|
Polidoro posted:Consuming weed has been legal, like, forever here. I'm not really sure on dates on this. It was only illegal to buy and it still is because the law passed just to get headlines and then it wasn't actually enforced. You can't buy weed on pharmacies and probably never will because Tabaré Vazquez is against it. And it all happened right when a scandal involving our national airline getting sold was uncovered and the government lost over a hundred million dollars and made the Economy Minister resign. Then international press caught on it and started reporting non stop because people are obsessed with weed and dear Pepe liked being on the covers of papers so much that he spent the rest of his term trying to remain there. Well, that's disappointing. I though the production was going to be handled by the state. Im pretty sure Ive read that somewhere.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
SexyBlindfold posted:I find it kind of hard to believe that Martelly is literally the second or third head of state in the Americas with the highest approval rate. These are from the Washington Post. Raul is as popular as Nieto and Fidel is the same as Obama lol  http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/cuba-poll-2015/
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
One of the PCdoB deputies voted "yes" for the terceirizção law  For those who don't know, the C stands for "comunista."
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
he made his entire political career in PMDB, and later switched to PSC because PMDB wouldn't let him run for Recife mayor again. he's a CINO. the worst thing is that 13 out of 18 PDT congressmen voted yes. Magrov fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
Brizola is turning in his grave. 21 out of 30 PSB also voted in favor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Someone mentioned how much middle class Brazilians love to imitate Europe, well now their center-left political parties are imitating New Labour 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Someone mentioned how much middle class Brazilians love to imitate Europe, well now their center-left political parties are imitating New Labour That ship has long sailed. PSDB was at one point a legit center left party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:That ship has long sailed. PSDB was at one point a legit center left party. PSDB was a center left party (social democrats) before PT came into power. Then, as they became the opposition, they had to take the role of The Right, and they are pretty bad at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Lol Brazil just basically torpedoed their entire economy and it was not doing well before that but their middle class is all about to go bye-bye.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
There's a chance the senate won't let the outsourcing bill pass and Dilma can veto it but I'm not too optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Is there a provision in the constitution for Congress overriding a presidential veto?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Lol Brazil just basically torpedoed their entire economy and it was not doing well before that but their middle class is all about to go bye-bye. Middle Class? What is this, a Soviet party meeting circa 1945? Get with the times, man, the middle class is old news
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Is there a provision in the constitution for Congress overriding a presidential veto? Yes. For congress to override a veto they have to have a simple majority of all seats (i.e., not just more votes of those present) to do it. In congress they already had way over the number needed, and in the senate they could easily get that (all it would take is 12 senators from the "government" side to vote with the opposition).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Is there a provision in the constitution for Congress overriding a presidential veto? lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Yes. For congress to override a veto they have to have a simple majority of all seats (i.e., not just more votes of those present) to do it. In congress they already had way over the number needed, and in the senate they could easily get that (all it would take is 12 senators from the "government" side to vote with the opposition). welp
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
If Brazil is going to compete with Bangladesh they need to get with the times. Brazil was getting to dangerously low levels of vertical inequality anyway. Also, the next right-wing wave across Latin America is going to be something to truly behold. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
Magrov posted:lol Latin America general thread: Is there a provision in the constitution for Congress overriding a presidential veto? latam_pol.txt
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Wait maybe I don't understand this properly. Does the law legalize outsourcing current brazilian jobs overseas or legalize brazilians to work as outsourcers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Wait maybe I don't understand this properly. Does the law legalize outsourcing current brazilian jobs overseas or legalize brazilians to work as outsourcers? It lets companies outsource all jobs to smaller companies to go around labor laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Wait maybe I don't understand this properly. Does the law legalize outsourcing current brazilian jobs overseas or legalize brazilians to work as outsourcers? While in an American context outsourcing is popularly used to refer to sending jobs overseas, in this context it just means that the companies hire other companies to do major parts of their job. Imagine Fiat, for example. Right now they have to have their own workers doing the bulk of the work to produce their cars. This means that Fiat is responsible for the labor rights guaranteed by the law for their employees. They are the ones who have to ensure the regulations are being followed, and if they don't follow them, the workers will sue Fiat. With this bill, Fiat can instead hire a company that will provide the workers for their factories. Which means that if there are any violations of labor laws (regarding safety, rights, etc), the workers do not go after Fiat anymore, but after this company. Since there is nothing stopping these smaller companies from simply declaring bankruptcy and disappearing, it is essentially a way of creating a legal fiction that gets big companies off the hook with regards to workers' rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:It lets companies outsource all jobs to smaller companies to go around labor laws. Sounds kind of lovely. OTOH it might help the brazilian economy if it makes doing business cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Calling it the end of the middle class sounds incredibly hyperbolic. A lot of the time the company tries it and realizes it adds way too many problems for little gain, which is what happened with a lot of US outsourcing in skilled areas. Honestly a lot of these labor laws seem incredibly archaic and antiquated in the modern global economy. Worker protections are great but there's lots of ways to make that happen besides having silly laws like 'you can outsource this but not this. Particularly when often times core business functions are difficult to define. Basically the way we work has changed, we need to stop pretending that the same labor laws that worked when you had everyone on assembly lines in the industrial revolution will work today. This is also why unions have largely died, because modern jobs are simply a lot harder to unionize for a variety of reasons. It's silly just to blame the right for it when unions flourished under much harsher opposition to their existence (including straight up murder) in the past. In reality it's considerably easier to unionize something like a factory, where you had lots of people working the same job with little difference in output levels. It's much harder to unionize an office where everyone has different roles and one employees worth can objectively be much more than another coworker. Millenials are incredibly individualistic and this is well-reflected in their attitudes toward unions even if they support worker-protections in general. tsa fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sounds kind of lovely. Outright slave labor and no environmental protections would make doing business cheaper too. There are so many efficiencies to be found once you drop any pretense to worker protections and ethical business practices!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sounds kind of lovely. It'll make the economy better for people that own companies, yeah. Not for people who work at jobs. tsa posted:
I'm going to assume you've never worked in a factory, because there's a very wide variety of jobs in a factory, too. In addition, there are lots and lots of unionized office jobs; check out the roster of the AFL-CIO's unions. Office jobs are often not unionized because they're management of some form or another; those that aren't management have historically been unionized quite a lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
No one is actually posting any evidence why it is bad though, just waving their hands and saying it is bad. As it is right now the courts are piled with cases pertaining to the law because "core functions" is an arbitrary term. Anyway unless I'm reading it wrong article 8 has provisions for the persons working outsourced jobs to be covered by the union of the outsourcer, so that should ease some concerns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
tsa posted:No one is actually posting any evidence why it is bad though, just waving their hands and saying it is bad. Statiscally, "terceirized" jobs pay 25% less, are far less stable and have longer work journeys. It might actually create LESS jobs as longer journeys lets companies hire less people to do the same job, pay them in peanuts and give fewer or even no benefits at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
tsa posted:Calling it the end of the middle class sounds incredibly hyperbolic. A lot of the time the company tries it and realizes it adds way too many problems for little gain, which is what happened with a lot of US outsourcing in skilled areas. LovablePlutonis already mentioned some of the stats (though I should also mention that service sector outsorcing firms have a yearly turnover rate of 76%, which tells a lot about stability). But this isn't a law changing or adapting labor laws. It is a law that creates a legal fiction to make it easier for employers to avoid liability when they are violated. Just as an example: of the 22 construction sites busted for using labor analogous to slavery (indebted servitude, forced labor, etc.), 19 were using outsourced labor. So the terceirizacao here essentially allowed 19 companies to use slave labor and get away with it, because the 3rd party companies essentially shut down and paid no fines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32261550quote:US President Barack Obama has told Latin American leaders that the days when his country could freely interfere in regional affairs are past. Well glad that's sorted out finally then!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32261550 Now let me tell you why TPP is the next step in Chilean economic development.  Obdicut posted:It'll make the economy better for people that own companies, yeah. Not for people who work at jobs. I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It makes things better for people who don't have jobs, for one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
Why would it make the number of available jobs change?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Now let me tell you why TPP is the next step in Chilean economic development. Brazil has a 4% unemployment rate. lovely employment, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time getting my head around the terceirizção thing. Can't Dilma veto it so it isn't effective for at least couple years/till someone else gets into the presidency? Is there any place where I can read the particulars re: how both companies (the "outsourced" and the "outsourcing") don't share responsibilities? It sounds too surreal to be true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Azran posted:I'm having a hard time getting my head around the terceirizção thing. Can't Dilma veto it so it isn't effective for at least couple years/till someone else gets into the presidency? Is there any place where I can read the particulars re: how both companies (the "outsourced" and the "outsourcing") don't share responsibilities? It sounds too surreal to be true. Artigo 66 posted:1º Se o Presidente da República considerar o projeto, no todo ou em parte, inconstitucional ou contrário ao interesse público, vetá-lo-á total ou parcialmente, no prazo de quinze dias úteis, contados da data do recebimento, e comunicará, dentro de quarenta e oito horas, ao Presidente do Senado Federal os motivos do veto. 66.4 is the key here, in English it reads: "The veto shall be examined in a join session, within 30 days of its receipt, and only being possible to reject it by an absolute majority of Deputies and Senators, through a secret ballot". What is interesting in Brasil is that you only need a majority to send the law right back to the President, so if you were able to pass it in the first place you're going to stand a good chance of pushing it home if you're truly intent on it. Contrast this with Argentina, for example, (art. 83)where you need two-thirds of the vote of the original chamber and as well as a majority in the other chamber, and if the other chamber disagrees the law is automatically tabled for a year. Seems that the Brazilian veto is not as strong (if any Brazilians could further clear this up that would be great).
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A15B9Sdavc BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Azran posted:I'm having a hard time getting my head around the terceirizção thing. Can't Dilma veto it so it isn't effective for at least couple years/till someone else gets into the presidency? Is there any place where I can read the particulars re: how both companies (the "outsourced" and the "outsourcing") don't share responsibilities? It sounds too surreal to be true. The veto part has been dealt with. If the law sounds surreal, it is because it is surreal. There is a reason why nearly all supreme court justices in Brazil, and all supreme labor court justices in Brazil have spoken out against it. The law, in practice, does 4 things: - allows companies to outsource its main functions. Before this law, a car factory could hire another company to provide the workers who would, say, provide security. But they could not hire another company to provide the workers that would actually build the cars. Now they can. - it prohibits workers from suing the main company until all venues have been exhausted against the external company. Before, both could be sued at the same time (though the outsourcing company could defend itself by saying that the responsibility lies with the "outsourced" company). Keep in mind that, on average, the conclusion of the 1st trial of a labor claim takes on average between 3 and 6 years. It takes substantially longer to wrap up the whole thing, especially if the employer is determined to delay it. - It changes who the union fees go to. Say it is the aforementioned car company: now all the union fees of those who work at the car company go to the union that represents that factory. With this law, the union fees can go instead to unions representing the outsourced sector. In practice this weakens the strong unions (workers in car factories, steel mills, etc) to the benefit of the weaker or non-existent ones. - And, the part that gets the least bit of attention, but might be the most insidious: it allows for greater outsourcing by public companies and agencies. Ghost of Mussolini posted:I don't know about the companies and such; but on the law: Absenteeism is huge in congress, so in some cases getting an absolute majority can be difficult. So it is not as easy as passing the law in the first place, but this particular law has enough votes in it to overrule any vetoes. And it is unlikely that the presidency would be able to change any votes, since something like 221 deputies are business owners who stand to gain from this. Up until 2002 the presidency had huge, perhaps unparalleled, powers in Brazil. It is easy to override a veto, but up until 2001 the presidency had the unlimited power to decree the so called "medidas provisorias." A medida provisoria (provisional measure) is a decree by the presidency that goes into effect immediately. Congress then has 2 months to approve it or knock it down. Prior to 2001, the presidency could just reissue the provisional measure indefinitely, even after rejected by congress. In other words, prior to 2001, the presidency could do pretty much whatever it wanted. Collor confiscated everyone's savings accounts in the early 90s using a provisional measure, Cardoso created the Real plan using provisional measures that were re-issued for years without being voted on, etc. In 2001 (with PSDB unpopular and a Lula victory becoming more likely), congress finally decided to change the rules, and so now provisional measures can only be reissued once, and if not voted on or voted down by congress, the presidency cannot reissue them. So until 2001 the presidency had enough power that it didn't have to worry about vetoes, and after 2001 the weakening of the presidency was not an accident.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Finally a president who speaks some sense!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Cristina never disappoints at these summits. "It's hard to believe what the US is doing in Venezuela...much like it's hard to believe what the UK is doing in las Malvinas!!!" Although she did say some true things about the drug war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Cristina never disappoints at these summits. You know, if you're willing to do some minor audio editing you could be an argentinian internet sensation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=882rTysV-go
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 12:14
|
|
