Molotov

Seeing as how strikes across Brazil have paralyzed business and increased social tensions we'd like to propose the following act regarding the formation of new unions.

----------
Article 1.
All unions registered after Q3 of 1929 must be registered with the Government and in accordance with Brazilian labor laws.

Article 2. Unions registered may not be allowed to espouse ideas promoting violence against the state or ideas influenced by another foreign power.

Article 3. Existing unions must be registered and evaluated before January 1st of 1930 or else be shut down by the proper authorities.
---------
This up for negotiation. We cannot have unions organizing our workers under the banner of "Workers Revolution" or any other Godless ideology that would incite the Working class to violence.

Define violence.

Also, this has not been correctly filed in the Congress system.

Smyg wrote: ↑21:12:31 Sunday, 29 October, 2017 Also, this has not been correctly filed in the Congress system.

Fixed.

Smyg wrote: ↑21:10:40 Sunday, 29 October, 2017 Define violence.

Violent acts carried out for the purpose of insurrection and overthrowing the existing order.

Flaming Bolshevik wrote: ↑21:16:36 Sunday, 29 October, 2017

Smyg wrote: ↑21:10:40 Sunday, 29 October, 2017 Define violence.

Violent acts carried out for the purpose of insurrection and overthrowing the existing order.

We agree with the general purpose of this bill, but would very much like to see extensive clarification in an amendment, to make clear exactly which activities are forbidden. We apologise in advance for this demand, as it may seem rather... specific.

Smyg wrote: ↑21:19:23 Sunday, 29 October, 2017

Flaming Bolshevik wrote: ↑21:16:36 Sunday, 29 October, 2017

Smyg wrote: ↑21:10:40 Sunday, 29 October, 2017 Define violence.

Violent acts carried out for the purpose of insurrection and overthrowing the existing order.

We agree with the general purpose of this bill, but would very much like to see extensive clarification in an amendment, to make clear exactly which activities are forbidden. We apologise in advance for this demand, as it may seem rather... specific.

We will clarify and thank the PCB for their interest.

----------
Article 1.
All unions registered after Q3 of 1929 must be registered with the Government and in accordance with Brazilian labor laws. Registration will be managed by the Ministry of Justice and Internal Affairs

Article 2. Unions registered may not be allowed to espouse ideas promoting violence against the state or act under pressure from any foreign power.

2.2. New Unions will not be allowed to incite strikes for the purposes of insurrection and will be shut down should they promote physical acts of violence against the Police, replacement workers, Government Officials and Company executives. Acts of Violence also include vandalism, robbery and destruction of property.


2.3 . Should an individual member of a union perform an act of violence or incite it during a strike the union will be required to expel said member or face severe punishment. Should the Union in question refuse they will face harsh fines and should they continue to refuse they will be shut down.

2.4. The Government may send in the Police or Armed forces should they rule that a situation is dire and violence is imminent.


Article 3. Existing unions must be registered and evaluated before January 1st of 1930 or else be shut down by the proper authorities.


Article 4. If passed into law, the Government may review its necessity every 2 years due to the circumstances surrounding this bill.
---------
Updated bill.

while we feel that this in normal times would be an over step of government powers we feel with the current state of
affairs that this is needed ONLY IF a SunSet adamant is added that states in two years
this fair government will review this bill

We support the amended bill.

We believe that this bill has a good intent, though we would like to see some refinement of the bill. The Sunset clause as suggested is acceptable to us with a time limit of, say, two years or so, while we would like to broaden 'violence' to include harm done to property, workers brought in by the companies, company or government officials. We also believe that this should be expanded to allow the government opportunity to act in such a hostile situation if they believe that these acts of violence are imminent, so as to prevent chaos and anarchy before it occurs.

As well, this bill has neglected to explain who will manage this registration process. We believe it best left up to the Minister of Justice and Internal Affairs to set criteria and determine what is a legitimate union operating within Brazil, and what is nothing more than a front for populist agitation

We were under the impression that strikebreaking was illegal under the regulations of our collective bargaining right.

Additionally, the phrase "ideas influenced by another foreign power" is absurd. How does one define that? The Integralists themselves could never participate in unionism then, being deeply inspired by Fascist Italy, and there are many very moderate, centrist unions which would be forced to dissolve, being profoundly inspired by for example American ideals of economic management.

We're also concerned with the amount of aggressive language and militancy that the right-wing appears willing to employ against the workers who, again, are only making use of their extremely legal rights. We also, as a side note, find it interesting that the Integralists are so interested in preventing violence, this party that itself has stated that "you cannot outlaw simple and basic human urges of violence", and bloodily and brutally expressed that inclination these past months.

Overall, this bill is highly dangerous, and will likely be met with swift labour action is passed.

It seems that regardless of whatever bill is passed or fails to pass, we will see labor action, as we have seen with the successful passing of the 8 hour work day bill, which saw many take action despite constitutional mechanisms being in place to ensure the passing of such a bill.

That said, some vague statements should be reworded.

Smyg wrote: ↑11:48:20 Monday, 30 October, 2017 We were under the impression that strikebreaking was illegal under the regulations of our collective bargaining right.

Additionally, the phrase "ideas influenced by another foreign power" is absurd. How does one define that? The Integralists themselves could never participate in unionism then, being deeply inspired by Fascist Italy, and there are many very moderate, centrist unions which would be forced to dissolve, being profoundly inspired by for example American ideals of economic management.

We're also concerned with the amount of aggressive language and militancy that the right-wing appears willing to employ against the workers who, again, are only making use of their extremely legal rights. We also, as a side note, find it interesting that the Integralists are so interested in preventing violence, this party that itself has stated that "you cannot outlaw simple and basic human urges of violence", and bloodily and brutally expressed that inclination these past months.

Overall, this bill is highly dangerous, and will likely be met with swift labour action is passed.

If you wish to hold us accountable for that then please, do so in a separate bill if you so wish.

Your impression of the phrase "Ideas influenced by foreign powers" is reasonable but incorrect. We simply meant that unions may not strike or protest in any way if it is found that they are being pressured from a foreign entity. We'd be willing to clarify in the bill if that phrase is so important to you.

Again, different conversation for a different time. You're also forgetting that this bill applies to us too.

Our bill is only dangerous to you because it would restrict Marxist Unions who continuously preach their Godless revolution and continue to paralyze our nations industry. It is dangerous because no longer would Foreign Communists be able to pressure Brazilian unions and that wouldn't be very good for International Bolshevism, would it?

Red John wrote: ↑12:29:33 Monday, 30 October, 2017 It seems that regardless of whatever bill is passed or fails to pass, we will see labor action, as we have seen with the successful passing of the 8 hour work day bill, which saw many take action despite constitutional mechanisms being in place to ensure the passing of such a bill.

That said, some vague statements should be reworded.

Clarify which statements you refer to please.