Senate Bill: Protection of Foreign Workers

[GodKing]

NO = FREEDOM

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I recall this bill. See version 2.