Talk:Amendment: The Labor Act (Inter)

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 03/25/2023 11:17 PM Ooc: would be happy to help Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 03/26/2023 10:07 AM I do like the idea of splitting the leave, I’ll work on wording that soon. I don’t think minimum wage should be added to this bill specifically. I do want to get opinions about the vacation clause. It’s worded in a way that could encourage employees to not take vacations, and that is generally not a good thing. Should a clause be added that forces employees to use a certain amount of vacation days? Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 03/26/2023 6:01 PM Nah, it just gives employees leeway for vacations like some employers might take it as ... if you don't use it, you lose it Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/26/2023 6:23 PM I don't think employees should be forced to use vacation days, but obviously, there should be a limit to how many they can accrue. I think if the vacation day cap is increased to 200 and the pay-for-days scheme is abandoned, that would be more suitable. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 03/26/2023 7:22 PM abolition of pay-for-days scheme would be detrimental to those who would have them forfeited due to retrenchment, redundancy, retirement or separation Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/26/2023 9:59 PM I understand your point, but there is a balance to be struck here. Workers should still get their days off, but I don't think that having a system where they are rewarded more by continuing to work rather than take their days off, recuperate, and rest, increasing their lifespan and productivity will be, in the long run, beneficial. I'd rather see workers have a few more days off to accrue than get paid for days they aren't taking. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/26/2023 10:08 PM At Ward-Gage, we permitted an accrual of 8 weeks of leave as a minimum, and permitted up to 26 weeks accrual with management approval - approval was granted if the worker had at least as many years of service as the request in weeks divided by 5. (25 weeks required 5 years of service, 12 weeks, required ~2.5). The company provided employees with two weeks annual leave (which does accrue), as well as two weeks incidental leave (which did not roll over) Emile(DPPK) — 03/27/2023 11:53 AM Perhaps a compromise can be made, where above a certain age you get paid more. Otherwise it would be a bit unfair that workers have to work for so long compared to other nations. I's suggest that age to be at ~67 years Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/27/2023 11:55 AM I think 65 is probably the best option but 67 is also pretty good Tho I still think 65 is a more reasonable age Emile(DPPK) — 03/27/2023 11:57 AM I agree that 65 is more reasonable. However, given the economic situation that may be hard for some companies to achieve. Maybe we can give companies the freedom to choose 65,66 or 67? or 65/66 Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/27/2023 12:02 PM Yeah 65 to 66 is more reasonable Emile(DPPK) — 03/27/2023 12:02 PM I'd also suggest that this increases yearly by a few percent Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/27/2023 12:15 PM Mabye but In that case we should mabye have a cap on how much it can rise Emile(DPPK) — 03/27/2023 12:24 PM Maybe maximum 15 percent of the original salary. If it increases with one percent yearly, the maximum pay is at 80 at which point you would probably already be retired or dead. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 03/27/2023 5:58 PM That would act as a disincentive to people Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/27/2023 8:17 PM It is my opinion, as a co-author, that retirement, like minimum wage, is not appropriate for this amendment's purpose. I'm fairly certain my co-authors would agree. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 03/27/2023 10:05 PM I would agree Rama Pandor [FED] — 03/27/2023 10:05 PM Why is it 65 ? isnt 60 a more reasonable age the extra 5 years seems to just prolong our citizens of hard earned time. In another 5 years the would be 70. I believe that 60 is more fair for our hard working citizens to finally enjoy their time in life hopefully work free. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 03/27/2023 10:05 PM This bill was intended to put basic protection in place while a full reform is worked on Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/27/2023 10:09 PM Aside from the parental leave clause mentioned a few days ago, are there any other changes that need to be worked on for this bill? Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 03/27/2023 10:10 PM I don't think so. I will probably put amendments into the GC tonight. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/27/2023 10:10 PM nods Excellent. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 03/30/2023 11:12 AM

has that been done? Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/02/2023 8:18 AM

@Mivod Hlaja [NUP] Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/02/2023 11:02 AM Potential change to 3.1 and 3.2: 3.1: In the case of a pregnancy, both partners in the legal relationship are entitled to 750 shared days of paid leave, starting from the 38th week of pregnancy or premature birth. 3.2: In the case of a pregnancy where the woman is not in a legal relationship, they are entitled to 385 days of paid leave, starting from the 38th week of pregnancy or premature birth.

Potential change to 3.7: 3.7: Unused vacation leave may be accumulated up to 30 days, and after which it shall be mandated for the employee to use any vacation days above the 30 reserved ones. Reserved vacation days may be used at any time. Thought I had already posted this, sorry. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/03/2023 10:40 AM

I have no problems with either of the above proposed amendments Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/03/2023 10:53 PM If I don’t hear any objections, I will add them to the bill Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 8:26 AM If this has occurred, I would like to move for this bill to go to vote. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/04/2023 8:33 AM

the above proposed changes have now been added to the bill. Is there a second to move this to a vote? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 8:47 AM I do believe in shared parental leave, but I am not sure I am in favour of two whole years of it. surely 52 weeks of leave, shared between partners as desired (1 year for one, or 6 months for both, or however it is desired between them) is exceptionally generous as it is. This amendment doesn't fund this leave with state funds - I cannot support the idea that companies be on the hook for two entire years of leave for every child born. Holy moly. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 9:55 AM Keep in mind that the 2 years is shared between partners, so if both partners take equal time, it would be only 1 year total. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/04/2023 9:56 AM

but if they work for the same company... W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 9:58 AM Its two work years regardless of how you mix it Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:03 AM 52 weeks of leave is not generous, no. If Mr. Ward suggests that it takes just one year to establish life with a new child, he would be gravely mistaken. Seraphina — 04/04/2023 10:03 AM ((OOC: Idk, dude has two children Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:04 AM ((OOC: Irl, sure. No idea if Mr. Ward the character has kids)) W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:04 AM 104 weeks of leave is overly generous (Magnus has three children) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:07 AM I can see that argument having merit. If we take both, that 52 weeks is too short and 104 is too long, would it be sufficient to split the difference? 78 weeks, 1 year and six months, or roughly 20 months of shared, paid parental leave. In addition, the option to extend parental leave the remaining 26 weeks, but leave it unpaid, perhaps supported by the state? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:08 AM I simply disagree that 52 weeks is too short Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:08 AM Regardless, compromise is required. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:08 AM its leave for a whole parent to be paid at full wages for an entire year. For each child. That is exceptionally generous for a nation with the economy the size of a walnut Seraphina — 04/04/2023 10:10 AM Malaysia has like fourteen weeks of maternity leave Fifty two is generous Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:10 AM ((OOC: Germany has 14 months of paid paternity leave, which relates to my next point)) Understandable. I had been thinking of a way to help with that economic burden; some nations have a similar parental leave to what I proposed (that being 78 weeks), but at two-thirds or one-half their usual salary. Seraphina — 04/04/2023 10:12 AM ((OOC: Pretty sure Kodiak doesn't have Germany's economy W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:14 AM My preference would be that we provide 52 weeks of paid leave (pro rata) to the mother. She may then select any one close (and live-in) relative (aunt/husband/motherinlaw) to share that leave with. This leave may be taken in full or in half. (104 weeks of half pay, or 26 weeks full pay and 52 weeks half pay) at her and the close relative's discretion. This leave may be taken from birth, or from any time after 7.5 months into the pregnancy, at the mother's discretion. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:15 AM Would an unmarried partner count as a relative? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:15 AM assuming they meet the criteria for common-law partnership (commonly 2 years living together) then yes Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:27 AM I think I might be misunderstanding the In-Full-In-Half method here. So, 52 weeks of full pay, 104 weeks of half pay, and any combination? 4 weeks half pay, 50 weeks full pay? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:28 AM if that's whats useful, sure Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:28 AM I see. That is interesting, to say the least. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:29 AM parents deserve to be able to have time for their children and time to reintegrate into the workforce Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:29 AM How would the sharing of leave work as far as payment go? Would both parties receive 52 weeks each or 52 weeks to share? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:30 AM I just reiterate that 104 weeks of pay is ridiculous A mother will be granted 52 weeks of leave. She may divvy that up as she sees fit Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:35 AM I think that the mother alone should not receive the parental leave. I believe there should be some consideration given to the father/partner/childrearing assistant as well. I would argue for the previously proposed 78 weeks of paid parental leave, constructed as you have described. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:36 AM Then i will have no choice but to vote against it Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:37 AM You can always choose to compromise when given the opportunity to do so. Your unwillingness to do so does not affect the reality of the situation that mothers alone do not raise children. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:37 AM 52 weeks is the compromise the compromise between 0 weeks (now) and many weeks (proposed) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:38 AM But the situation now is incredibly unacceptable. It is not a fair comparison point. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:40 AM Maternity leave is not in a vacuum. The cash isn't being harvested from the money tree. We have a total economic collapse. Our nation is made of state utilities and farmers. Somewhere, this government must make at least some effort to make running a business something that can actually happen. We can't walk out of the gate and pretend that TWO YEARS of FREE CASH is somehow 'good economic management' regardless of how we feel about it. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:42 AM Neither can we walk out of the gate saying that insufficient support given to parents is good state management. There is a balance to be struck; I am trying to find it, you are not. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:42 AM We can't have two people walk about and say "1 million dollars" and "2 million dollars" and pretend that 1.5 million is a balance that needs to be struck. Our decisions must hold up against reality. presently, we provide 0 dollars. I am suggesting literally an entire year of pay, for each child. That's before pensions, before paid leave, before vacation and sick days I refuse to be painted as some sort of hardliner from that point Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 10:44 AM And an entire year, while far better than no days, is still insufficient for the reality of childbearing. I would rather provide a short-term hurt for corporations than a long-term damage to an entire generation. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:46 AM what corporations? The economy is bottomed out. lets take a moment to put my position in context I am suggesting that we, a nation with an economy about as successful as Turkey - have a parental leave program equal to Japan, better than South Korea, larger and more flexible than Germany Image Seraphina — 04/04/2023 10:54 AM I'd like to point out that in our current situation, the compromise isn't between a far too generous maternity leave and a slightly less generous maternity leave It's between the existence of a maternity leave or not at all ((OOC: and idk what I'm trying to say at eleven pm with four hours of sleep Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 11:21 AM I understand the graph's importance, but I think it does not take into account the state support given to the parents of newborns, which, if I understand the current state of things correctly, Kodiak does not have. Factoring out the political motivations behind maternity leave, I think a system as I have proposed would be appropriate. I prefer the system as proposed by my co-author, but I understand the impossibility of that at the current juncture. If there was a way to ensure that the parental leave would appropriately increase over time as our economy recovers, I would be more amenable to the 52 week plan, but there is not a way to achieve that. I would rather place a small, extra burden on the economy now than have a much larger burden now with no promise of lightening it later. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 11:42 AM At the end of the day, I support parental leave in any form. If that means that this bill will not pass and another, more popularly amenable bill must pass instead, I will support that too. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 5:38 PM I would like to point out that the amount of parental leave is the same as the original bill. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:13 PM I don't understand the point you're making. My suggestion of 52 weeks shared puts us in the top 6. And we have a bottom 30 economy. And the fight here is that I'm not being compromising? Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:18 PM Another possible compromise is 52 weeks shared at full pay, and the rest of the 78 weeks with a pay reduction. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:18 PM OOC: Me neither. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:21 PM No, 52 weeks is the compromise. Were jumping from zero to top ten in the world. I am flabbergasted that the KWP isn't falling over themselves that we would support this. We are in the midst of a total economic collapse and a budget crisis the likes of which could permanently destroy our currency. And we're fighting for more leave than ever given in the history of mankind I feel like I'm taking crazy pills Aaron S. Barcka (UKN) — 04/04/2023 6:22 PM Uhm what is going on here Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:22 PM ((OOC: KWP person here: sad doesn't exist anymore noises Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:23 PM That way would be for you to amend this amendment yourself after we have a better economy Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:25 PM Small, extra burden? Two years of free money isn't a small, extra burden, it's just an extra burden Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:26 PM 36 effective weeks a person is not anywhere close to the top ten. I will refuse to drop it to 26 weeks without the possibility of longer leave with a pay cut. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:27 PM It literally is. I just showed you the oecd chart Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:28 PM One of us is misreading the chart, please give me a moment. Parental leave: How rich countries compare How family-friendly are wealthy countries in the OECD and the EU? A new report has compiled interesting data on what paid leave is offerered to new mothers and fathers. Parental leave: How rich countries compare 72 weeks shared is less the the highest, and assuming that both parents evenly split, which is the most likely scenario, would put us in 18th place. Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:34 PM Why are you so hung up over the placement W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:34 PM What are you even looking at Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:35 PM It's not contributing to the discussion that years of leave is far too much W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:35 PM Your own chart shows us in top 10 between Romania and slovakia Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:36 PM With 72 weeks shared putting us in the top ten, and 36 for one person putting us near Croatia in 18th? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:37 PM Croatia has 40 weeks total My offer was 52 I don't get how you dont understand this Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:38 PM Your offer would most likely result in around 26 weeks for a parent. 72 weeks would probably result in around 36 for a parent. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:39 PM and croatia offers 20 weeks per parent so mine is still more generous Image ^your offered source Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:40 PM Malaysia offers fourteen Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:40 PM Croatia offers 36ish for one parent. Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:40 PM I'm frankly surprised this compromise isn't more well received Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:40 PM And around 4 for the other. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:40 PM YES, that's the point! 40 vs 52 52 > 40 even in Kodiak 52 is larger than 40 Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:41 PM 72>52? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:41 PM and 72 is too much???? Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:41 PM I'd like you to introduce to us how do we plan on funding 72, and why that funding shouldn't go to other, more urgent places W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:42 PM Image Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:42 PM The government isn’t paying for this for one. I would also like to say that I did try to compromise on the compromise with 52 weeks full pay, and the rest at half. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:43 PM this tactic is just crazy. 52 is literally a gold standard, someone walks out with a magic number from outer space of 105, and now we're debating the magic in between number And somehow, 0 -> 52 of 100% flexible leave is considered "too rigid" Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:43 PM I apologise for my blunder And point out a new point that companies won't be receptive to handing out years of free money to mothers And also hope that that isn't another blunder Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:45 PM I think people are missing the crucial point that the 72 weeks is split between the parents, so effectively 36 weeks of leave, which I believe is very reasonable. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:45 PM it literally isn't reasonable, including by your own source Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:46 PM 72 weeks split either way is still 72 weeks of paid leave W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:46 PM I don't get this weird math magic where we pretend that 72 is 36 even though it 100% is still paying 72 weeks of leave your own source shows hungary at what appears to be ~72 and that's the number two in the world and doesn't include flexi-leave Seraphina — 04/04/2023 6:47 PM What I was trying to say but more eloquently put lol W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:47 PM so your compromise is "number two" while our economy is number less than 30 and my compromise of "top 10" is some how intransigent Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:48 PM The concept of paying for this has completely slipped my mind, 36 weeks was reffing to the time that each person would probably get off. As I’ve said before, I am open to 52 weeks at full pay, if the rest of the 72 can be optionally taken at a major pay cut. At this point I’m even open to the rest of the 72 weeks only providing job security. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:50 PM if the pay cut is 0 dollars, sure I literally put in my offer that it could be taken at HALF PAY for 104 weeks Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:50 PM I did not see that offer, give me a second. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 6:51 PM I wouldn't be opposed to a 52 week 2/3 pay and an additional 20 week half or more reduced pay. But assuredly job security W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:53 PM Image Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 6:53 PM I am willing to compromise on either 52 weeks full pay with 72 days job security, or half pay for 104 weeks, depending on which you prefer. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 6:54 PM My offer is my compromise. take it or leave it Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 7:03 PM Surely 72 days of job security, unpaid, would still be in keeping with the spirit of your initial deal Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 7:03 PM I would like to remind you that you offered half pay for 104, I would like to hear your arguments against the other compromise. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 7:04 PM If Mr. Ward accedes to this offer, which I cannot see as an issue, given it remains in keeping with his "no pay past 52 weeks" stance, it has my support. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 7:06 PM I do believe that clearly positions (or positions of equivalent pay and responsibility) should be saved for at least one year. I don't understand why you're asking me to reiterate the position. I'll just copy paste it from above: My preference would be that we provide 52 weeks of paid leave (pro rata) to the mother. She may then select any one close (and live-in) relative (aunt/husband/motherinlaw) to share that leave with. This leave may be taken in full or in half. (104 weeks of half pay, or 26 weeks full pay and 52 weeks half pay) at her and the close relative's discretion. This leave may be taken from birth, or from any time after 7.5 months into the pregnancy, at the mother's discretion.

Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 7:07 PM I’ve already agreed to the 52 weeks, I’m asking for a clause that provides job security in case the parents decide to take unpaid leave. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 7:08 PM Image I direct you to the immediately previous comment Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 7:09 PM I direct you to the fact that I am dumb and have no clue what you mean by that. Seraphina — 04/04/2023 7:09 PM I think he's saying he agrees to a year of job security? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 7:10 PM So then the deal above offered is acceptable. I'm glad we managed to come to some level of compromise, despite the drastic nature of it W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 7:11 PM ... Seraphina — 04/04/2023 7:12 PM I reiterate my stance that from zero to 52 weeks is drastic But I guess I'll also agree just to get things moving Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 7:15 PM Changed 3.1 from 750 days to 52 weeks. Changed 3.2 from 385 days to 30 weeks. Changed 3.3 to “At the end of paid maternity leave, both parents are entitled to an additional 20 weeks of job security, should they choose to take unpaid leave.” This will be the final draft regarding these clauses, and unless anyone has suggestions for the other clauses, I would like to motion for a vote. (OOC: I’m away from my computer right now and can’t edit the wiki, so I would appreciate if someone could do that for me) W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 7:17 PM (OOC done) Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 04/04/2023 7:46 PM it was written in days, because some might use weeks as an excuse to include rest days W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 7:47 PM traditionally, in employment, a week is a work week, not a calendar week Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 04/04/2023 7:48 PM kindly define it in the bill the thing is ... some employers would use whatever word is in the law to take advantage of their employees W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 7:49 PM I mean, they can try, but they won't go very well when the courts have their say Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 04/04/2023 7:50 PM It's better to remove ambiguity in the law itself rather than set it out in court employees don't have enough money to have it litigated Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 7:52 PM Changed relevant numbers. Added a new 3.1, “For the purposes of this bill, a week is defined as the number of days out of seven that the employee would usually work.” (Same OOC request) W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 7:56 PM (done) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 9:34 PM It's not drastic when it's getting up to the standard that should be. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/04/2023 9:46 PM @Assembly President I second the motion. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/04/2023 10:14 PM

If I don’t see an objection to the motion, I will start the vote tomorrow morning W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/04/2023 10:25 PM I do think we will need to allocate state funding to the program. Who pays the farmers' wives? Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/04/2023 10:31 PM I don’t think that funding is needed, self employed people either work from home, or are in a position to give them self’s days off. That can be fixed later once the government has funds. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/05/2023 8:23 AM

is someone going to remember to come back to it though? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/05/2023 7:08 PM I will It would be irresponsible to increase government spending at this time, but once we are better managed and better leveraged, I will make it a priority to re-establish necessary welfare programs and increase funding for them. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/06/2023 8:28 AM

If there is no further discussion or proposed amendments by this afternoon, voting will be opened. EasyPoll BOT

— 04/07/2023 10:20 AM

Question Are you in favor of the Labor Act Amendment?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [16 • 80%] 🇧 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [3 • 15%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 5%] 20 users voted


alarm_clock: Poll already ended (3 days ago)
spy: Anonymous Poll
one: allowed choice
lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: eae95e3d Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/07/2023 10:20 AM

@Assembly Member voting is now opened. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/11/2023 6:35 PM

With 16 votes in favor, 3 against and 1 abstention, this bill is declared passed and will be archived in 24 hours

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.