Senate Bill: Protection of Foreign Workers

Duddha · January 6, 2003, 18:43

There has been much debate on the status of foreign workers but I think we all should agree that foreign workers should be protected by the same government that has benefited from their labour. I therefore propose this bill to protect the rights of foreign workers.

Bill: No foreign worker will be put to death or made to fend for themselves. The government of Apolyton will never disband these workers from employment. Foreign workers will have in perpetuity the employment and services of the Apolytonian government.

Foreign workers have build this glorious nation and deserve not to be left out in the cold or put to death by the same government that benefited from their
work.

Show your compassion for these wretches and PASS THIS BILL! VOTE YEA!

This bill has three days to pass.

CiverDan · January 6, 2003, 19:18

Where is abstain? Besides that fact, I do not feel we should "never add foriegn workers to cities, etc." Though I generally dislike doing it since foreign workers cost nothing, in order to get the pop boosts we want after building hospitals, we may want to use a few foriegn workers to prevent a native worker shortage. Native workers are better for cleaning pollution (takes too many foreign workers on rough terrain) and they are better for building stuff in battle zones.

naervod · January 6, 2003, 19:18

I think Foreign Workers deserve to live and work for our nation.

Also... my first post here at the Civ 3 DG, may my time here my long and prosperous!

roadcage · January 6, 2003, 19:19

This bill is suitably vague to be a RL legislative document. Unfortunately, one or more of our rp junkies will be on the lookout for a test case to prove one thing or another. But what the hay. I vote yea!

Meshelic · January 6, 2003, 19:19

Welcome naervod!

And CiverDan is correct, there should be an abstain option....

MJW · January 6, 2003, 19:41

This bill will be vetoed. Please 67% or more

Thud · January 6, 2003, 20:58

This bill is nothing more than flowery language coming from slavery advocates, trying to dull our minds and insensitise our souls! The words of Satan and his followers are sweet and enticing, but we must say nay!

MJW · January 6, 2003, 21:54

IT'S A GAME!!!

Kuciwalker · January 6, 2003, 21:56

*sigh*

manually add +1 to YES.

adaMada · January 6, 2003, 22:17

Why do we have to pass bill after bill on the slave issue? Honestly, every bill is over restrictive. I don't mind RP, but on such a divided issue, isn't it better to convine the DM that your policy is right, or perhaps even run for DM

? If this bill passes and the Administration Vetos it, I'd have to say they're right -- it's a major restriction on the powers of DM, and it accomplishes nothing that cannot be done by the DM volunterially should he feel it's a good course of action. It'd be different if we had groups lobbying the DM and a group wasn't happy with the results and (as such) turned to the Senate -- but as far as I know, no one's even lobbied Spiffor yet

.

Why not leave the power in the hands of our elected officials until we're really sure what we want to do with it?

-- adaMada

Aro · January 6, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MJW
IT'S A GAME!!!

What???

MJW · January 7, 2003, 00:22

?

Meshelic · January 7, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Aro

What???

ManicStarSeed · January 7, 2003, 02:56

If it does't get vetoed, it will wind up in court as there is no abstain. And at the rate I am going, sure, what the heck, I'll take it to court I can go for some sort of record if iI do not already have it.

Mss
[edit]typo

Thud · January 7, 2003, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by MJW
IT'S A GAME!!!

And you think I'm a religious fanatic in real life?

Some people choose to play games the way I do. Others simply kill, plunder, and not be very moral. The C3DG is no different.

GodKing · January 7, 2003, 09:45

NO = FREEDOM

GhengisFarb™ · January 7, 2003, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by adaMada
Why do we have to pass bill after bill on the slave issue? Honestly, every bill is over restrictive. I don't mind RP, but on such a divided issue, isn't it better to convine the DM that your policy is right, or perhaps even run for DM

? If this bill passes and the Administration Vetos it, I'd have to say they're right -- it's a major restriction on the powers of DM, and it accomplishes nothing that cannot be done by the DM volunterially should he feel it's a good course of action. It'd be different if we had groups lobbying the DM and a group wasn't happy with the results and (as such) turned to the Senate -- but as far as I know, no one's even lobbied Spiffor yet

.

Why not leave the power in the hands of our elected officials until we're really sure what we want to do with it?

-- adaMada

What? We should allow the administration to act as dictators and oppose the will fo the people? If the populous doesn't want something to happen then it shouldn't happen.

Protect the poor foreign laborers from the harsh life of our inner cities and keep them in the fresh, pristine, smog-free air of our open fields.

Vote Yay.

roadcage · January 7, 2003, 11:27

This bill is not restrictive. The bill's guarantee of lifetime employment can be achieved by any of the following:

continued employment as a field worker
or
joining a city and becoming a tile worker
or
joining a city and becoming a specialist

It simply guarantees that the foreign worker will not be disbanded or sold to another Civ.

And I doubt that anyone would want a potential pop point be disbanded or sold.

NO = MURDER or SLAVERY

edit field (worker)

joncnunn · January 7, 2003, 11:38

I'm in basic agrrement with Roadcage with what this bill does.

It might also prohibit the use of foreign workers to form a colony (uses up a worker), but I dought we will be forming any new ones.

Thud · January 7, 2003, 11:57

Alright then, even if this bill is vague and the meaning is interpretable, that just means that it has no legal value. I encourage all to vote nay!

Spiffor · January 7, 2003, 14:07

I don't understand the meaning of this bill, and I don't understand what restrictions it would bring to me when preparing my worker integration project.
I voted NO, because I consider being tied enough with the previous bill (should the veto be cancelled).

Also, the wording of the first post is clearly biased, and drowns the true issue under beautiful words. Ludicrous bill, really. Vote NO to end this nonsense already.

Arnelos · January 7, 2003, 14:08

Forget vetoes (which we wouldn't do anyway), this bill is invalid... there's no abstain option and the first post is far from "impartial".

Duddha, just repost it.

Duddha · January 7, 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Forget vetoes (which we wouldn't do anyway), this bill is invalid... there's no abstain option and the first post is far from "impartial".

Duddha, just repost it.

Will do.

I'm enjoying the discussion on the meaning of this bill.

Muhhaaha

Duddha · January 7, 2003, 22:03

I recall this bill. See version 2.