Maraque wrote:A bill to add an "Anti-Exploitation" clause to the Bill of Rights & Freedoms has been submitted to the Royal Legislature's Lower Chamber by a citizen in Rikiyan.
I just wanna know what the definition of exploitation is in your nation.
Advertisement

by Sungai Pusat » Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:55 am
Maraque wrote:A bill to add an "Anti-Exploitation" clause to the Bill of Rights & Freedoms has been submitted to the Royal Legislature's Lower Chamber by a citizen in Rikiyan.
by Maraque » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:04 am

by Sungai Pusat » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:07 am
Maraque wrote:Haven't seen you in here for a while. Welcome back (lol).

IC:
The Anti-Exploitation clause which has been submitted by a citizen in Rikiyan defines exploitation in many ways as it pertains to child labor, adult labor, fair wages, the ways of companies to conduct business in non-exploitive ways, etc. It is a very broad and far reaching bill.


by Sungai Pusat » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:24 am
Maraque wrote:12.702 billion on the NS Page, about 12.5 billion RP.

by Sungai Pusat » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:30 am
Maraque wrote:Well our population is around 13.7 billion if you take tourists and undocumented immigrants into account.

by Vincaelumiata » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:35 pm
by Maraque » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:36 pm
Besides keeping a record of how many live abroad, we don't keep records of the locations. So we have no idea if any do.Vincaelumiata wrote:Are there any Maraquean citizens currently in our nation that Maraque has record of?

by Seperate Vermont » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:40 pm
by Maraque » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:43 pm
A sub-advisory of the Advisory of Justice deals with all gun laws, permits, registrations, etc.Seperate Vermont wrote:What advisory deals with gun permits and registration?

by Seperate Vermont » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:45 pm
by Maraque » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:52 pm
Yes. The policies implemented were the result of a Royal Supreme Court case which gun-advocates feared would ban firearms all together, so they worked with policy makers and came to, and passed, a compromise bill which prompted the dismissal of the Royal Constitutional Court case.Seperate Vermont wrote:Are the Maraquean policies geared towards such gun ownership recently implemented?

by Seperate Vermont » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:06 pm
by Maraque » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:14 pm
Former President Tsvarchia is in the lead by six points to win the governorship of the borough of Stahnasuk, much to the surprise of many.Seperate Vermont wrote:Have there been any interesting popularity poll results or media reports on support for specific persons or bases in the upcoming elections in Maraque?

by Syvorji » Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:40 pm

by Seperate Vermont » Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:39 pm

by Syvorji » Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:44 pm
Maraque wrote:Tsvarchi switched to digital television on January 1, 2002.
by Maraque » Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:01 pm
If the latter is stipulated inside a legally signed, binding contract, then yes it is legal to force an employee to another area of employment within the same company, otherwise employment is indeed legally recognized as a protected area in which termination is possible with reason under a 'three strike rule' wherein the problem has to be addressed by the employer to the employee with ways to remedy the issue wherein the failure of such three times in a row can result in termination, or movement to another area of employment in the company with consent.Seperate Vermont wrote:Is it legal for an employer, as part of a contract, to force an employee to transfer to another area of employment within the same company or entitle, or is it legally recognized that employment is a protected area unless reasonably terminated or moved to a new area within the company at consent?
(such as a demotion or forced promotion)

by Seperate Vermont » Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:02 pm
Maraque wrote:If the latter is stipulated inside a legally signed, binding contract, then yes it is legal to force an employee to another area of employment within the same company, otherwise employment is indeed legally recognized as a protected area in which termination is possible with reason under a 'three strike rule' wherein the problem has to be addressed by the employer to the employee with ways to remedy the issue wherein the failure of such three times in a row can result in termination, or movement to another area of employment in the company with consent.Seperate Vermont wrote:Is it legal for an employer, as part of a contract, to force an employee to transfer to another area of employment within the same company or entitle, or is it legally recognized that employment is a protected area unless reasonably terminated or moved to a new area within the company at consent?
(such as a demotion or forced promotion)
by Maraque » Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:15 pm
Absolutely. Although contracts are legally binding they are far from concrete. If it can be determined that some kind of force, deception, exploitation, etc was used to make a person sign a contract which was not balanced, but rather in favor of one or the other, it can be rendered null and void completely.Seperate Vermont wrote:Maraque wrote:If the latter is stipulated inside a legally signed, binding contract, then yes it is legal to force an employee to another area of employment within the same company, otherwise employment is indeed legally recognized as a protected area in which termination is possible with reason under a 'three strike rule' wherein the problem has to be addressed by the employer to the employee with ways to remedy the issue wherein the failure of such three times in a row can result in termination, or movement to another area of employment in the company with consent.
And I'm assuming if either party has any dispute in this process, claims can be filed in court?

by Syvorji » Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:18 pm
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Lodestara, The Socialist State of Brazil
Advertisement