If this bill passes, we might as well establish a equal and fair treatment clause in our bill of rights as our last defense.
Cool, thank you. Iād definitely like to work with you and others in understanding that separation. My business has personally dealt with a lawsuit in the past regarding the right to challenge and it honestly did more harm than good for both parties involved. Iād like to see how we can better protect employees without harming employers in the process.
Another issue related to this is the fact that it seems like some departments are moving towards contract based liability waivers for the employment rights.
So this should be stopped at the same time if we want truly equal, unimpeded, rights.
Gotcha. This makes me both reassured but also nervous. On one side, it better protects the employer (especially from suits involving a āKarenā being relieved of her duties), but also puts several employee rights up in the air for the employer to decide. I know I would want whatās best for my employees but I canāt say the same for a business that could care less about the people devoting time to them.
at the moment if we were to amend the current act, private businesses would likely have a barebones set of nondiscrimination laws or have regulation left to Commerce to decide.
lets look at who really suffers from this; the labor attorneys.
Lolā¦ I mean in all fairness labor disputes make up a significant amount of the civil docketā¦ aside from false detention/arrest/citation casesā¦
There is really only one true attorney who specializes in labor disputes and that is IceBreakerā¦ everyone is just able either a general counsel for a department who picks this up as part of their job description or a lawyer who is hired to handle a specific case.
Alsoā¦ labor suits/complaints are a lot of what I deal with as the general counsel for the FNGā¦
That is like 90% of my jobā¦ then 10% of reviewing/watching FA cases/other proceedings.
I hate working on employment rights lawsuits
Right now I see a couple of issues with this bill. I think the current employment rights are heavily flawed, but this bill would also have its flaws.
- What about the County? There are departments that fall under the County and in the DSA you talk about āthe Executive Branchā, with ātheā being one, being the State Executive Branch. Do County Department employees not get any rights or can the departments just make some up? This seems like a big flaw in my opinion. Also who āleadā the Executive Branch? Are you talking about the department heads? If so, thatās a terrible idea. Donāt let the people who would be negatively impacted by a lot of employment rights control the employment rights. What would prevent a department head from changing the rights right before they start handling a case so they can get away with something that would usually be protected under these rights? You especially have to consider that a lot of people within this community are just teenagers and arenāt really going to care about other people. This is already a bad idea in the normal world where adults are in charge.
- What about businesses? Are their employees just not going to get any rights? Referring back to my point about teenagers, anyone can start a business within Firestone. Why not give them some basic rights and then let Commerce set standards for the rest?
I think this bill does solve some issues presented by the current employment rights, but itās not perfect. I think the main thing you have to look at is how youāre going to have similar rights for every department. Donāt let the Department Heads decide what rights their employees get, but assign this to a key person in a key position or just completely decide it in a law. Of course departments could in some way benefit from having more employment rights, as more people would maybe be willing to join that department instead of another department in the same field, but departments donāt necessarily care that much about their numbers (as long as they donāt suddenly drop a lot).
But theyāre garbageā¦
lots of room for abuse lol
but- wh-
This bill is hot, tyrannical garbage. Itās not trying to better balance employment rights. This doesnāt loosen them to make basic functionāit removes them entirely. Because the only thing this bill requires is that departments write shit down. ājust and equalā means Jack shitā because how that works in practice isnāt clarified. Second point, these absolute geniuses didnāt think to be a little more clear on how writing those policies works. So hereās what I can do as a DH: I write a paragraph in the general chat of my Discord, call it policy, never once announce it. Few weeks go by, someone violates my arbitrary rule, instantly fired. And thatās totally legal under this bill. Furthermore, giving the people that benefit from having little to no rights of employees the power to essentially make the rights is straight up mental defective shit.
I am not exaggerating or fear mongering: the authors and supporters of this bill are unironically trying to take away your rights. You should be angry.
Should the workers revolution begin?
agreed.
wrong!
Just in case you havenāt happened to come across my formalised rant, here it is.
Some of us like our rights
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z9QW9_sST28tpYlE0JgwGkNAE__9kkN3/view?usp=sharing
TL;DR: Rights good, new DSA bill bad for EB employees. Congress think about pls.
Honestly, I never saw a problem with the original employment rights, not only does this bill not guarantee a reason be provided for the action taken against you. It also takes away all preparation period for any defence youād like to launch. In this new bill, a department could build a case against you for 3 months, then fire you all of a sudden. How are you gonna make up those 3 months of secret evidence gathering. You simply wonāt be able too. Atleast with the old bill you know why youāre being investigated and fired.
dsa bill has been retired