Talk:Labor Reform Resolution, 645
Patrick Barber — 14/11/2022 08:23
Tabled by the Luchens Administration for consideration of the assembly
Labor Reform Resolution, 645
A resolution to better the working conditions of the Republic's citizens and offer opportunities for economic recovery.
Proposed Chancellor Oskar Luchens, NUP, MGA.
Voting is presently set for 5 Dec 2022
Klaus Mikaelson — 14/11/2022 11:38
There have been multiple studies that show that when workers have a work week of less than 40 hours, they tend to be happier, more content in their work, more likely to remain in their jobs for longer periods of time, and the quality of their work tends to rise. Noting this, would the author of the bill or the government at large be open to a shorter work week?
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 14/11/2022 11:40
I also believe that would be a good idea.
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 15/11/2022 01:31
I'm in favour of a shorter work week, and agree also that a shorter work week does not diminish quality of work.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 15/11/2022 01:31
I agree as well.
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 15/11/2022 01:37
For a typical 5 day work week, I would lean towards 35-37.5 hours. Personally, I would suggest why not make it 35?
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 15/11/2022 01:40
I authored the amendment to the Labour Act, and I only made it 40 in case a lower amount wouldn't have enough support.
TheRealMVP — 15/11/2022 01:49
we should make it 35 yes and i saw that it was 85 kinda crazy
there is more to be done for the labor act this was yes needed but still very brief amendment of the labor act, cant we do more for the proletarian class?
Klaus Mikaelson — 15/11/2022 01:55
I think that 35 is a more fair number for the workers
John Edwards [KWP] — 15/11/2022 01:56
I support this. Exhausted workers are not productive workers.
Klaus Mikaelson — 15/11/2022 03:06
and happier workers tend to stay at jobs longer, meaning that the cost and hassle of training new workers is decreased
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 15/11/2022 03:29
Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 15/11/2022 09:09
As an add-on to this, I suggest reducing the work week to 4 days instead of 5. This may mean longer hours spent in the office per day; however, studies have shown that it is less taxing on worker's mental health when they have a longer weekend, which uncoincidentally leads to better quality of work.
Patrick Barber — 15/11/2022 16:00
I worry that codifying work hours before empowering worker-led industrial actions will result in an unproductive economic model.
At the cost of being more nuanced than soundbitey - I'd suggest a 45 hour 5 day week full time limit but introduce considerable industrial action reforms to allow sectors to bargain for better conditions based on the specific needs of the workers. EG - you can imagine in transport a 35 hour 4 day week will not be particularly conducive to good working conditions with long distances and shifts - it should be a question for the workers and their unions to decide more so than a demand from the Assembly above.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 15/11/2022 16:01
That is actually a very good and sound point.
Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 16/11/2022 00:11
I agree with this.
Klaus Mikaelson — 16/11/2022 01:00
a 45 hours work week? that goes against every study that's been published on productivity in the work place. The government should not wait for unions to lead the way, the government should be proactive in trying to do what is best for its citizens.
John Edwards [KWP] — 16/11/2022 02:27
Well, the bill is currently at 40 hours. With the discussion at between 35-45, 40 seems to be an appropriate midpoint. whether it be 5 days or 4 days can be based on the needs of the individual sectors and discussions with unions. We can follow up with legislative support for unions if needs be.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 16/11/2022 02:47
Klaus Mikaelson — 16/11/2022 02:49
40 hours is hardly better than 45. keeping to the status quo is neither forward thinking nor helpful to the workers across the nation who are forced to be at work instead of completing other necessary tasks or spending that time with families.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 16/11/2022 02:53
The current is 85 hours and 125% overtime pay & no protected right to industrial protest.
The Amendment improves that, allowing room for more improvement later.
Klaus Mikaelson — 16/11/2022 02:54
we can do better now, so why wait until sometime "later"? whenever that might actually be
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 16/11/2022 03:28
Any improvement is a major improvement currently.
Klaus Mikaelson — 16/11/2022 03:28
but there's absolutely no reason not to do better
I don't understand why we're stopping ourselves from doing better, there's nothing in the way except for ourselves
John Edwards [KWP] — 16/11/2022 03:29
But is it better? While I am all for the concept, legislating it locks workers and unions in place without bargaining power. Those in high stress professions must now either work harder or longer each day with no option to spread their load over more days, increasing stress and mental health issues. This is an issue that can cut both ways. By empowering unions and workers with greater flexibility we allow each industry and worker to find the best system that work for them. This way we can give them the ability to find the work/life balance that works best for them rather than "we say what is best for you".
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 16/11/2022 03:29
Getting such improvements out will help even if they are not the pinnacle of what we can do.
Klaus Mikaelson — 16/11/2022 03:29
government is all about telling people what is best for them, why should this be different? 😛
Klaus Mikaelson — 16/11/2022 03:30
but why stop ourselves short? there's no reason to, none whatsoever.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 16/11/2022 03:32
Because not everyone can agree on what exactly that better than what is currently tabled is, the current amendment is at least moderately acceptable to most from what I have gathered.
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 16/11/2022 03:49
Remember that with a reduction in working hours comes a reduction in wages
and that we should allow every free man to work as much as he wants.
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 16/11/2022 04:01
I think 40 hours is a good standard to set in place in terms of working hours in a week. Definitely better than the current, however I believe that too less could worsen our ongoing economic issues. Additionally, I do not think I can agree on a state enforced four day week. Possibly we legalize it, but not enforce it? Meaning that businesses and corporations themselves can decide if their employees can opt in for a four day week with adjusted working hours. And again, although the bill isn’t perfect for everyone, it is certainly better than the status quo. It is beneficial for the citizens of Kodiak, specifically those in harsh working conditions already. This bill must pass to protect every citizen in the great republic of Kodiak.
Klaus Mikaelson — 16/11/2022 04:08
You're suggesting that we trust businesses and corporations to simply do the right thing? We all know that they won't
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 16/11/2022 04:08
I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that businesses have the right to issue 4 day work weeks for their workers
Doesn’t mean that they will, but they at least have the option to. And you’re right, some businesses will not opt in for it.
Klaus Mikaelson — 16/11/2022 04:10
I just don't believe that this is good enough. I think we're getting in our own way and stopping ourselves from doing better and being better, and I will not be able to support the bill in its current form
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 16/11/2022 04:13
I understand. However, I think it’s important to ease into the conditions to ensure a stable balance of work and rest. If needed, I think opposers could amend the legislation if passed. But overall, a much needed bill to protect our workers.
Patrick Barber — 16/11/2022 10:02
I stand by my original point - not all jobs are built with the same needs and many require longer work hours - and I reiterate that I believe the people making these decisions should be the workers themselves.
Klaus Mikaelson — 16/11/2022 10:05
workers are dictated to by their employers, especially in larger organizations, because the organizations know that the worker is easily replaceable. Unless organizations are forced to do right by their workers, they never willingly will.
Patrick Barber — 16/11/2022 10:06
Then our function is to empower the workers and their unions - not to tell them how to do their job.
Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 16/11/2022 10:40
My interpretation of your statements is that instead of dictating a work week, we leave it up to workers' unions to decide. If I am correct with my interpretation, how do you plan on doing this in this law specifically?
Patrick Barber — 16/11/2022 10:42
In this specific law, I don't. My contention is that we shouldn't pass a law hyper-limiting the work week first, and then trying to fix up industrial reforms later.
We should improve the situation (presently 80+ hours a week) by pushing the limits down, but we should ultimately author and pass a more comprehensive labour reform package this term that puts more power into the hands of the workers themselves instead of taking a sledgehammer to labour access and washing our hands.
My comments are in reference to the previous members' proposals that we lower working time to 30-35 hours and only 4 days which i think would be a mistake
Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 16/11/2022 10:47
Do you have any specific numbers in mind for the limit?
Patrick Barber — 16/11/2022 10:50
my preference at the moment is to demand a 150% overtime limit of 45 hours a week with anything above 37 being defined as 'fulltime'
With the country's educational outcomes so low, the only notable productivity we offer at the moment is work time - until we have more complex industries I don't see the nation being able to decrease work hours without severely handicapping our economic capabilities
this is why I'd prefer to put these decisions into the hands of workers who can see the issues from the ground than to have the government make any specific top down decisions
Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 16/11/2022 10:59
While I would like to see more protections regarding the work week and working hours I agree with you that mandating one across the board would cause more harm than good.
Patrick Barber — 16/11/2022 11:01
be that as it may, the present bill legislates a minimum of 40 hours and to that I acquiesce and I'm not going to make any effortful push to increase that limit
Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 16/11/2022 11:03
So essentially leave the current proposal as-is.
Patrick Barber — 16/11/2022 11:04
that would be preferable over lowering the limit even further.
Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 16/11/2022 11:05
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 16/11/2022 13:23
After considering all points thus far, and considering the nature of this proposal as more akin to a small push towards better (when compared to current labour conditions), as opposed to a full reform. I accept President Barber's concerns about our current economic capabilities as a nation. So for the moment, I'll acquiesce on sub-40 hour work weeks but would like it to remain 40 as proposed. With that said, I would welcome an additional clause defining full time hours for further clarity.
As a representative, I'll go on record as welcoming a full examination of labour laws and conditions in Kodiak, and a comprehensive reform geared towards better minimum conditions, and empowered workers. Whether that be a full reform immediately, or a deliberate reform-in-stages.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 19:12
In this case I’d have to agree with Klaus Mikaelson I think a 5 day 35 hour work week is a reasonable and frankly safe expectation 40 is in my view too long and presents a un necessary toll of Kodak’s working people as klaus pointed out studies show that workers with a work week less then 40 hours are happier stay in their jobs longer and do better quality work while lowering the hours from 85 is good but we can not expect some lack luster compromise of a 40 hour work week that is not conducive to a working environment and does not keep our workers happy and does not improve quality of work if not decrease it as representatives or job of witch I’ll remind our colleagues we were Elected to do by the vary people this would effect is to help them better their lives this 40 hour work week does no such thing and does not have my support as I hope it doesn’t among my colleagues
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 19:16
But remember, with less work comes less pay
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 19:22
that would not be the case reduced work week does not automatically mean less pay it just mean they do less work for that pay like if we did have a 40 hour work week the workers would get the same amount of pay as if they were doing 40 hours and if they need their is always overtime
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 19:25
personally i think everyone should have a fixed hourly rate + can work as much as they want and leave when they want. if he works 12 hours one day and 12 hours the next, and everything he has to do is taken care of, then I see no problem in letting everyone work as much as they want
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 19:26
That is not a bad idea
Patrick Barber — 20/11/2022 19:40
again - we seem to be more interested in the government telling everyone what to do instead of making any effort to ask the question, "what is most effective for each individual job or industry"
not every job is an office job
you can't just 'call off work' on a roofing project because the three guys on site finished their weekly allotment
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 19:43
I know not every job is a office job so that would not work for everyone understandable tho that just makes it more important not to have a work week that is to long 35 hour with a 5 day work week is more then reasonable
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 19:43
in this case, the project should be created in such a way that employees change in a shift system. the most important thing in my speech was that we should let everyone work as much as they want on a fixed hourly wage
Patrick Barber — 20/11/2022 19:46
so working hard to get a project done = no benefit
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 19:46
we should allow everyone to work as much as they want, no top-down regulations, the employee would be informed about the hours and rates during the job interview, which would increase productivity, and through the "employee's market" working conditions would improve. win-win situation
Patrick Barber — 20/11/2022 19:46
half finished roof before a rainstorm - project ruined
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 19:47
is, the employee has more free time, which is not interrupted by work
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 19:47
Have you not heard of tarps
Patrick Barber — 20/11/2022 19:48
I don't appreciate the snark
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 19:48
If that were the case, half of the buildings wouldn't have been built XD
Patrick Barber — 20/11/2022 19:48
you need new roofs on existing housing stock
back tracking to the original point - different industries require different working requirements.
those requirements should be determined by the professionals within those industries in conjunction with the workers performing the duties - not with a single sledgehammer of legislation defining a single (or list) of acceptable hours promulgated by the government upon high
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 19:51
that's what i'm saying, EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WORK AS MUCH AS THEY WANT
Patrick Barber — 20/11/2022 19:51
that also is not the same point
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 19:51
And we are anticipating that these companies wont just ramp up the hours to make an extra buck if we have a national standard for our companies/workers it helps them to have a healthy productive work environment
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 19:53
if the company increases the required hours at work, the employee may leave, nothing prevents him from doing so, the company may offer, for example, a raise or various bonuses to keep him. employee market - this is it!
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 20:02
Just saying if a worker doesn’t like a thing the companies is doing to them they can just leave is a horrible argument some people don’t have the luxury to just quit some workers work paid check to paid check and in a competitive economy it can be hard to find other employment and so they can often be help less when their boss does something that goes against their benefit because that is probably their only source of income so the government should step in and provide a steady work week witch increases the quality of work wale keeping the interests of the workers witch the 35 hour work week would do
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:09
Instead of saying that the employee cannot leave and at most we can reduce his salary by reducing working hours, we should create something like a public list of vacancies for various jobs, available, for example, on the Internet. the employer will find it easier to look for employees, and the employee will be able to find a new job more easily
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 20:11
First as I said before shorter work week does not translate to less pay it’s just less hours they would still get the same pay and second not a bad idea it could be a good solution
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:12
for the employer it would be the same as if he had to pay the same for less product
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:13
How about putting a tax exemption on overtime hours to reward citizens who decide to work more than 35 hours?
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:13
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:15
Corporations make a lot of profit on individual people's productivity. While productivity has doubled in the last 50 years, the salaries have not done the same. The employers will just have to reduce their profit margin
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:17
1. productivity has changed due to the advancement of technology
2. The state should not tell someone to reduce the margin
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:22
As far as I'm aware, the cost of maintenance for technology does not equal 50% of a worker's salary. If we want to eradicate precarity, we must force corporations to respect the workers and pay them well.
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:25
On the example of Poland - the government raises minimum wages, which fuels inflation. maybe instead of increasing the costs for the employer, let's reduce, for example, the income tax for individual entities, including employees? the net wage will increase, while not forcing the employer to reduce the workforce through expenses
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/11/2022 20:28
Whilst this discussion is good and productive, I note that the author is currently absent so the legislation is unlikely to change according to what is discussed. I recommend having an alternate bill ready to submit if you intend to vote against this bill. The failure of this bill will cause the work week to remain at 80 hours. Without an alternative to submit, workers will remain in dire need of reform.
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:30
inflation is the result of the need for constant unsustainable growth. Inflation is not caused by the augmentation of the minimum wage, it is caused by corporations wanting to keep their profit high and therefore increasing the price of their products.
Also, taxation is essential to the funding of social welfare programs, including financial support for struggling corporations, reducing taxation would increase national debt
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:31
there is such a thing as "privatization"
I know, you, socialists don't like it...
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/11/2022 20:32
Which has historically resulted in worse working conditions and poorer services.
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:33
privatization of what? of our police? of our hospitals? of our public transports?
if anything, we should nationalize all corporations in TKR to make it possible to reduce the profit margin and better pay the workers with this additional revenue
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:36
I don't know what country you are from. I, coming from a country (thankfully once) communist, have heard stories from many people who did not like the nationalization of companies, as well as long queues in shops and empty shelves, as well as rationed food. Competitiveness and the employee's market force companies to improve working conditions.
indeed, turning to communism leads us to our doom
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:38
I'd like to understand how nationalization has anything to do with empty shelves? If anything, this has to do with ineffective bureaucracy.
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:39
this is related to the fact that if an employee sees that he earns the same as the person who does nothing standing next to him, then he will also do nothing, and he will get the pay anyway
there was a saying in Poland during communism: "whether you stand or lie down, you deserve a thousand zlotys"
(rhymes in Polish)
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/11/2022 20:41
I'm not suggesting the privatisation of all companies. That is an argument for others to make. I am suggesting that the privatisation of essential services has (here in Australia at least) historically resulted in a short term cash flow for long term poor service and the resultant economic impact has not been worth the privatisation in the mid to long term.
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:42
Socialism has never been about equal pay for everyone, Socialism is about redistributing the means of production from the owners to the workers, doctors had a higher pay than taxi drivers in the USSR. Read Karl Marx or read anything about how wages where in "Communist" Poland.
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:44
France sold all highways to private companies in 2019 for about 16 billions, they made 26 billion euros in 6 years with them and increased the toll prices by 10% (higher than inflation). Privatization definitely isn't a good idea for services
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/11/2022 20:46
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 20:52
Listen i can understand both points but honestly haveing a completely capitalist economy or socialist one is a stupid idea it is better to have a mix of both for example privatization of some such as transportation is a stupid idea and only makes is more expensive but the complete take Over of companies by the government is also dumb we can’t have a completely capitalist one or socialist one for capitalist one 9 times out of ten bad conditions and low wages for socialist one many times a dictatorship is established we can have a economy made up of both socialist and capitalist ideals
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:54
do you want to hear a joke?
Who's a communist?
one who has read all the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and believed.
Who is an anti-communist?
one who has read all the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and understood
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/11/2022 20:55
This discussion is straying away from the legislation under debate.
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:56
the only thing i would like to improve is amendment no. 1.2, and really it is to remove it
and slightly reduce the amount of money for subsidies
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:58
I will vote in favor this act without any modification needed
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 20:58
without quotation marks
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 20:59
Poland was socialist, therefore calling it communist is stupid. Let's stop debating about this over here, this is only for the labor reform.
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/11/2022 21:00
The two main factors that prompt me to support it is the reduction of the work week from 80 hours and the right to industrial protest. Neither of which are currently available to Kodiak citizens. Voting against this bill leaves Kodiakers with an 80 hour week and no right to protest. If Assembly members wish to modify it further we can do so with further bills but it won't happen any faster by voting down this bill and it will leave workers in a situation that needs correcting.
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 21:01
OK, I will vote in favour, and then I will move the amendment to the amendment
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 20/11/2022 21:01
Ill only vote for this bill because the current work week is ridiculous and the author is absent so it is unlikely to change I’ll be waiting to amend the work week to 35 hours
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 21:02
I disagree most with Amendment 1.2. I can bear the rest
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/11/2022 21:07
You'd remove overtime?
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 21:09
no, only the mandatory 150% is a bit inconvenient for employers
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 21:10
Employers have the right to choose whether they want to give overtime hours or not. Therefore it shouldn't be inconvenient
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 21:12
the worker should be entitled to overtime, but should not ask for more than what is agreed. Alternatively, he could charge 10/20% more than his usual hourly rate for overtime
such an increase in overtime pay will discourage employers from allowing it
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 21:13
overtime hours are not "agreed"
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 21:14
but hourly wages are agreed
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 21:16
the obligation of paying 150% of the worker's wage for overtime hours enables a better repartition of the work load inside the company, the employer has 2 options:
1. paying 150%
2. hiring more workers to do the same job, without allowing overtime hours. This reduces the national unemployment rate and the workforce stress
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 20/11/2022 21:19
I can agree with your arguments, but in my opinion 150% is too much
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 21:21
If we want to work towards a nation with no unemployment, we have to restrict as much as possible the number of hours of the workers and encourage employers to hire more. Reducing the wage for overtime hours would not encourage employers to hire and split the work between multiple workers
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/11/2022 22:25
I did a little digging, 150% is pretty standard in most countries.
Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 20/11/2022 22:27
It's 150% in France
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 21/11/2022 02:19
Time and a half, as it is called, is the norm elsewhere, we should take a step forward by joining that norm.
Reginald Karbunckle(Kusaca)(NUP) — 23/11/2022 04:11
I know I don't usually participate in these things, but I feel as though some factors have not been taken into account.
First is the switch from 85 to 40 hour weeks. That is a huge change and I’d like to note that the difference between 35 and 40 hours is minimal when coming from 85. People were just given weekends and their daily work was slashed by 33%. Another hour per day won’t make much of a difference at this point.
Second and arguably more significant, this legislation is going to cause a lot of problems if it just pops into existence suddenly. I propose that this change be graduated to allow for businesses and workers to adjust. Given the difference of 45 hours between the old and new plan, I think a 15 hour yearly change towards our target would allow for the economy to adjust. This legislation will, in all likelihood, chop the average worker’s year salary in half (given that only around 20% of workers work overtime, and most of them, not 40+ hours of overtime) which is going to be a hard pill to swallow. Companies prefer not to pay overtime (it's more expensive), so they’ll need to hire twice the workers that currently work (which is expensive) or accept dramatically reduced profits(which also hurts). With this happening across the board there will be lots of shortages until the economy can adjust. And with shortages comes a rising in prices which harms the very workers who we are trying to help, especially when their salary was effectively halved.
I do agree that this is a step that needs to be taken, that 85 hour work weeks aren’t sustainable, but we must consider the other effects of this choice. In conclusion, I suggest a graduated change in the work week to a 15 hour reduction per year, with a goal of being established at 40 hours by the end of the current administration’s term. Feel free to suggest alternatives
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 23/11/2022 06:09
In theory, working hours are only an indicator, indicating the line between normal pay and overtime. Why? Because sooner or later, workers on strike would negotiate the 40 hours required of them instead of 85
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 23/11/2022 09:20
I agree with Reginald; we need a graduated decrease or else production and subsequently, the economy, will crash.
John Edwards [KWP] — 23/11/2022 13:18
We can't change the proposal as it is, but we are looking at an amendment to take these issues into account.
John Edwards [KWP] — 23/11/2022 13:19
Except currently, workers do not have the right to industrial action. So they can't strike.
Patrick Barber — 23/11/2022 13:19
(they can but local police have different levels of chill about it)
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 25/11/2022 19:22
Shall we conclude then that we move onto greater amendments and reforms?
i.e., vote on this bill as is?
Patrick Barber — 27/11/2022 10:25
My hope was to write an alternate piece this week if there was patience for the wait
John Edwards [KWP] — 27/11/2022 11:59
As in a piece to rival this one, or replace it, or an addendum?
Patrick Barber — 27/11/2022 12:11
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 27/11/2022 14:34
That's an answer...
Patrick Barber — 30/11/2022 13:29
I don't see me having the time necessary this week to write my alternative, so I would instead ask that supporters vote for this bill and I will seek to repeal and replace in December. I will put this up to vote as is in 48 hours unless there are any objections.
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 30/11/2022 13:31
No objections from myself, I formally support going to a vote with a motion to vote on the record.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 30/11/2022 13:40
I support this bill it will provide at least some relief to the working people of Kodiak tho that does not mean I don’t see a problem with the bill that is the work week and come the time a replacement will be available. I will vigorously support the implementation of the 35 hour work week
John Edwards [KWP] — 30/11/2022 16:56
It seems to be generally agreed that while no one is truly happy with this as is and needs much work, it's not going to change before the vote and is much preferable to the existing state of affairs. Improving and addending? Will have to happen in separate bills and would leave Kodiakers in the current situation far longer, which nobody wants.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 01/12/2022 09:10
Indeed. It is not the best we could do, but it is better than the status quo.
— 02/12/2022 20:48
Do you approve of the Labour Reform Resolution as presented in above?
🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ [17 • 71%]
🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 8%]
🇨 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [5 • 21%]
24 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: cdAhDgRZLQ
Patrick Barber — 02/12/2022 20:49
The vote on this bill has begun. Debate is suspended. The poll shall run for 72 hours. Please vote as soon as possible so you don't miss out.
Patrick Barber — Yesterday at 10:17
This bill has passed and shall be archived presently