 07:46:50 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  S.19.4-2: LABORER Act (Statute)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: S.19.4-2: LABORER Act (Statute)  (Read 897 times)
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2019, 07:56:25 am »

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

Quote from: The Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates
When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2019, 08:56:20 am »

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

Quote from: The Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates
When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

Debate hasn't died down, we are waiting on you guys to answer questions and address points that have been made.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2019, 11:47:17 am »
« Edited: November 08, 2019, 11:56:27 am by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

Quote from: The Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates
When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

Debate hasn't died down, we are waiting on you guys to answer questions and address points that have been made.
What wasn't addressed? (Besides hypocritical standards on who can legislate and arguing from a misrepresentation of my claims) <-- And even those I tried to address along with legitimate concerns raised in four replies to the Congresswoman's posts.

Also: Delegate reagante objected to ending debate but hasn't given his thoughts on this legislation before or after his objection or on any other legislation for that matter. About 36 hours have lapsed since the motion to end debate failed and no delegate has been talking about this legislation. In fact, I don't think any delegate aside from myself has debated this bill (procedural dialogue not counting toward debate of course).
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2019, 02:46:07 pm »

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

Quote from: The Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates
When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

Debate hasn't died down, we are waiting on you guys to answer questions and address points that have been made.
What wasn't addressed? (Besides hypocritical standards on who can legislate and arguing from a misrepresentation of my claims) <-- And even those I tried to address along with legitimate concerns raised in four replies to the Congresswoman's posts.

Also: Delegate reagante objected to ending debate but hasn't given his thoughts on this legislation before or after his objection or on any other legislation for that matter. About 36 hours have lapsed since the motion to end debate failed and no delegate has been talking about this legislation. In fact, I don't think any delegate aside from myself has debated this bill (procedural dialogue not counting toward debate of course).

This, for example:

EDIT: At-will employment laws exist in 49/50 states. Unions also serve to negotiate with employers the creation of contracts necessitating just cause for termination, as opposed for no just-cause being needed for termination.

For clarity:

Quote
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

The "and without warning" section is particularly troubling. The source for the quote above is Wikipedia but this line is cited to "Jay Shepherd, Firing At Will: A Manager's Guide (Apress Media, 2011) 3-4."

We should strive to empower Southern workers giving them an equal seat at the table with their employers and this is accomplished through unionization.

The POWER Act prohibits termination on the basis of union membership. However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.

See the quotes below:

Quote
"At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all."

Source: Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, ''Cases and Materials on Employment Law'' (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.

Quote
[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment

Source: Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 8 P.3d 1089, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 (2000).


Don't feel like linking again since I already linked above, but an important tidbit from the article I posted just a bit ago:

Quote
"Before firing someone under at-will circumstances, consider the fact that it's not uncommon to receive a retaliation claim, a discrimination claim or a similar action," said Carroll. "Those put the employer on the defensive." In court or agency proceedings, arguing that your action was based mainly on the employee's at-will employment "isn't going to get you very far," she said.

Most people expect there to be some kind of justification for putting an individual out of his or her job, Carroll observed, whether it has to do with the person's performance, the company's financial situation or another workplace issue entirely. If you can't articulate and document a reason, "it's easy for a judge and jury to fill in the blanks, whether they're correct or not," and rule against you.  

Your assumption that employers just get rid of people for the sake of doing so is simply false.

Just out of curiosity, how many people who support this legislation in the chamber (or sit as governor) have held full time employment before? How many have been in a position where they had a say in hiring/firing employees?

We know from the perspective of most Atlasians at the federal level, that number is very small, and at times have been at 0.

It's an important thing to consider, especially when we are letting people who don't understand how these policies actually work dictate what our policies should be.



I think the Congresswoman overlooked this part of the quote I cited (in bold).
Quote
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion).

I wholly recognize, under the current law, the right of workers in some limited cases to file a (sometimes successful) suit of wrongful termination in addition to mentioning the inability of employers to fire on the sole basis of race or religion without repercussions.

Jobs don't just fire people for fun. Even in the source that I provided you, it outlines that when taken to court, employers are expected to provide some reason for terminating an employee. Simply relying on "at-will employment" won't cut it with a judge or jury, and the employer is likely to be ruled against if they don't have something to back their reason for termination. Pretty much anywhere you work today, even in states with at-will employment, businesses will document everything to back their reasons for firing an employee. Your argument that someone would be fired because the boss is having a bad day just doesn't hold up to how it actually works in the real world.

Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2019, 05:33:55 pm »

Good-faith clauses exist in some parts of the country re: at-will employment but they aren't universal. I prefer to expand security to workers who are doing their jobs, whenever possible. I didn't reply to this post before because I didn't want to entertain such a dramatic misrepresentation of my words--implying that I claimed "[j]obs...just fire people for fun."
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2019, 05:54:28 pm »

Good-faith clauses exist in some parts of the country re: at-will employment but they aren't universal. I prefer to expand security to workers who are doing their jobs, whenever possible. I didn't reply to this post before because I didn't want to entertain such a dramatic misrepresentation of my words--implying that I claimed "[j]obs...just fire people for fun."


Your words:

However, workers can still be fired if their boss is simply having a bad day or even if they are doing their jobs well.


The fact of the matter is, that simply doesn't happen in the real world. Nor would it do any employer any favors in court if that was the scenario.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,624


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2019, 05:57:07 pm »

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

Quote from: The Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates
When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

Debate hasn't died down, we are waiting on you guys to answer questions and address points that have been made.
Hmmm...there were plenty of things you also didn't reply to.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2019, 06:09:58 pm »
« Edited: November 08, 2019, 06:14:06 pm by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

The fact of the matter is, that simply doesn't happen in the real world. Nor would it do any employer any favors in court if that was the scenario.
Quote
Every state but Montana is already an at-will employment state. At-will means your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Whether your employer doesn't like your shirt, wakes up in a bad mood, or just feels like it, they can fire you at-will unless you have a contract or union agreement saying otherwise.

A union can bargain to change this. Many union agreements have requirements that employers only terminate for just cause.
Source

Some states have good faith clauses as you and I have both said. To pretend employers never have discretion (without just cause) is disingenous, though.

I'm not saying at-will termination is an epidemic but I think it would be best to close the door to a lack of security for workers. It can be used, however rarely. And let's remember what's up for a vote here is right-to-work, not at-will employment.

I would prefer to close the door on avoidable financial jeopardy for working people, whenever possible.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2019, 06:40:46 pm »

The fact of the matter is, that simply doesn't happen in the real world. Nor would it do any employer any favors in court if that was the scenario.
Quote
Every state but Montana is already an at-will employment state. At-will means your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Whether your employer doesn't like your shirt, wakes up in a bad mood, or just feels like it, they can fire you at-will unless you have a contract or union agreement saying otherwise.

A union can bargain to change this. Many union agreements have requirements that employers only terminate for just cause.
Source

Some states have good faith clauses as you and I have both said. To pretend employers never have discretion (without just cause) is disingenous, though.

I'm not saying at-will termination is an epidemic but I think it would be best to close the door to a lack of security for workers. It can be used, however rarely. And let's remember what's up for a vote here is right-to-work, not at-will employment.

I would prefer to close the door on avoidable financial jeopardy for working people, whenever possible.

You were the one who mentioned at-will employment, something you even admit has nothing to do with the bill (and something I already said in my first reply to that was irrelevant to this bill).


As for right to work, I would like you to explain the logic that went into thinking violating someone's individual rights in favor of extortion is acceptable.

Comparing it to social security or even voting for someone in an election simply isn't the same, and just saying they are is not a solid argument.

You are literally telling workers that they will be required to pay money into a group that they have no desire to join, that often engages in behavior that a worker may not agree with and uses funds collected by the workers to continue that behavior, and may not offer them benefits the worker feels they need. If you want to force people to join something, your have a responsibility to limit what that group can or cannot do.


If you have to force someone to join, it's clearly not in their best interest.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2019, 07:22:51 pm »
« Edited: November 08, 2019, 08:09:23 pm by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

You were the one who mentioned at-will employment, something you even admit has nothing to do with the bill (and something I already said in my first reply to that was irrelevant to this bill).
I meant let's remember this isn't an at-will employment ban as you are defending at-will employment with fervor as if it is a ban.

The two issues are linked. I mentioned at-will employment only because it is one reason for ending RTW. In the quote I just referenced:

Quote
A union can bargain to change this. Many union agreements have requirements that employers only terminate for just cause.

Everything else I already addressed and mandatory does not necessitate bad as I already said.

Do you mind if we stop going in circles?
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2019, 07:50:53 pm »

You were the one who mentioned at-will employment, something you even admit has nothing to do with the bill (and something I already said in my first reply to that was irrelevant to this bill).
I meant let's remember this isn't an at-will employment ban as you are defending at-will employment with fervor as if it is a ban.

The two issues are linked. I mentioned at-will employment only because it is one reason for ending RTW. In the quote I just referenced:

Quote
A union can bargain to change this. Many union agreements have requirements that employers only terminate for just cause.

Everything else I already addressed and mandatory does not necessitate bad as I already said.

Do you mind if we stop going in circles and vote on this?

We know from experience IRL that something being necessary is almost always bad.

To use your example of social security: we know for a fact that what we pay into it, we will not be reaping the benefits we should be from it when it comes time for us to need it. It's no longer effective and a waste of our resources as it is currently.


The fact that you aren't willing to put in restrictions on unions to ensure that it truly is worth buying into is enough proof that this potentially mandatory thing will not be a good thing.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2019, 08:05:06 pm »

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

Quote from: myself earlier when you raised the issue before
Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2019, 08:33:22 pm »

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

Quote from: myself earlier when you raised the issue before
Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.


Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2019, 09:31:21 pm »

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

Quote from: myself earlier when you raised the issue before
Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.


Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.
The same can be said for corporations but worse. What's your point besides: only unions should come under scrutiny?
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2019, 09:35:08 pm »

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

Quote from: myself earlier when you raised the issue before
Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.


Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.
The same can be said for corporations but worse. What's your point besides: only unions should come under scrutiny?

Not saying that at all.

However no one should have as much trust as you are putting in unions to do the right thing. Especially when history proves that they shouldn't have as much power as you want to give them.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,624


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2019, 09:38:53 pm »

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

Quote from: myself earlier when you raised the issue before
Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.


Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.
The same can be said for corporations but worse. What's your point besides: only unions should come under scrutiny?

Not saying that at all.

However no one should have as much trust as you are putting in unions to do the right thing. Especially when history proves that they shouldn't have as much power as you want to give them.
and you support giving more power to the corporations...........
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2019, 09:42:52 pm »

Already addressed. I'm done answering your questions since you're going to keep repeating the same points.

Quote from: myself earlier when you raised the issue before
Unions, historically, have been regulated unfairly under anti-trust legislation intended to regulate trusts. Unions have been corrupt in some instances in the past but I believe regulation of unions is sufficient today. Furthermore, the POWER Act protects the rights of workers to report abuse by corporation and union officials without penalty.


Reporting is no guarantee anything will be done about it. It's also not a valid argument to make when union leaders are notorious for intimidating union members, many of which will be unlikely to report abuse for that reason.
The same can be said for corporations but worse. What's your point besides: only unions should come under scrutiny?

Not saying that at all.

However no one should have as much trust as you are putting in unions to do the right thing. Especially when history proves that they shouldn't have as much power as you want to give them.
and you support giving more power to the corporations...........

I support employees choosing what they feel is best for them, as it should be.

If joining a union is so great, then an employee should be able to decide for themselves to join. It does workers no favors if you have to force them to join or be unemployed.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2019, 10:53:57 pm »

You've gone over this...quite a few times.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2019, 11:34:48 pm »


And yet you still want to defend extortion...


Why do you hate workers? Why don't you trust them to make the right decisions for themselves?
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,624


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2019, 12:30:19 am »


And yet you still want to defend extortion...


Why do you hate workers? Why don't you trust them to make the right decisions for themselves?
And why exactly do you trust the employers to make the right decisions?

Anyway uhhhhhhhhh basically we’ve gone over this. The only reason you’re doing this is so it takes longer to get passed because you know it will and this is all you can do to stop it.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,606
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2019, 01:03:11 am »


And yet you still want to defend extortion...


Why do you hate workers? Why don't you trust them to make the right decisions for themselves?
And why exactly do you trust the employers to make the right decisions?

Anyway uhhhhhhhhh basically we’ve gone over this. The only reason you’re doing this is so it takes longer to get passed because you know it will and this is all you can do to stop it.

What makes unions any more trustworthy of doing the right thing? If we are going to force people to join one, then the logical thing that needs to happen is stricter regulations on unions must be in place to protect the workers. Unions with too much power has always been a bad thing.

And once again, this has nothing to do with the employers, this has to do with respecting employees enough to allow them to choose for themselves whether or not joining a union is right for them. It is not in their best interest they are forced into it.

The reason I'm discussing this bill is because people with no knowledge of how things work in the real world are pushing bad policy that violates the rights of individuals.
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2019, 07:09:08 am »
« Edited: November 09, 2019, 08:31:05 am by Southern Speaker Muaddib »

And why exactly do you trust the employers to make the right decisions?

Anyway uhhhhhhhhh basically we’ve gone over this. The only reason you’re doing this is so it takes longer to get passed because you know it will and this is all you can do to stop it.

If I had been elected Governor, and this bill was passed, I would sign this into law. Unless I'd received some strong advice (that I respected the validity of) against doing so. For example if was unconstitutional, as I would for any bill. I have a neutral stance on labor laws and respect the will of the Southern Chamber of Delegates with regards to legislating. I have not commented on this bill until now because of my neutral stance on labor laws.

The workers united will never be defeated! I am not delaying a vote on this bill. I would like it noted for the record that I seconded the motion for this vote to go ahead.


On a related note, I hope the the Transport Union sees the value of my own bill to protect Southern Transport Jobs, in spite of the fact that A.C.L.O. has decided not to advocate for the long term security of these jobs. I must say that is a most disappointing position for A.C.L.O. whose entire raison d'etre is about protecting workers. The LABORER Act, the bill we are currently debating, got an A+ from A.C.L.O. Maybe A.C.L.O. are just after the increased income they'd receive from these union dues? The LABORER Act regardless of it benefits will make less than a ₿€€'s D!¢K of difference to Transport industry workers in the medium to long term future if those jobs no longer exist due to automation! Plain and simple. The dignity of paid work, and a job well done are fundamental to well being.

Quote from: Ecclesiastes 5:18-20
18 I have seen what is best for people here on earth. They should eat and drink and enjoy their work, because the life God has given them on earth is short. 19 God gives some people the ability to enjoy the wealth and property he gives them, as well as the ability to accept their state in life and enjoy their work. 20 They do not worry about how short life is, because God keeps them busy with what they love to do.

Quote from: Peter Lalor, leader of the Ballarat Reform League


Source Wikipedia
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 11, 2019, 12:55:17 am »
« Edited: November 11, 2019, 06:56:38 am by Southern Speaker Muaddib »

Since debate has died down again, I motion for a direct vote of cloture.

Quote from: The Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates
When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate.

I motion for a Final Vote.

If there is another objection to a final vote this will be the trigger the vote for cloture.


Edit: If and when there is is an objection. Please quote this post and start voting on the vote for cloture.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,166
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 11, 2019, 06:24:06 am »

I saw fhtagn has now bought the "Social Security is going broke!" myth.

Also hypocritical that she accuses others of ignoring her points when she just ignored MB's point that she's trying to waste the CoD's time (probably because it is true).
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 11, 2019, 06:50:18 am »

I saw fhtagn has now bought the "Social Security is going broke!" myth.

Also hypocritical that she accuses others of ignoring her points when she just ignored MB's point that she's trying to waste the CoD's time (probably because it is true).

Mr. Vice President, this is an unexpected pleasure we are honored by your presence. Considering the current level of engagement from Delegates of the Southern Chamber it would appear that labor delegates might think there is plenty of time to waste. Delegate West Midlander (Peace) and myself (ACP) are actively engaging in debate and discussion in this 16th session of the Southern Chamber of Delegates. Maybe you could use your position both Party Chair and as Vice President to encourage delegates from your party (Labor) to engage more in the debate and discussion held in this esteemed chamber.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC