Cotenshire
18-02-2009, 23:14
CONTROVERSIAL ‘LABOUR ACT’ PASSED IN PARLIAMENT
Three months after being introduced, the much discussed Labour Act was passed by a mere fourteen votes in Parliament. The King has sounded rather ambiguous when asked about his position on the bill, but he would have likely intervened by this point if he were opposed to it.
The bill’s scope and authority has drawn much criticism. It states that ”No child under the age of ten years old…shall work, serve, or otherwise be under the authority of an overseer, foreman, or supervisor for more than 14 hours in one 24 hour period.” There are no allowed exceptions to this provision, even in cases in which the employer urgently needs the child to work for more than 14 hours in a day or the parents want their child to work longer than the maximum 14 hours.
“The ‘Labour Act’ is ludicrous in the extreme,” stated Henri Torp, a prominent owner of several major Taale-Voren factories. “Why, such a law is unprecedented and unconstitutional. I cannot even begin to explain how ridiculous it is. How on Earth can they pass a law that limits the work day of every child worker in every city in the Dominion? This is madness. Since when can a government do something like that? They have gone crazy.”
Torp’s views were not uncommon among the country’s business wealth. Famous coal magnate Andrew Fitzryan also derided the act. “What kind of a message does this send to our country’s entrepreneurs? They are telling us that we have no right to the property accumulated by our ancestors and the fortunes that we have built up. And what is the message they are trying to send to workers? They are saying that families who work hard should be punished, but those who are lazy and smile all day will be rewarded. What kind of thinking does this breed in the minds of commoners when they see that idleness is a respectable virtue in a man? It is the very quintessence of Bolshevism.”
The Labour Act had gone through numerous revisions and other titles, and has been in the works for over a year. The final version, which was the one that went to vote yesterday, had been submitted by Lord Covington, one of the most ardent supporters of the bill. He declined an interview, but in an essay he wrote in support of the bill he stated thus: “What is more in the spirit of laws? Are not laws intended to create justice? The Labour Act is justice in the extreme. As I have shown earlier, the children under the whip of the foremen are but poor victims of those gross malefactors, those very scions of avarice, who seek to destroy all tradition and to erode the very fabric of our society. That such an act needs to be passed is in itself reprehensible, but I shall not shrink from this duty when there is a meek soul in need of justice.”
Lord Covington insists that the Labour Act is founded on moral principles, but his critics claim otherwise. “No honest man can think that Lord Covington is morally distraught over these youths,” said Lord Thomas Smithson, a Member of Parliament who has been staunchly opposed to the bill. “Why, I doubt that he has ever seen even a single representative of this body of youth workers that he claims to protect. His meddling has nothing to do with highly held principles, and everything to do with envy and lust. Whenever Lord Covington, or any of his ilk for that matter, sees a freeman attain wealth to the extent that it begets gentility, he is enraged by jealousy. For what engenders fury into a man of inherited, unmerited stock more than the sight of a man of greater value who has attained such worth through his own labours? This bill is merely a vehicle in his campaign to undermine the entrepreneur class.”
While Lord Smithson’s allegations are controversial, it is true that Lord Covington has railed against “city men” in his previous statements. He has stated before that “the wealth of a city is in essence evil. The lawyer profits off of the injustice of another, the industrialist of the poverty of another, the banker of the property of another, the physician of the injury of another…”
The Labour Act is notable in that it is a rare occasion on which the conservatives and the socialists have voted together. The bill has been mainly opposed by liberals and some conservatives. It has also been criticised by socialists, such as MP Jakob Rozny, who claims that the bill does not do enough. Some socialists have even proposed that a child’s daily employment hours be limited to 11.
Despite the passage of the Labour Act, it is unlikely that the issue is settled. The debate over this piece of legislation has created some of the most intense and passionate rhetoric yet seen in Parliament. A bill that will repeal the Labour Act is already under the process of revision and should come to vote in the coming months.
Three months after being introduced, the much discussed Labour Act was passed by a mere fourteen votes in Parliament. The King has sounded rather ambiguous when asked about his position on the bill, but he would have likely intervened by this point if he were opposed to it.
The bill’s scope and authority has drawn much criticism. It states that ”No child under the age of ten years old…shall work, serve, or otherwise be under the authority of an overseer, foreman, or supervisor for more than 14 hours in one 24 hour period.” There are no allowed exceptions to this provision, even in cases in which the employer urgently needs the child to work for more than 14 hours in a day or the parents want their child to work longer than the maximum 14 hours.
“The ‘Labour Act’ is ludicrous in the extreme,” stated Henri Torp, a prominent owner of several major Taale-Voren factories. “Why, such a law is unprecedented and unconstitutional. I cannot even begin to explain how ridiculous it is. How on Earth can they pass a law that limits the work day of every child worker in every city in the Dominion? This is madness. Since when can a government do something like that? They have gone crazy.”
Torp’s views were not uncommon among the country’s business wealth. Famous coal magnate Andrew Fitzryan also derided the act. “What kind of a message does this send to our country’s entrepreneurs? They are telling us that we have no right to the property accumulated by our ancestors and the fortunes that we have built up. And what is the message they are trying to send to workers? They are saying that families who work hard should be punished, but those who are lazy and smile all day will be rewarded. What kind of thinking does this breed in the minds of commoners when they see that idleness is a respectable virtue in a man? It is the very quintessence of Bolshevism.”
The Labour Act had gone through numerous revisions and other titles, and has been in the works for over a year. The final version, which was the one that went to vote yesterday, had been submitted by Lord Covington, one of the most ardent supporters of the bill. He declined an interview, but in an essay he wrote in support of the bill he stated thus: “What is more in the spirit of laws? Are not laws intended to create justice? The Labour Act is justice in the extreme. As I have shown earlier, the children under the whip of the foremen are but poor victims of those gross malefactors, those very scions of avarice, who seek to destroy all tradition and to erode the very fabric of our society. That such an act needs to be passed is in itself reprehensible, but I shall not shrink from this duty when there is a meek soul in need of justice.”
Lord Covington insists that the Labour Act is founded on moral principles, but his critics claim otherwise. “No honest man can think that Lord Covington is morally distraught over these youths,” said Lord Thomas Smithson, a Member of Parliament who has been staunchly opposed to the bill. “Why, I doubt that he has ever seen even a single representative of this body of youth workers that he claims to protect. His meddling has nothing to do with highly held principles, and everything to do with envy and lust. Whenever Lord Covington, or any of his ilk for that matter, sees a freeman attain wealth to the extent that it begets gentility, he is enraged by jealousy. For what engenders fury into a man of inherited, unmerited stock more than the sight of a man of greater value who has attained such worth through his own labours? This bill is merely a vehicle in his campaign to undermine the entrepreneur class.”
While Lord Smithson’s allegations are controversial, it is true that Lord Covington has railed against “city men” in his previous statements. He has stated before that “the wealth of a city is in essence evil. The lawyer profits off of the injustice of another, the industrialist of the poverty of another, the banker of the property of another, the physician of the injury of another…”
The Labour Act is notable in that it is a rare occasion on which the conservatives and the socialists have voted together. The bill has been mainly opposed by liberals and some conservatives. It has also been criticised by socialists, such as MP Jakob Rozny, who claims that the bill does not do enough. Some socialists have even proposed that a child’s daily employment hours be limited to 11.
Despite the passage of the Labour Act, it is unlikely that the issue is settled. The debate over this piece of legislation has created some of the most intense and passionate rhetoric yet seen in Parliament. A bill that will repeal the Labour Act is already under the process of revision and should come to vote in the coming months.