Daily Archives: March 25, 2021

By Jonny Lupsha, Current Events WriterA bill is the most common form of legislation in the United States and it can originate in the House or the Senate, then becoming a law when both the House and Senate approve it, also getting the approval of the U.S. president. Photo By Andrea Izzotti / Shutterstock

In United States government, a senator can delay action on a bill or another issue by talking and holding the floor for extended periods of time. The maneuver first came to the publics attention in the 1939 Frank Capra film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, in which Jimmy Stewarts character delayed a vote on a bill by speaking on the floor for more than 24 hours.

Now, in a divided Congress, Republicans and Democrats are threatening to use or abolish filibustering, respectively, to influence bills in the Senate. How does this process work one way or the other and why is it in some legislators crosshairs?

In her video series Understanding the U.S. Government, Dr. Jennifer Nicoll Victor, Associate Professor of Political Science at George Mason University, explained the Senate custom and how its changed over the years.

Back in the early 20th century, some senators became frustrated that many bills were stalling in committee, Dr. Victor said. To fix this, they sought a mechanism to force bills to come to the floor for a vote on their merits, so they created Senate Rule 22, known as the cloture rule. In Senate-ese, cloture means to end debate and vote on a bill.

According to Dr. Victor, while the establishment of this rule initially relieved some gridlock in Congress, use of it evolved notably throughout the century. Since the 1970s, the cloture rule has required that a cloture proposal on a bill has the support of three-fifths of the Senate, meaning 60 of the 100 senators must vote for cloture to end debate. By this time, senators had actually begun to use the cloture rule to block legislation on split issues.

If a bill came to the floor for debate, someone who opposed the bill could filibuster by speaking about the bill and refusing to yield the floor to any other senator, Dr. Victor said.

Speaking about one bill for hours on end sounds like a tall order. Fortunately, Dr. Victor said, theres a lot of wiggle room.

Actually, the speech didnt need to be about the bill: It could be about anything, just so long as the speaker does not yield. Senators have filibustered by reading from childrens books, singing songs, and reading a phone book, just to keep hold of the floor. Unless 60 votes existed to invoke cloture and force an end to the debate, the filibustering senator could essentially talk a bill to death.

When a bill doesnt have the three-fifths supermajority needed to invoke cloture and bring the vote to the floor, its supporters often must admit defeat and allow the bill to die in the Senate. Dr. Victor said the world record for filibustering was by South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, a well-known segregationist who successfully stopped the Civil Rights Act of 1957 from passing. Senator Thurmond spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

Today, no one talks bills to death anymore, she said. Senators gauge the support for bills and estimate whether or not a bill has enough support to win cloture. If a bill does not have enough support to invoke cloture, Senate leaders will typically not bring that bill to the floor, knowing that if they do, the chambers time will be wasted.

Its little wonder that the Senate has such an interest in using or abolishing the filibuster. Currently, Republicans hold 50 of the 100 seats in the U.S. Senate, while Democrats hold 48 seats, with two senators regularly voting similarly to Democrats. This essentially splits the Senate in half, with Vice President Kamala Harris serving as a tiebreaking vote.

Edited by Angela Shoemaker, The Great Courses Daily

More:

Understanding the Senate Filibuster as Calls for Its Abolition Grow - The Great Courses Daily News

Boris Johnson will hold talks next week with dozens of Britain's leading businesspeople amid unease at the government's decision to scrap its commitment to an industrial strategy.

Sky News has learnt that the prime minister's Build Back Better Council will meet next Tuesday, with the chancellor and business secretary also expected to attend.

The council comprises 30 of the UK's top corporate bosses, including Philip Jansen, the BT Group chief executive; Lord Deighton, Heathrow Airport chairman; Dame Carolyn McCall, ITV chief executive; and Charlotte Hogg, who runs Visa's European operations.

Sources said on Wednesday that Mr Johnson's aides had notified council members that next week's session would focus on the government's "plan for growth", and was aimed at exploring ways that the public and private sectors could work together to aid the UK's recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Three senior Whitehall officials, including Jo Shanmugalingam from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, have been asked to assist the council's work, according to one insider.

Phil Duffy, an infrastructure official, and Paul Kett, a director-general at the Department for Education, will also be involved, they added.

The second meeting of the PM's business advisory group will take place against a backdrop of unrest at the recent decision to scrap the government's Industrial Strategy Council.

That committee, which was chaired by the Bank of England's Andy Haldane, has criticised significant elements of the government's economic plans.

Government officials have denied any weakening of its commitment to British industry and described the pivot to a "plan for growth" as representing a "similar approach using a different label".

"We know the best way to rebuild our economy is to beat COVID which is why we have invested billions in new vaccines and a national testing operation so that we can reopen the economy safely as soon as possible in the future," Mr Johnson said in January.

"But despite this we - like many other countries - face a huge economic challenge. And as we recover from this crisis it won't be enough to just go back to normal - our promise will be to Build Back Better and level up opportunity for people and businesses across the UK."

A No 10 spokesman said the next meeting of the Build Back Better council "would be announced in the usual way".

See the original post here:

PM to hold talks with bosses amid unrest over industrial strategy abolition - Sky News

The last time the state of Wyoming executed someone was in 1992.

"When that execution actually occurred, I felt it," said Sen. Cale Case. "And people all over Wyoming felt it, 'cause we were part of it."

The Republican lawmaker was speaking earlier this month in favor of a bill to end capital punishment in Wyoming. The bill, however, went on to fail on the Senate floor by just eight votes.

About a decade ago, that kind of margin in this conservative legislature was unimaginable to Rep. Cathy Connolly. It was in 2010 that the Democrat introduced a repeal bill. It was her first legislative session.

"It was a pretty partisan issue, and not even all Democrats believed in the abolition of the death penalty," she said.

Needless to say, her legislation didn't get anywhere that year. This year, 12 Republicans sponsored a bill to end execution alongside Connolly and one other Democrat. But conservatives taking on the issue of capital punishment isn't unique to Wyoming.

"There's been a sea change in death penalty attitudes in the United States," said Robert Dunham, who leads the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center.

"We've seen this shift among people whose philosophy is pro-life," he said. "We've seen a shift among people whose philosophy is limited government, and they see the extension of government to the point of taking somebody's life as the ultimate exercise of big government."

While about three-quarters of Republicans say the death penalty is applied fairly, repeal bills sponsored by GOP lawmakers are becoming more common.Plus, more people on the left have joined the cause. And that makes for interesting timing.

"With an unparalleled level of polarization in American politics, this previously divisive issue is bringing people together," said Dunham.

Sabrina King is with the American Civil Liberties Union of Wyoming - one of many groups that has been pushing for the repeal for years now.

"It is interesting to see, even within our own coalition, the different reasons that people are involved. And it does run the gamut," she said.

It basically comes down to two different arguments - the moral cost and the fiscal cost of state-authorized execution. Death penalty cases are significantly more expensive for a number of reasons, including longer trials, subsequent appeals and - for high profile cases - jury sequestration.

"The death penalty is far more expensive than any other sentence or component of the criminal justice system," said Kylie Taylor. She's the Wyoming coordinator for Conservatives Concerned about the Death Penalty.

"As conservative Republicans, we believe in fiscal responsibility, and especially right now with the way that our economy is in Wyoming," she said.

The state is facing an economic crisis. Even for its boom-and-bust history, it's a significant downturn. Still, that wasn't enough to get the bill passed this time, though the coalition is already gearing up to try again next session. Sabrina King with the ACLU said bridges the coalition has built could take them beyond this one particular issue.

"I do think the kind of relationships that get built when you do this work lend themselves to conversations about harder things," she explained.

For Rep. Cathy Connolly, she said the conservative support for repeal is a long time coming. And as far as reaching across the aisle goes, Connolly said, it's why she's here.

"It's why I do the job that I do in a body that is a kind of a super majority," she said. "I believe in the system. I believe that we as a state, as a bipartisan body, that we can come up with solutions, and the only way we do that is by working together."

Follow this link:

A Bid To End The Death Penalty Goes Beyond Partisan Lines - Wyoming Public Media

In recent weeks, the Great Awokening provided two more examples of revolutionaries devouring their own over issues of race.

The first: Alexi McCammond, a young black reporter who had been chosen to become the new editor of Teen Vogue, was forced out when disgruntled staffers found anti-Asian and homophobic tweets McCammond had posted when she was a college student. McCammond apologized but was still ousted.

The second: San Francisco Board of Education Vice President Alison Collins, also involved anti-Asian tweets Collins wrote in 2016, including statements such as, Do they think they wont be deported? profiled? beaten? Being a house n****r is still being a n****r. Youre still considered the help. Collins, who is black, also claimed that Asian-American families who focus resources and efforts on their childrens education are using white supremacist thinking to assimilate and get ahead.

Collins is perhaps best known for being among the ringleaders of an effort to get rid of the admissions tests and standards for acceptance at San Franciscos selective public high school, Lowell High School, which is majority Asian-American; she also championed the renaming of 44 schools, including one named after Abraham Lincoln (angry parents have launched a recall effort to remove her and four others from the Board).

Unlike McCammond, Collins refused to apologize for her tweets and instead insisted that her statements had been taken out of context, writing on Medium, A number of tweets and social media posts I made in 2016 have recently been highlighted. They have been taken out of context, both of that specific moment and the nuance of the conversation that took place.

Its notable that both McCammond and Collins pleaded for the public to consider the intent of their words (although only McCammond truly took responsibility for her remarks). Its also notable that intent did not matter when it came to the judgment of the woke mob, nor did the fact that they are both women and racial minorities themselves.

Why? Because anyone with authoritarian tendencies has a stake in undermining intent as something to weigh when it comes to accusations of racism. Allowing for an exploration of a persons intent concedes that a broader context (and nuance) might exist in any given interaction: Was it a joke? Was it someone quoting from another source? Was it someone singing along to a song that included the racist word? Was it something that was once acceptable that has only recently become verboten? These things should matter.

But for those who understand that they can use spurious allegations of racism as a means of accruing power (which is what many among the woke are doing, particularly within institutions), then such context is the enemy. Better to get people in the habit of learning that proclaiming thats racist is enough to immediately and uncritically accept it as true.

Those who press for further evidence are told that they have failed to understand my truth, which is merely another way to discount facts in favor of ones personal feelings. This is why far too many people today think that because words such as niggling sound like racist terms, they should be considered racist words, and banned from use. Its also why people who made poor choices as college students (like Alexi McCammond) but who clearly grew and matured, must still, by the authoritarian logic of the woke revolution, be denied all grace or opportunity.

They will not be the only ones to die by the sword they have honed, of course. Among the woke Teen Vogue staffers who complained about McCammonds tweets was Christine Davitt, a senior staffer at the magazine who, it turns out, had tweeted the N-word herself on occasion.

But the elimination of context and intent doesnt merely harm those with powerful perches in the media or on school boards. Efforts to eliminate intent when it comes to reporting supposed hate speech or hate crimes in schools and workplaces are gaining ground. A recent letter sent to all parents in my childrens public school district after the shootings in Atlanta was typical.

School administrators claimed they are taking a stance to remind our community that there is no room for xenophobia, racism, or hate within the DCPS community, a typical bit of empty rhetoric that has become standard fare in public education. But the letter added a new dimension to the claim: As we work to become an actively anti-racist district, we must speak up and speak out against all forms of hate and bias.Staff, students, and families who witness or hear about an incident of hate or bias within a school community or team should report each incident to school leadersno matter the intent.

No matter the intent. What this means in practice is that at the same time that schools and workplaces are encouraging people to tell on each other for supposedly racist speech or behavior, they are also eliminating one of the reasonable responses to any allegationthat it might have been misunderstood or considered out of context. Recall the story of the high school student whose future was destroyed when a fellow classmate publicly called her out as a racist over a short Snapchat video she had sent to a friend years earlier. For his Stasi-like campaign, he suffered not at all; indeed, he was given plenty of space in the New York Times to gloat about his revenge.

Like eliminating tests that produce inequitable outcomes for some races, removing intent as a factor in determining if a hateful or racist act has occurred gives more power to those who make the rules and determine the punishments, which in many institutions now means the ideologues (and the colleagues who go along with rather than challenge them).

With each cancelation, we have further proof that context, intent, and nuance are the enemies of the ideologue. Thats why we need to defend them now more than evereven when the victims are ideologues themselves.

Read more:

The Abolition of Intent - Christine Rosen - Commentary Magazine

2020 has brought about a significant number of changes to working life in Hong Kong. In light of the protests and COVID-19, there has been a widespread adoption of working from home ("WFH"). In addition, there has been new legislation enhancing the statutory rights of employees. In this article, we provide a review of these changes in 2020 and set out what we are to expect in 2021.

Year of 2020

Maternity leave and Paternity Leave

Effective on 11 December 2020, statutory maternity leave was extended from 10 weeks to 14 weeks for eligible female employees under a continuous contract of employment.

The formula for calculating statutory maternity leave pay ("SMLP") remains four-fifths of the employee's average daily wages, with the additional 4 weeks of SMLP subject to a cap of HK$80,000.

Employers may claim a reimbursement from the HKSAR Government for SMLP for the additional 4 weeks' SMLP.

The eligibility of maternity leave has also been extended as a result of the amendment to the statutory definition of "miscarriage". A female employee will now be entitled to 14 weeks of maternity leave if she has a miscarriage at or before 24 weeks of pregnancy (previously, 28 weeks). This change means that female employees who experience a miscarriage at or after 24 weeks of pregnancy will now be entitled to 14 weeks of maternity leave.

As a general reminder, an employer who fails to pay SMLP to an eligible female employee is liable to criminal prosecution.

In line with increased maternity leave, the period within which an expectant father may choose to take paternity leave now begins 4 weeks before the expected due date and ends 14 weeks (as opposed to the original 10 weeks) after the actual due date.

Suggested action for Employers:

At RPC, we regularly advise employers and employees on their statutory obligations and rights. We have extensive experience in review and revising (as necessary) Employment Contracts and policies, as well as provide training to Human Resources ("HR") and/or other relevant stakeholders on all aspects of employment law. For employees, we advise on bringing internal complaints in respect of underpayments of entitlements and, where an amicable resolution is not found, advise the employee in the commencement proceedings and/or prosecutions.

Expanded discrimination protection

Effective on 19 June 2020, a number of amendments to the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 480) (SDO), Disability Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 487) (DDO), Family Status Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 527) (FSDO) and Race Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 602) ("RDO")) came into effect.

A summary of the key changes are as follows:-

Employers should be reminded that they may be vicariously liable for the acts of discrimination or harassment committed by their employees and/or the workplace participants. This means that the Employer may still be liable for the unlawful act of his employees and/or workplace participants even though such act was committed without the Employers knowledge or approval.

An Employer may be able to escape liability if it is able to show that it has taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent such unlawful behaviour.

Suggested action for Employers:

At RPC, we regularly advise on and draft workplace policies including tailormade anti-discrimination and harassment policies. We also provide training and/or act as external legal advisors to employers in investigating complaints and advise on any subsequent action(s). For employees, we advise on commencing or defending complaints of discrimination and harassment both in internal investigations in the workplace and, externally at the Equal Opportunities Commission ("EOC") and in the Courts.

Discrimination against breastfeeding women

The legislative provisions prohibiting discrimination against breastfeeding women will come into force on 19 June 2021. A woman is "breastfeeding" if she: (a) is engaged in the act of breastfeeding a child; (b) is engaged in the act of expressing breast milk (i.e. pumping); or (c) is feeding a child with her breast milk.

Unlawful discriminatory conduct includes direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation, subjection to or aiding discriminatory practices.

The EOC has given the following examples of discrimination against breastfeeding women:-

Whilst there are no legislative provisions in regards to lactation breaks, nursing rooms in the workplace etc the EOC has issued two sets of Guidance Notes setting out recommended practices and suggestions on good governance.

Suggested action for Employers:

At RPC, we advise on all aspects of workplace discrimination, including discrimination against breastfeeding women. We also provide training and/or act as external legal advisors to employers in internal investigations and/or any subsequent action(s). For employees, we advise on commencing or defending complaints of breastfeeding discrimination in internal investigations in the workplace and, externally at the EOC and in the Courts.

Guidance from the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data ("PCPD") on WFH Arrangements

On 30 November 2020, the PCPD issued three Guidance Notes in respect of data security and personal data privacy applicable to those who are WFH. Whilst these Guidance Notes do not have any statutory force, they are helpful as they contain practical recommendations to employers and employees particularly in regards to complying with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) ("PDPO").

In summary, the Guidance Notes recommends that:-

Given the ever-changing technological advancements and the widespread adoption of WFH arrangements, both employers and employees should take greater care in the protection and security of personal data. We expect that data protection is likely to be at the forefront of legislative work in 2021.

Suggested action for Employers:

At RPC, we advise both employers and employees on all aspects of personal data and confidentiality obligations owed. On the non-contentious side, we draft policies and provide training on the internal procedures. Where things do go wrong, we advise on what to do in an actual/suspected breach, what remedial action to take (for e.g. deletion, delivery up and recovery of the personal data/confidential documents) and where necessary, commence/defend injunctive relief action and/or breach of contract proceedings.

What to expect (and what we've seen so far) in 2021

Abolition of the MPF Offsetting Mechanism

It is a mandatory legal obligation for employers to contribute to their employees' mandatory provident funds ("MPF"). Currently, on termination, employers can offset any statutory severance payments or statutory long service payments it makes against the accrued benefits derived from the employers contribution to the MPF account.

In December 2020, the HKSAR Government announced that it will postpone introducing the amendment bill for the abolition of the MPF offsetting mechanism. We expect this issue to be debated again in October 2021, at the beginning of the next legislative session.

Proposal to increase Statutory Holidays

All employees in Hong Kong are entitled to 12 statutory holidays under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57). There are 17 general holidays (some of which are also statutory holidays) under the General Holidays Ordinance (Cap. 149). An organisation that is not a bank, educational establishment, public office or government department is not obliged to grant general holidays. In order to resolve the controversy in the past decade as to the alignment of the 12 statutory holidays with the 17 general holidays, the HKSAR Government proposed that statutory holidays be increased by one day every two years until there is complete alignment.

Again, this proposal has been postponed until a later date, but we expect to see some clarification in October 2021.

Proposal to amend the PDPO

In January 2020, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, together with the PCPD published a paper outlining proposals to reform the PDPO with the following six recommendations:-

Given the ever-increasing cybersecurity threats faced as a result of WFH, implementation of the above recommendations is welcome and also, long overdue. It is now more important than ever that employers are aware of their obligations, in particular the introduction of mandatory notification requirements. At a minimum, personal data retention policies need to be reviewed and updated. Employers should pay attention to cybersecurity and consider holistically, their own internal processes and controls on data usage, retention and security.

Minimum Wage to stay at HK$37.50

On 2 February 2021, the HKSAR Government announced that the statutory minimum wage will remain at HK$37.50 per hour until 30 April 2023. In arriving to this recommendation, the Minimum Wage Commission considered the elevated unemployment rate, the high degree of uncertainty faced by the Hong Kong economy and the need to strike a balance between the objectives of forestalling excessively low wages and minimising the loss of low-paid jobs. The next review of the statutory minimum wage will take place in October 2022.

Compulsory COVID-19 Testing

As part of the HKSAR Government's measures against the spread of COVID-19, it is likely that there will be more instances of compulsory testing notices being issued. If a compulsory testing notice is issued to a workplace, the employer should be prepared to respond to the situation with alternative working protocols and WFH arrangements. Employers should maintain records of employees who work in the office and their dates/times of entering the office to ensure they are tested in compliance with the compulsory testing notice. It goes without saying that employers should maintain close communications with all employees to ensure minimal business disruptions during this period.

Takeaway

The year of 2020 has thrown up many employment issues for businesses. Employers are reminded to stay on top of legislative changes and regularly review their policies and procedures to ensure they are up to date. Similarly, employees and workplace participants should be given regular training on workplace conduct and HR (and/or other relevant stakeholders) should receive specialist training to deal with complaints should they occur. When in doubt, employers and employees should seek independent legal advice before taking, or deciding not to take, any action.

Read more here:

Employment Law Changes in 2020 and What to Expect in 2021 - Lexology