Advertisement
by Kenmoria » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:54 am
by Cretox State » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:39 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Why is clause 2 so sweeping in its prohibition of predispute arbitration agreements? Surely applying the criteria in clause 3ai to 3aiv to these agreements would be sufficient in equalising the balance of power between employers and employees?”
by Araraukar » Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:30 pm
Cretox State wrote:OOC: The proposal prevents workers from being coerced into signing away their right to seek legal action
and prohibits retaliation for taking legal action. This is how the proposal ensures access to the legal system.
This proposal protects workers from being coerced into signing away their legal rights
(indirectly; workers can sue you if you illegally exploit them by, oh say, forcing them to handle toxic substances with no protection).
It also protects workers from being retaliated against for enforcing their rights in court.
According to the "Regulation" boilerplate text: "A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public."
They could be coerced into signing away their ability to take legal action. They could face retaliation for taking legal action in defense of their rights.
I don't really see anything wrong with the title. "Ensuring Judicial Access for Workers," maybe?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Cretox State » Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:00 am
Araraukar wrote:and prohibits retaliation for taking legal action. This is how the proposal ensures access to the legal system.
How? I mean, I get that those are good things, but what does that have to do with access to the legal system? Access to legal system would be more like guidance to the jungle of Legalese bureaucracy, or providing them with access to legal counseling when necessary, etc.
Araraukar wrote:This proposal protects workers from being coerced into signing away their legal rights
Didn't we just pass that resolution? What new does this add to this particular aspect? Remember that the yellow fox contracts are forbidden by an even earlier resolution.
Declares:
- no arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable with respect to an employment dispute unless:
- the agreement was not mandated by the employer, made a condition of employment or any employment-related benefit, or effected through coercion;
- each individual entering into the agreement was informed in sufficiently plain writing of their right to refuse the agreement without fear of retaliation, in addition to any other protections they may have pertaining to the signing of the agreement;
- each individual entering into the agreement received a period of at least 30 days to accept or reject the agreement; and
- each individual entering into the agreement affirmatively consented to the agreement in writing;
- no employer may retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an individual for refusing to enter into an agreement that provides for arbitration of an employment dispute;
- no employer may retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an individual for seeking judicial enforcement of their rights;
Araraukar wrote:(indirectly; workers can sue you if you illegally exploit them by, oh say, forcing them to handle toxic substances with no protection).
...why? I mean, if any employer tried to do that, they'd be breaking WA law. Anything the workers might do to them in national court would pale in comparison to IA's pets buggering them with the full power of the WA behind them. If the employees wanted results, their best bet would be to complain to Wine And Crouton Conference instead.
Araraukar wrote:It also protects workers from being retaliated against for enforcing their rights in court.
Wasn't that already illegal as well?
Araraukar wrote:According to the "Regulation" boilerplate text: "A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public."
Yeah, but all the protections you're mentioning, are already in place via other resolutions.
Araraukar wrote:They could be coerced into signing away their ability to take legal action. They could face retaliation for taking legal action in defense of their rights.
And they still can be and they still could be, if your whole point is that "some people might break the existing laws".
Araraukar wrote:I don't really see anything wrong with the title. "Ensuring Judicial Access for Workers," maybe?
They already have that. Howabout "Protecting Legal Rights of Workers", since you keep saying those are what you want to protect?
by Kenmoria » Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:32 am
by Flying Eagles » Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:27 am
by Cretox State » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:35 am
Flying Eagles wrote:Technically it should be "Protecting the Legal Rights of Workers"
by Wallenburg » Fri Jul 31, 2020 5:17 pm
by Honeydewistania » Fri Jul 31, 2020 5:19 pm
Wallenburg wrote:How is this not purely duplication? Down to sharing a lot of the same language, this proposal just does what Fair Arbitration Act does, but less of it. Nothing in this is not covered by the existing ban on forced arbitration agreements for employment disputes.
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Cretox State » Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:10 pm
Wallenburg wrote:How is this not purely duplication? Down to sharing a lot of the same language, this proposal just does what Fair Arbitration Act does, but less of it. Nothing in this is not covered by the existing ban on forced arbitration agreements for employment disputes.
by Wallenburg » Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:19 am
Cretox State wrote:Wallenburg wrote:How is this not purely duplication? Down to sharing a lot of the same language, this proposal just does what Fair Arbitration Act does, but less of it. Nothing in this is not covered by the existing ban on forced arbitration agreements for employment disputes.
OOC: Are you certain about that? This proposal's language specifically covers postdispute arbitration agreements for employment disputes. This distinction was even more clear in the first draft; I felt that it was unnecessary to make this distinction given the predispute agreement ban imposed by Fair Arbitration Act, and the ever-present possibility of it being repealed (which would make the conditions of 2a even more important). The other two important bits, 2b and 2c, are not present in FAA in any capacity.
by Cretox State » Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:06 pm
Wallenburg wrote:So not exactly a duplication violation, just enough overlap that the effects of this resolution are minuscule.
by Wallenburg » Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:55 pm
Cretox State wrote:Wallenburg wrote:So not exactly a duplication violation, just enough overlap that the effects of this resolution are minuscule.
OOC: I would hardly call protecting workers from retaliation for taking legal action "minuscule." I would hardly call protecting workers from being coerced into signing away their right to take legal action "minuscule."
by Cretox State » Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:35 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Cretox State wrote:OOC: I would hardly call protecting workers from retaliation for taking legal action "minuscule." I would hardly call protecting workers from being coerced into signing away their right to take legal action "minuscule."
A coerced contract is already nonbinding, and is illegal depending on what it's for. This isn't a real issue given standing WA law.
by Cretox State » Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:24 pm
Apollo 19 wrote:OOC: can the WA stop making resolutions that violate the sovereignty of the nations? It's not your job to make policies that overrule national laws.
by Dolgo » Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:34 pm
Apollo 19 wrote:OOC: can the WA stop making resolutions that violate the sovereignty of the nations? It's not your job to make policies that overrule national laws.
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:31 pm
Apollo 19 wrote:OOC: can the WA stop making resolutions that violate the sovereignty of the nations? It's not your job to make policies that overrule national laws.
by Picairn » Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:19 am
Apollo 19 wrote:OOC: can the WA stop making resolutions that violate the sovereignty of the nations? It's not your job to make policies that overrule national laws.
by Ardiveds » Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:25 am
Durbur wrote:I fear the economic crisis
by Moehaven » Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:10 pm
by Tinhampton » Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:42 pm
Moehaven wrote:Bill fails to recognize or protect workers fundamental right to organize or unions' right to take industrial action to protect workers' rights. Bill seeks to individualize workers' responses to abusive employers etc rather than sanctioning and protecting workers' rights to take collective action to redress wrongs. Bill fails to protect the right to strike also.
by Wealthatonia » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:18 am
by Heavens Reach » Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:35 am
Wealthatonia wrote:Ambassador, this is a blatant attack on the soverignty of Wealthatonia! Our fair standards are set by the corporate bodies of each regional CEO. I would advise sane nations to vote against it. But should it pass, we will have to hasten the planned automation of our industries
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement