Stop Corporate Imperialism Act
-
PREAMBLE
This act aims to discourage and prohibit corporate practices which are in effect forms of economic imperialism.
DEFINITIONS
- Economic imperialism - activity which results in the establishment of the hegemony and control of a foreign organization over the economy of a state or states
SECTION I. IMPERIALISM
I. The act of conspiring with suppliers to fix prices or to prevent competitors from obtaining goods by an organization in a foreign country is to be considered an act of economic imperialism.
II. The act of offering wages for work at least twice higher than the average wage for the area of employment or the local living wage, whichever is higher, by an organization in a foreign country is to be considered an act of economic imperialism.
III. The act of attempting, in a concerted way, by an organization to circumvent or bypass anti-trust regulation in a foreign country is to be considered an act of economic imperialism.
IV. The act of attempting, in a concerted way, by an organization to circumvent or bypass regulations on prices and wages in a foreign country, where these regulations are legal by European law, is to be considered an act of economic imperialism.SECTION II. ENFORCEMENT
I. Acts of economic imperialism which take place in two or more memberstates or are enshrined in the policy of the organization committing said imperialism are declared illegal in the European Union.
II. Acts of economic imperialism which take place in two or more memberstates or are enshrined in the policy of the organization committing said imperialism are to be actively litigated by the European Commission.
a) The European Commission is bound to file a case with the European Court of Justice in the following two scenarios:
a) That two member-states take a petition to the European Commission officially alleging an act of economic imperialism to have been committed in both by a single organization
b) That the European Commission discovers or is given evidence by any actor that an organization enshrines the committing of acts of economic imperialism as a part of its official policy
III. If the European Court of Justice finds an organization guilty of an act of economic imperialism, the organization is to be dissolved outside of the country where it is headquartered. Its assets outside of this country are to be given to the ownership of the government of the country in which the assets were located, which may dispose of them as it chooses.
IV. The European Court of Justice may also require the organization in question to pay fines of any amount to the member-states in which acts of economic imperialism were committed, and may also sentence members of the leadership of said organization seen as directly culpable for the act or acts of economic imperialism to up to five years in prison.
Debate will begin NOW and will continue until 01:45 GMT on the 7th of February 2022.
This act will prohibit certain actions on the part of corporations or similar organizations deemed economic imperialism, with the penalty of liquidation proscribed.
This is an act which is absolutely necessary. It does not violate the sovereignty of the member-states; it preserves it against a growing threat. Corporations across the EU have engaged in the behaviors I have named, establishing control over the economies of many nations, destroying what economic sovereignty they had. Stopping this is necessary to preserve political and economic independence, absolutely sacrosanct in my mind.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I will be voting against this act. This act could actually harm employees. I understand a minimum wage but if a company wishes to pay a higher wage if they do not assess of believe that the minimum wage covers a living wage for the standard of living they believe they should provide to their workers then they should not be stopped by doing so. Furthermore there are times when actors may need to work together to protect themselves or agreements on pricing minimums may be needed to stop for example to stop big corporations from exploiting their power to force lower prices on to distributors to make more money while making the supplier lose money or margins to the point it may hurt them with them not being able to fight back for fear of losing a big deal. This act purports to help the people of poorer nations in Europe yet it would actually hurt them as it would effectively stop average wage growth as corporations from actually raising standards in a market.
Frankly it is up to the corporation who is refusing offer a decent standard of living to find a way to meet the living costs of their employees , this act will only protect unethical employers who use loose labour laws in some countries to make profits at the expense of their own workers .We must allow Unions and Suppliers to work in the interests of their employees or members if we want a Europe better for all.
Skye Hook , Deputy Councillour for United Duchies -
Never the less I propose the following ammendment as this is far too strict a penalty.
This act will prohibit certain actions on the part of corporations or similar organizations deemed economic imperialism shall be required to change said practises within 6 months , with the penalty of
liquidation proscribed. a fine of 10% of Revenue if they do not do so. -
There is no reference to minimum wage, only local living wage and average wages for a certain field of work, in this act. The act also does not prevent suppliers from conspiring, but distributors from conspiring with them, a key difference.
The corporation also does not have the right to go about a civilizing mission in the poorer states of this Union.
Finally, the amendment proposed is to the legislative summary, which is not a part of the legislation.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
You will have the issue of who sets the living wage is it the local unions or experts in cost of living or a government agency. If a government agency then that could pose a threat to workers if corporations capture that agency in that situation one might need to exceed the government "living wage" to pay the real living wage of that country that workers and unions tell them they need especially if a sector is particularly bad in pay. I honestly don't know any major company paying more than twice the sector average living wage if it is a reasonably set rate as a rule unless there is a specific reason like the person has a particuarly unique and in demand skillset and can negotiate a premium wage in which case fair play on that worker . Also there are cases where distributors working together to ensure a fair price is a good thing , if the market is failing and 4 companies pledge to do fair trade pricing or a fair living wage that can only be a good thing. I reccomend if this act is to go ahead that any fair prices or wages are set by neutral panels of experts from each country , not government or corporate controlled boards, unfortunately we cannot always expect governments to act in the interests of workers and this could accidentally result in corporate owned governments using this to go after employers actually paying a reasonable wage to their workers that can be lived on to protect poverty pay employers or potentially their own firms paying those rates if they are corrupt enough. Any standard must be set in my oppinion by a neutral organisation with no corporate or government control but instead set by unions and workers comittees made up of workers from the sector or experts in living costs.
Skye Hook , Deputy Councillor for United Duchies -
It cannot be a good thing when a corporation does so in a foreign country; it leaves that country beholden to it. Better that a country is beholden to its own corrupt firms rather than those abroad.
The living wage was to be determined either by the government or in certain cases the Commission, but I understand concerns about this. In light of this, I propose the following amendment:
AMENDMENT I
DEFINITIONS
- Economic imperialism - activity which results in the establishment of the hegemony and control of a foreign organization over the economy of a state or states
2. Living wage - wage which is able to pay for the housing, food, and clothing needed for a family of average size within a given country to survive, and no more
Iras Tilkanas
*Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen - Economic imperialism - activity which results in the establishment of the hegemony and control of a foreign organization over the economy of a state or states
-
I would argue that definition is missing key things like transport , energy, water and a domestic holiday or leisure expenses. A human needs more than just the basics for survival if they are to live. I therefore propose the following ammendment
AMENDMENT I
DEFINITIONS
Economic imperialism - activity which results in the establishment of the hegemony and control of a foreign organization over the economy of a state or states
2. Living wage - wage which is able to pay for the housing, childcare, healthcare , utilities, transport , reasonable leisure expenses such as a domestic holiday for 7 days, food, and clothing needed for a family of average size within a given country to survive, and no moreAmmendment 2:
SECTION II. ENFORCEMENT
I. Acts of economic imperialism which take place in two or more memberstates or are enshrined in the policy of the organization committing said imperialism are declared illegal in the European Union.
II. Acts of economic imperialism which take place in two or more memberstates or are enshrined in the policy of the organization committing said imperialism are to be actively litigated by the European Commission.
a) The European Commission is bound to file a case with the European Court of Justice in the following two scenarios:
a) That two member-states take a petition to the European Commission officially alleging an act of economic imperialism to have been committed in both by a single organization
b) That the European Commission discovers or is given evidence by any actor that an organization enshrines the committing of acts of economic imperialism as a part of its official policy
III. If the European Court of Justice finds an organization guilty of an act of economic imperialism, the organization may be fined an amount set by the court up to 10% of revenue in the countries for the period. If these are not paid assets may be seized.Any organisation must fix the policy within 6 months to reflect the ruling.is to be dissolved utside of the country where it is headquartered. Its assets outside of this country are to be given to the ownership of the government of the country in which the assets were located, which may dispose of them as it chooses.
IV. The European Court of Justice may also require the organization in question to pay fines of any amount to the member-states in which acts of economic imperialism were committed, and may also sentence members of the leadership of said organization seen as directly culpable for the act or acts of economic imperialism to up to five years in prison. -
Amendment II does nothing to oppose the issue of economic imperialism, and is effectively a slap on the wrist.
Amendment I makes no sense outside of the context of the developed world.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I would disagree. 10% of revenue is likely to wipe out any profits at the average margins companies are on which is fair. Effectively dissolving a company Europe wide for a breach or not giving a chance for a policy to be fixed in the case of minor violation is highly unfair. There is also the issue of one executive in a country may be the issue rather than the company as a whole , and you don;t want to lose good paying jobs in many countries for that reason. Penalties must not be excessive so much as to destroy a company entirely for a minor thing , that does not help the worker. Giving 6 months to adjust the policy to match the ruling is a fair and measured approach if the company does not pay the fine issued by a court or fix it within 6 months then it is fair to take action against the company further as the ammendment would allow.
Also it is a living wage not a survival wage. Holidays and leisure time are part of that in a fair wage and transport is essential as well to get to a job , one should not be impoverished just getting a bus or train to work or be in poverty getting childcare while at work , those are basic expenses. we are not talking about having the latest iPhone or gadgets or toys here those are luxuries but to have good childcare, healthcare , money for transport and some leisure time and a holiday is a basic condition for living , call your proposed conditions what they are poverty wage, I don't think anyone reasonable would accept that definition of a "living wage" , humans are not machines to be used and exploited they need downtime and leisure time and to be able to leave their hometown once in a while.
Skye Hook, Councillor for United Duchies -
The violations described are in any case major. All of them require purposeful and extended action, and all of them result inevitably in the severe undermining of a nation's economic independence. There is no way for any of these to occur in a "minor" way.
Do not lecture me about wages. In my own nation, what you describe would have been the pinnacle of luxury until a decade ago. You can sit from a privileged position and lecture the rest of the world about how they must provide everyone with a holiday; but this is simply not possible in much of the world. The economies we speak of simply do not have the capacity to allow for these levesl of wages without them flowing from elsewhere. Allow them to develop by themselves - it is not the province of the foreign corporation, with its civilizing mission, to do so for them.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I cannot in good conciounse support an act that punished organisations for following principles like making sure all workers have enough to live and leisure time in their own nation. That is not civilising that is just treating your workers as a human being. May I suggest any company that cannot afford to give its workers a good life should maybe not exist and that what should be prioritised is fair trade as well development aid from governments to less well off nations. You are describing a company paying its workers a high wage as a serious breach of sovereignty , I fear this may achieve the opposite of what you want if it passed , ethical companies would leave countries for fear of being penalised for doing the right thing and ensuring workers can have a good decent life on the wage they offer while poverty wage employers will be left and can undercut any producers in the area anyway. the best approach should be to stop the race to the bottom in standards and labour rights and fight those companies. Lets not penalise companies for basically making sure their workers have a good life or ensuring workers get extra support from a welfare fund if they get ill and good acts treating their workers as human beings. I do not buy from companies that do not do this and it would be a tragedy and perverse if companies like these were locked out while poverty wage employers still able to operate. You act could actually lower standards in countries where governments do not set their minimum or living wages high enough, that is bad for workers and bad for society.
Skye Hook, Councillor for United Duchies
-
Therefore the domestic company, the small shopkeeper, perhaps - they should not exist because they do not meet your standards? Your ethical company, your fair trade - they are really exploiters, who will take over the economy of a country and deny it the right to develop by itself.
These companies that you name are reprehensible as well, but their actions, at the very least, do not threaten the very sovereignty of a nation. With the strengthening of labor unions, with legislation spearheaded at the EU level, these other exploiters will weaken themselves.
The theme of the civilizing mission is again repeated; and again, it must be said that it is the prerogative of no one but the people of a nation itself to decide what their wages should be - certainly not a foreign corporation!
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
A domestic shopkeeper chooses his salaries and margins if they were to hire someone outside the family they should of course pay them a fair living wage since if they can't they would only be gaining profits off peoples misery and poverty. Its frankly disgusting that the representitive from a so called socialist nation has introduced an act that will if it passes lose many people well paying jobs and make them jobless as ethical companies withdraw or result in poverty level wages becoming the new norm in low income countries in Europe making a rising well paid working class and middle class impossible also hampering economic growth while benefitting richer nations citizens through lower prices achieved off the backs of these new near slave workers. Companies should pay ethical wages and prices and those that can't shouldn't be in business it really is that simple whether the company is foreign or domestic. We don't punish firms who come in the Duchies and pay higher wages than a firm when one of ours loses workers to them we tell our firms to pay more money to match that rate if they want to keep the workers. This should be the same approach in all countries setting limits on what people can earn like this will only keep wages lower.
When a company pays a higher wage or bonus you know what happens? People on middle or lower incomes spend it so every Euro extra going into that pay packet boosts the economy, every Euroe going to very highly paid people is more likely to be saved and tucked away in an account lost to the economy impoverishing the country , every time a fair living wage is paid that can support a domestic holiday or even foreign one the nation gets extra GDP. This is basic economics, lower wages are bad for economies according to economists since less money paid to lower workers means their consumption has to be lower. If you were really interested in a strong economy and working class you'd support higher wages for the lower and middle income workers, since it would boost the economy and reduce poverty. If you want evidence of this look through the many economies in Europe who have this model and how unequal societies are having lower GDP per capita and growth in that metric precisely because the rich there hoard the money. All this is doing is helping vulture cappitalism by destroying ethical Cappitalism. If a Business chooses to pay a living wage and minimum profitable price for suppliers then it should not only be allowed but encouraged to do so, we should be encouraging more companies in all countries to sign up for said schemes like Fair Trade Europe and Fair Wage Europe not destroying their models of operating.
Skye Hook , Deputy Councillor for United Duchies
-
The point of socialism is to give the working class control over itself, not to allow corporations to dictate to workers what they want or how their economy may develop. Regardless, my country is not socialist in any way or form.
Increases in wages and in conditions must occur organically because of the struggle of the working class; they must not occur because of the whims of a foreign business. You speak of people having more money to consume; but you interestingly do not comment on where they will consume with this money. The company which engages in the behavior I have described will inevitable monopolize the retail market, and thus people will be forced to consume there. "Ethicality" becomes merely another way to earn profit, to exploit. Better that it is sharper, more obvious, than covered in this poisonous honey.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
The Empire of Inimicus will naturally oppose this Act and and any further proposals to legitimise the scourge of communism in this Union.
Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker -
The Union of Duxburian Dominions also opposes saddling the entire EU with bizarre socialist grievances. This is not what the EU is for.
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union -
This act has no ideology but that of sovereignty in mind. There is a company within the Union which goes to the underdeveloped nations and employs monopolistic practices. Employees are drawn to them, suppliers are drawn to them, and thus the domestic economy is left unable to compete. Everyone can only buy from them, everyone can only sell to them; and therefore it has established its hegemony, with which it can - and openly does try to - influence the social and political environment of the nation in question.
This is disgusting and is the equivalent of war. We as a Union stand against wars between states; therefore we should stand against war between a state and a company as equally hell-bent on subjugating the state in question to its own political agenda.
Debate shall be extended until 05:29 GMT on 9 February 2022.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Debate has ended. Voting on amendments will begin and continue until 22:50 GMT on the 14th of February, 2022. There are THREE amendments, one of which was proposed by me and two of which were proposed by Cllr. Skye Hook. Amendments I and II are in contradiction.
AMENDMENT I
DEFINITIONS
- Economic imperialism - activity which results in the establishment of the hegemony and control of a foreign organization over the economy of a state or states
2. Living wage - wage which is able to pay for the housing, food, and clothing needed for a family of average size within a given country to survive, and no more
AMENDMENT II
DEFINITIONS
Economic imperialism - activity which results in the establishment of the hegemony and control of a foreign organization over the economy of a state or states
2. Living wage - wage which is able to pay for the housing, childcare, healthcare , utilities, transport , reasonable leisure expenses such as a domestic holiday for 7 days, food, and clothing needed for a family of average size within a given country to survive, and no moreAMENDMENT III
SECTION II. ENFORCEMENT
I. Acts of economic imperialism which take place in two or more memberstates or are enshrined in the policy of the organization committing said imperialism are declared illegal in the European Union.
II. Acts of economic imperialism which take place in two or more memberstates or are enshrined in the policy of the organization committing said imperialism are to be actively litigated by the European Commission.
a) The European Commission is bound to file a case with the European Court of Justice in the following two scenarios:
a) That two member-states take a petition to the European Commission officially alleging an act of economic imperialism to have been committed in both by a single organization
b) That the European Commission discovers or is given evidence by any actor that an organization enshrines the committing of acts of economic imperialism as a part of its official policy
III. If the European Court of Justice finds an organization guilty of an act of economic imperialism, the organization may be fined an amount set by the court up to 10% of revenue in the countries for the period. If these are not paid assets may be seized.Any organisation must fix the policy within 6 months to reflect the ruling.is to be dissolved utside of the country where it is headquartered. Its assets outside of this country are to be given to the ownership of the government of the country in which the assets were located, which may dispose of them as it chooses.
IV. The European Court of Justice may also require the organization in question to pay fines of any amount to the member-states in which acts of economic imperialism were committed, and may also sentence members of the leadership of said organization seen as directly culpable for the act or acts of economic imperialism to up to five years in prison.Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen - Economic imperialism - activity which results in the establishment of the hegemony and control of a foreign organization over the economy of a state or states
-
The Empire of Inimicus votes AGAINST Amendments I and II, and FOR Amendment III.
Nicholas Benfield
Deputy SpeakerThe Empire of Inimicus
Head of State/Government: Emperor Artabanos (EU Hall of Fame 2021)
Vicarius (Deputy): Wilfred Cocx
Deputy Speaker of the European Council: Nicholas Benfield -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote for ammendments II and III and against Amendment I.
Skye Hook , Deputy Councillor for United Duchies
