Amendment to the Free Movement of Required Labour Act 2014
-
Debate starts NOW and will last until 21:45 GMT on June 20th, 2020.
I quite like the sentiment behind this amendment, but I have two issues.
Well, my first issue isn't an issue for me exactly. It's just a loophole. The first half of the amendment is quite vague and leaves a lot of room for creative interpretation. It merely states that the shortage "must be approved by local Labour Unions", but it doesn't specify anything further. It doesn't offer any quantifiable metric, apart from the fact that labour unions is written in a plural form. So therefore I assume the state would only require two labour union in that field of work to approve the shortage. Again, this is something I am fine with, but just pointing this out for you.
My second issue is a genuine problem I have with this legislation. In the second part of the amendment, it states that a "nation must have an unemployment rate of below 4% to be eligible". So therefore, if a country has an unemployment rate below 4%, then there's no labour shortages? This is blatantly untrue. Inquista has an unemployment rate below 4%, and so therefore Inquista doesn't have any labour shortages? We have numerous fields which are critically in need of labour, particularly in construction, manufacturing, and several specialized fields of medicine. The idea that, because most of the nation is employed, that somehow that means there is no room for new work, is very backwards. If anything, you'd imagine, if there was a lot of unemployment, then it would make sense to not recruit any more workers overseas and instead employ your local unemployed populace. Inquista's unemployment is low specifically because we have many areas in which new labour is in high demand.
Therefore, I propose the following amendment:
Amendment I
Section II
I. To ensure the regulation or employment and the incapacity of exploitation the EU will establish a regulatory body named The Labour Exchange with whom any member state can register a labour shortage that they intend to be filled with immigrant labour. Registering a labour shortage must be approved by local Labour Unions in the affected line of workand the nation must have an unemployment rate of below 4% to be eligible. The exchange will be run by the office of the Commissioner of Internal Affairs who will preside over its running.Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
It has been brought to my attention that I have misread the second part of the amendment, where I mistakenly thought a nation below 4% wouldn't be eligible, but it's the opposite. I apologize for that, so you can dismiss the point that I made.
With that said, I still stand by my amendment, because I think the unemployment % threshold is rather arbitrary. For instance, a nation with 5% unemployment is still a rather low level of unemployment, and I suspect they would also have many areas of where new labour is in demand. I would be more approving of the threshold if it was something like 15%, but 4% is way too low.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Mr. Firoux, first I would like to thank you for your constructive criticism in the first half, I would agree that the first part might need a bit of an clearance, perhaps a minimal percentage of members with relations to all workers in that line of work in the labour union or unions.
But regarding the second part. Well I do appreciate your fury but it is perhaps misdirected. "nation must have an unemployment rate of below 4% to be eligible" That means that if the state has an unemployment rate lower then 4% Inquista would therefore be eligible to register. This part of amendment is a part of the proposition, exactly because we want countries to employ their local unemployed populace, instead of lowering wages and recruiting any more workers overseas. Now I understand that you have apologized and I thank you for that. However I must disagree with any attempts at rising this threshold. Yes this threshold is very low, but in my opinion any rising of that threshold, even if by 0.1%, would be a step against the working people.
Returning to what I previously said I would like to propose the following amendment:To ensure the regulation or employment and the incapacity of exploitation the EU will establish a regulatory body named The Labour Exchange with whom any member state can register a labour shortage that they intend to be filled with immigrant labour. Registering a labour shortage must be approved by local Labour Union or Labour Unions in the affected line of work with a total labour union density of at least 30% and the nation must have an unemployment rate of below 4% to be eligible. The exchange will be run by the office of the Commissioner of Internal Affairs who will preside over its running.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
Councillor Kohout, this is just my normal voice. I'm not directing fury toward anything. I'm not upset with you, or your proposal. I'm just stating my opinion. It would be negligent of me to not give my opinion on a piece of legislation, or to not give you advice on how to better the legislation. For instance, I like the amendment that you've added, which has remedied the first issue I brought to your attention.
An unemployment rate of 4.1% is very low, especially for a free market economy. Usually most unemployment rates between 3% and 6% are considered 'full employment'. I have to imagine virtually all countries with an unemployment rate in that range have numerous fields which are in deeply dire demand of new labour, which they cannot get from their own country, and they would likely need way more new workers anyway than the total number of existing unemployed people.
There is so much more worth to advocate here, especially for the rights of economic migrants, but this isn't the time to have a nuanced discussion on economic nationalism, which is what this proposal attempts to push. Nor can we discuss that Jimmy, the unemployed teacher, should obviously just learn new specialist and marketable skills and become a neurosurgeon or tech developer already, instead of wasting his time waiting for a new teaching job.
I've said my piece already, so I will yield the floor to my colleagues.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Dear collègues,
I would like to thank collègue Kohout for highlighting this matter.
First of all, I can see why there a limit is needed to be eligible to apply. Does it has to be a maximum of 4% of unemployment? I don't know. What I do know, and there I join our collegue from Inquista. Even if the unemployment is below this 4%, there can be many specific areas in which there's a high demand. Conversely, the same applies, dear collegues. Let's take my home country for example. Nofoaga has currently an unemployment rate of 31,5%. No discussion about this. It is too high. But, collegues... A nation as mine with a small population and limited infrastructure and services will be the losers here. The current economy of our region and world is based on very specific domains and areas. That doesn't mean that the population nor the state is able in first instance to provide guidance and training in all these areas. Many of young Nofoagans go to study abroad. But meanwhile those jobs have to be filled in. And that's my point. This proposal is there for strong and diverse economies. The small countries that do not have that option are getting the crumbles or even are falling out.
Secondly, what you bring op Mr. Kohout about that it's up to, concerning a labour shortage, must be approved by local Labour Unions in the affected line of work, is out of the question. Unions are not a legislative body. Governments, and the parliaments and assemblies who control them are. It is up to the authorities to enter into a dialogue with the unions in order to assess which needs must be addressed. May I also point out that the culture and function of unions may differ in each country? You can, as you do, look with a narrow, purely economic view to achieve a certain scale. However, your proposal has implications for a whole group that is affected in different areas. I ask you to think about this anyway.
Thank you.
Mrs. Azaya Dubecq
EU Councilor for Nofoaga -
The discussion period is now over. Voting on amendments begins NOW and will last until 21:45 GMT on June 23rd, 2020. There are two amendments:
Amendment I - Proposed by Cllr. Firoux
Section II
I. To ensure the regulation or employment and the incapacity of exploitation the EU will establish a regulatory body named The Labour Exchange with whom any member state can register a labour shortage that they intend to be filled with immigrant labour. Registering a labour shortage must be approved by local Labour Unions in the affected line of workand the nation must have an unemployment rate of below 4% to be eligible. The exchange will be run by the office of the Commissioner of Internal Affairs who will preside over its running.Amendment II - Proposed by Cllr. Kohout
Section II
I. To ensure the regulation or employment and the incapacity of exploitation the EU will establish a regulatory body named The Labour Exchange with whom any member state can register a labour shortage that they intend to be filled with immigrant labour. Registering a labour shortage must be approved by local Labour Union or Labour Unions in the affected line of work with a total labour union density of at least 30% and the nation must have an unemployment rate of below 4% to be eligible. The exchange will be run by the office of the Commissioner of Internal Affairs who will preside over its running.
I vote FOR Amendment I and AGAINST Amendment II.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I vote AGAINST Amendment I and FOR Amendment II.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR Amendment I and AGAINST Amendment II.
Donald. D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of Nofoaga, I vote FOR ammendment I and AGAINST ammendment II.
Mrs Azaya Dubecq
EU Councilor for Nofoaga -
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote FOR amendment I and AGAINST amendment II.
Mr. Francis Plessis
Councilor for the Commonwealth of Leagio -
The Exalted Ottoman State ABSTAINS from voting on both Amendments I and II
Su Tevfik
Sublime Ottoman State -
On behalf of the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane, I vote FOR Amendments I and II.
Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane -
I vote FOR Amendment I and AGAINST Amendment II.
Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
I ABSTAIN on voting on the amendments.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I vote AGAINST both amendments.
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
Voting on amendments has now finished. With 6 votes for and 2 against, Amendment I has PASSED. With 2 votes for and 6 votes against, Amendment II has FAILED.
The legislation has been updated in accordance to the passed amendment.
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 08:15 GMT on June 27th, 2020.
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote AGAINST this amendment to the Free Movement of Required Labour Act.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this amendment to the Free Movement of Required Labour Act.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Republic Nofoaga, I vote AGAINST this ammendment.
Mrs. Azaya Dubecq
EU Councilor for Nofoaga -
On behalf of the Democratic Republic of Czech Slavia, I ABSTAIN from voting.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote AGAINST this amendment to the Free Movement of Required Labour Act.
Carita Falk
Cllr. for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod
The Kingdom of Spain
