Bill: Rejected Workers' Rights Act

[missandrist]

A
BILL
To

Amend the Commercial Standards Act​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Workers’ Rights Act.'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by Kaiserin_ and Rep. MissAndrist.
(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Speaker zLost.

2 - Reasons
(1) The Commercial Standards Act provides basic, but incomplete protections for employees against unfair dismissal, as well as their right to unionize.
(2) The workers of Redmont are entitled to complete and well-rounded protections to their livelihoods.

3 - Amendments
(1) Section 13, subsection 1 of the Commercial Standards Act shall be amended as follows:

"(1) Unfair dismissal - the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled). An employee shall be considered unjustly dismissed if their dismissal is:
(a) On the basis of any personal characteristic, including personal or political beliefs, or
(b) On the basis of behavior that is not related to their employment with the business.
An exception to unfair dismissal includes if the employee's continued employment would result in significant damage to the reputation of the business."
(2) Section 13, subsection 4 of the Commercial Standards Act shall be created as follows:
"(4) All workers, unionized or not, have the right to discuss, debate, and respectfully communicate their disapproval of company policy with both their employers and coworkers, both in a work or non-work setting. Action to prevent such activity shall be unlawful, and termination for engaging in such activity shall be considered unfair dismissal."

(2) Section 14, subsections 5 and 6 of the Commercial Standards Act shall be amended as follows:

"(5) Employers are prohibited from involving themselves in the democratic or operational processes of their employee's union.
(6) Employers who take action to disrupt or prevent the formation or regular operation of a union, and or engage in conduct to dismantle a union, such as, but not limited to, terminating employees who try to start a union, shall be guilty of Union Busting, as defined:

Union Busting
Employers who take action to disrupt the creation or regular operational processes of a union (including internal processes like elections, external processes like campaigns, and lateral processes like communications with other organizations), or engage in conduct to dismantle a union, including utilizing force or coercion against their employees.
Per Offence: $2000 Fine"

Edits:
- Changed "persuasion" to "coercion"
- Clarified that damages to a business reputation is legal grounds for termination
- Clarified unjust dismissal and added protections for workers' communication at work

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

I vote Nay on this bill because of the following statement : “All workers, unionized or not, have the right to discuss, debate, and respectfully communicate their disapproval of company policy with both their employers and coworkers, both in a work or non-work setting.”

I don’t like the language here. If employees discuss their disapproval in a work setting, that could include in front of or to customers which could be damaging to a business, which I don’t think should be protected. I do however think that they should be allowed to voice their opinions without reprisal in a private work setting. I think the language needs reworked, but overall I support the premise.

 

[RylandW]

I vote Nay on this bill because of the following statement : “All workers, unionized or not, have the right to discuss, debate, and respectfully communicate their disapproval of company policy with both their employers and coworkers, both in a work or non-work setting.”

I don’t like the language here. If employees discuss their disapproval in a work setting, that could include in front of or to customers which could be damaging to a business, which I don’t think should be protected. I do however think that they should be allowed to voice their opinions without reprisal in a private work setting. I think the language needs reworked, but overall I support the premise.

They should be allowed to voice their opinions to whomever they wish, whether that be coworkers, customers, etc.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

They should be allowed to voice their opinions to whomever they wish, whether that be coworkers, customers, etc.

I would argue that voicing their opinion of disagreement with company policies to customers would significantly damage the reputation of the company and contradict the exemption above.

 

[RylandW]

I would argue that voicing their opinion of disagreement with company policies to customers would significantly damage the reputation of the company and contradict the exemption above.

If that is the case, the organization should try listening to what its employees have to say and use the feedback to make it a better place to work.