[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/sen/ - The Senate

under Provisional Government

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
A message from @CodeMonkeyZ, 2ch lead developer: "How Hiroyuki Nishimura will sell 4chan data"
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 3 per post.


NOW UNDER N̶E̶W̶ ̶ slav MANAGEMENT

0997e8 No.11019

ACTION

Organised Labour Act

Purpose: To define and regulate relations between workers, trade unions and employers.

Definition of worker: An individual paid a wage or salary in exchange for selling their labour power.

Definition of trade union: An organisation of workers that exists to improve conditions and pay for workers.

Definition of employer: An individual who purchases labour power from workers and profits from their labour.

1. Every worker has the right to join or form a trade union. This right cannot be infringed by employers under any circumstance. Such infringements may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Terminating employment on the basis of unionisation
b) Reducing pay of unionised workers (On this basis)
c) Harassing or assaulting unionised workers (Or encouraging others to do so)
d) Bans on unions or union activity

2. Trade unions have the right to appoint 2 members to a company's board of directors and appoint a workplace safety commissioner. The role and function of a workplace safety commissioner is to:
a) Advise workers and employers on workplace safety issues
b) Report breaches of safety rules to unions and employers
c) On the failure of employers to commit to a safe workplace, be permitted to encourage industrial action.

3. Workers and trade unions have the right to use industrial action in order to win improved conditions or pay. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a) Strike action, including general strikes, secondary strikes, wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes and workplace occupation.
c) Slowdowns or 'go-slows'.
d) Work-to-rule.
e) Picketing and protesting outside of a workplace to discourage non-unionised members from continuing work.

4. Trade unions are able to use their collective power to negotiate pay and other conditions on behalf of individual workers, providing consent from the individual worker. Negotiations can be with one employer or industry wide (Pattern bargaining).

0997e8 No.11020

File: 1418897593370.jpg (49.2 KB, 605x328, 605:328, 110308_labor_unions_ap_328.jpg)

Yes 31 votes

Also, if possible, could volunteers edit my post so that it contains the picture I'm posting now?

5398c3 No.11022

Yes, 22

8e5963 No.11027

File: 1418899869050.png (236.85 KB, 800x566, 400:283, labour_clears_the_way.png)

WE PROLETARIAT NOW

Yea, 35 votes.

8e5963 No.11028

>>11020
I would, if I could. I can't seem to do that for some reason.

eed5bc No.11029

No, 30 votes
I will not tolerate such ungodliness.

8e5963 No.11030

File: 1418900998844.jpg (25.4 KB, 397x520, 397:520, gentle persuasion.jpg)

>>11029
Resistance is futile. The proletariat will rise against you!

bfe54e No.11039

No, 10 Votes

I'm not against trade unions on principal, however I do strongly believe that every worker should have the right not to be in a trade union, which goes against clauses 3. e).

I don't think that a union should have the right to be thugs in order to stop other folks from earning an honest buck.

If this clause were removed, and the right not to be in a union included, I would be in favour of this bill.

0997e8 No.11042

>>11039

Every worker has the right to join a trade union, the right not to do so doesn't need inclusion. A right is not a responsibility.

As for clause 3. e), I don't see how permitting free expression and movement is giving unions the 'right to be thugs'. Perhaps I could amend this action to clarify what unions are and are not allowed to do when picketing?

089e48 No.11045

21 votes aye

>>11039
Most civilised countries allow this kind of freedom of expression already, eg http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/52/enacted

>It shall be lawful for one or more persons in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to attend at or near—

>(a)a place where another person works or carries on business; or
(b)any other place where another person happens to be, not being a place where he resides,
>for the purpose only of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working.

eed5bc No.11049

>>11019
>>11020
>>11027
>>11039
I don't get why anyone would pass such legislation.
We're living in a post-industrial society.
There is no need for it.
We've already solve the problems that this legislation is tryng to solve.

da098a No.11055

>>11019
Of course we support the people.

Yea, 8 Seats

e58950 No.11066

>>11049
>We're living in a post-industrial society
>post-industrial

No. Late industrial, yes, and making some movement toward being an information-centric society in certain countries and locales, but humanity is hardly a 'post-industrial' society at the moment.

While ConservAnon seems to be getting the wrong impression from clause 3.e (re: >>11039), he does make a valid point. The clause should specify which actions are and are not acceptable methods of 'encouragement' or 'discouragement', if for no other reason than for the sake of clarity.

868b4c No.11151

This seems alright… But it doesn't really include any oversight within unions themselves, which concerns me. What mechanisms would be in place to ensure fair union actions?

655aa6 No.11153

>>11066
>The clause should specify which actions are and are not acceptable methods of 'encouragement' or 'discouragement', if for no other reason than for the sake of clarity.
It lists picketing and protesting.

98cd30 No.11193

File: 1418958215012.jpg (20.32 KB, 500x702, 250:351, Radioactivity in Trouble.jpg)

>>11153

The specific phrasing is that it "includes and is not limited to" the items listed in section 3. Does that mean violent rioting is also allowed? Or destruction of company property? Or intimidation of other workers?

I agree with my fellow senator that this section needs clarification, and thus *abstain with 17 votes.*

e58950 No.11196

>>11153

The definition of 'picketing and protesting' varies according to the person or persons doing it. Just look at WBC. That's all I was saying.

I'm gonna have to side with Cherenkov and cast my 18 votes as abstaining for now. I like the general idea here, but there is serious potential for abuse.

2c9a74 No.11214

>>11019
INVALID VOTE

Yea: 117 (RMP, PF, HKLIP, 420b, RJP)
Nay: 40 (RxPx, ConservAnon)
Abstain: 35 (ACP)

Action has passed with a 75% majority.

Fucked up. Voting doesn't end till tomorrow.
Post last edited at

0360ab No.11227

>>11214
Hasn't been a full day yet.

e58950 No.11229

>>11227

(Fri) 5:10:38 by board time will be a full day.

Will we see our concerns addressed, re: >>11193 and >>11196?

2c9a74 No.11230

>>11227
>>11229
Ah fuck. You're right.

868b4c No.11263

>>11227
Hmm. Caesar, what do you make of this? I'm rather torn.

4d4dbe No.11265

File: 1418966490753.png (563.95 KB, 989x1018, 989:1018, IMG_4275.PNG)

Abstain, 10 votes

I don't know.

7d70bb No.11283


655aa6 No.11286

>>11283
You should post this in the HKLIP thread rather than clutter up random legislation.

0997e8 No.11305

AMENDMENT

(I.e. Mods pls change)

Definition of picket: To peacefully protest outside of a business without physically obstructing entrances.

Edit to Section 3. e): Picketing and protesting outside of a workplace to discourage (via peaceful, non-obstructive dialogue) workers from continuing work

7d70bb No.11307

>>11286
They ask for an info-economy, so that is an instant response

e58950 No.11313

ACTION PASSED

117 votes yea (RMP, PF, HKLIP, 420b, RJP)
40 votes nay (RxPx, ConservAnon)
45 votes abstain (ACP, Ju)

Action passed with a 74.5% majority.

e58950 No.11314

>>11313

Hm. Still need to practise the tag, I suppose. Oh well, the result is the same.
Post last edited at

0997e8 No.11317

Victory for the workers!

The workers united will never be defeated!

bfe54e No.11337

>>11305
>>11313
I would like to post vote say that this amendment is what I was calling for in my initial objection. I thank the party for considering my views, and put on record that I would have voted yes for the action in this state.

e58950 No.11373

>>11337

I understand. The ACP in its entirety abstained for similar reasons, and would have voted yes in light of the amendment. Fortunately for us, the bill was sufficiently amended to allay these concerns and passed without a need for our contribution. Your post vote statement has been noted and is appreciated.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]