To state your party position on various policies, simply list the policies and say whether your party leader votes for or against them, or abstains. You can change your votes at any time, but after a while if no debate occurs I will put a time limit on how long until the legislation is finally voted on by your seats.
Seats will vote in a number of ways, usually following their party leader or party policy, but they may be swayed by their own common sense or arguments from other parties. Trying to corrupt the vote through bribery or coercion is strictly not allowed. Debating or arguing points about a piece of legislation are optional. It is possible for the person who submitted some legislation to revise it before it goes to vote, but if it is voted down, similar legislation cannot be proposed this year.
Response to Legislation UFFS V
As per the transparency protocols set up by the Transitional Council, proposals for legislation are reported on by private news, particularly the corporate radio, which has put its own spin on most of the proposed legislation.
For reference, currently the majority of manual industrial workers work 12- to 14-hour shifts for 5 to 7 days a week, depending on what the business will pay and how large the family they are providing for is. Hourly pay for low grade workers is usually around (x/20) in the east to (x/24) in the west, going by your formula, and overtime is practically nonexistent outside of better-paid, educated positions. Part of the reason for the long hours is that men often have to support entire large families by themselves, as in most industries female labour is simply not looked for. Pay is similar to the above for primary industry workers, and on average mildly better for tertiary industry workers, although tertiary industry occupations often feature shorter shifts as well.
Lobbyists and other groups are warning that many industrial workers would be hurt by the proposed worker's rights legislation. The workers themselves are apprehensive about this piece of legislation, as although it appears to increase their wages, the way it was sold to them by the corporate media has worried them about how it will impact their ability to find a job that will give them enough hours to support larger families dependent on them. Your other proposed legislation that has effects outside of the government have generally met with public approval, while those that only affect governmental structure have barely been recognized by the populace.
Last edited by Formless Fable; 06-17-2012 at 10:50 AM.
The Consortium Party's Position.
UFFS I: In Favour
The betterment of our citizens is of priority.
UFFS II: In Favour
Government can use this well.
UFFS III: Against
The Consortium Party believes that the matter of Public Radio would be better left to each individual province, to deal with local matters. While there are benefits for a National Radio, Provincial Radios would be better prepared to deal with crises in the immediate area.
UFFS IV: In Favour
The end of Wardell's regime is a cause for celebration! The Consortium Party fully supports this legislation.
UFFS V: Against
The UFFS has been built on a solid work week. The economy is suffering as it is, why would we start limiting the ablility of our Business to make and distribute product? By making employers pay more and having the workers work less, many small businesses will be forced to close and we will not exit this economic crises. The Consortium Party is firmly against this act.
UFFS VI: Against
UFFS VII: In Favour
Sickness is bad for the people. Give them vaccines and they will not become sick, and will be able to work and live for a much longer period of time.
UFFS I: Tentatively in favour
While this proposal provides inargueable good things, the appointment of a minister per each seated president woud put said minister in the debt and favour of the sitting president. The Sovereigntists propose a revision that the term of office for this proposed ministry be extended to be longer then that of the presidential term and can only be removed by parliamentary vote of no confidence, so that a minister wont be ousted with the onset of a new government and a new minister installed more in favour with the new government. It is believed due to the nature of this proposed ministry it is too much in the public interest to allow this service to be entirely in the favour of whatever government is in power.
UFFS II: Against
While doubtlessly proposed in good faith, this sound too much like a ministry of propaganda.
UFFS III: Against
The Sovereigntists agree with the Consortium party's reasoning regarding provincial public radios
UFFS IV: In Favour
The end of Wardell's reign is universally regarded as a good thing.
UFFS V: Generally in Favour, suggests revisions
While establishing a 40 hour work week sounds reasonable, not all jobs are the same nor can be done in the same degree of time, an office worker working 9 to 5, while exhausted, is not doing the same work as a steel mill worker doing 9 to 5, the government cannot institute a one size fits all work time across all sectors. The proposal needs revision. Similarly a 25% increase of wages for each hour spent on overtime will simply lead companies to refuse to achieve more, it is suggested a 10% increase on overtime is more reasonable.
UFFS VI: Against.
The Sovereigntist party holds it is disingenuous to establish a government accountability ministry whose head is appointed by the government. It is better to leave accountability of Government and its laws to the courts and suggests it is better to reform our judicial branch to better serve this end.
UFFS VII: In Favour
The proposal is both sensible and strategic, the military provides the best means of logistical experience in distribution of needed vaccination.
I - For, agreeing with Johnath, (for once)
II - Abstaining, confused as to why we need it
III - For, the public need a clear, non- propaganda, radio station.
IV - For, especially as I was the one who proposed it.
V - For
VI - For
VII - For, Our medics are currently prepaing to recieve patients, and the Corpsmen are taking courses in vaccine administration.
UFFS I: For; at the proposed amendment: The detriments of allowing a new minister for every elected executive is very minimal. Regardless, the president already presumes power over each ministry. Should a new party take power it would be because of the will of the people and there is no reason why their authority should be restricted in only a certain case. It is because the office is in such public interest that it cannot afford to be held by a permanent seat.
UFFS II: Against; may prevent transparency if appointed minister favors current government. Not an entirely necessary office.
UFFS III: For; public statements are habitually distorted by local media. At the very least, there should be a direct means of communication between government and constituency. National radio should by no means replace conventional media, and should only be utilized where it would be advantageous to the public.
UFFS V:For; supposing that overtime is strictly voluntary, a 15% increase seems rational. The general point of the provision is to reduce the number of hours worked beyond a reasonable limit. We are to assume that most workers pursuing overtime are doing so in order to feed others that would not be fed under typical standards. Anything beyond a fair limit, would simply and literally be too little.
UFFS VI:Tentatively for; if the office is simply exposing corruption and allowing the judicial system to deal with allegations. However, by its nature, the office itself would have to be regarded closely.
UFFS VII: For; however, I would like to add a provision for testing and research.
Last edited by 001; 06-17-2012 at 06:45 PM.
Workers' Party Votes:
Stuff I Like:
Nationalist Party Votes:
UFFS I: Yay
UFFS II: Nay
UFFS III: Nay
UFFS IV: Abstain
UFFS V: Nay
UFFS VI: Abstain
UFFS VII: Yay
Last edited by hurlingPagan; 06-19-2012 at 01:21 AM.
((Oh shit i am late aren't i? well...worth a shot, Profile is spoilered))
Last edited by Bramzter; 06-25-2012 at 03:27 PM.
Last chance for the legislation proposed (eg as suggested by the above) to be modified before it goes for a final vote. Any last changes?
Last edited by MΠR; 06-26-2012 at 03:24 PM.
If no changes to the proposed legislation are presented before tomorrow, it'll go to the vote as is, with parties that asked for modifications possibly less in favour because of it.
LEGISLATION VOTE RESULTS
Legislation UFFS I received 110 votes and was passed.
Legislation UFFS II received 83 votes and was passed.
Legislation UFFS III received 70 votes and was passed.
Legislation UFFS VI received 110 votes and was passed.
Legislation UFFS V received 79 votes and was passed.
Legislation UFFS VI received 63 votes and was rejected.
Legislation UFFS VII received 122 votes and was passed.
The legislation results are in. Additional legislation can be proposed if requested, but it cannot be similar to legislation already proposed this year. Responses to minister positions are required before the year can advance.