Veterans Reform Act

Veterans Reform Act

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Studly Penguins

Description: Co-authored by Nebulantis

The World Assembly,

DEFINING, a ‘veteran’ who has served, or is currently serving, in a nation’s armed services during times of peace or war, whether through conscription or by one’s own free will,

ALSO DEFINING, ‘civilian life’ as the pursuit of an existence external to a nation’s armed services

RECOGNIZING that most nations and regions have armed services,

ALARMED by the inadequate treatment of returning veterans in some nations, regarding employment, medical care, and psychiatric care,

EMPHASIZING the need for a comprehensive and updated strategy to assist returning veterans,

  1. ESTABLISHES the WA Veteran Assistance Offices (WAVAO), an organization designed to carry out the actions outlined in this resolution;
    a) Endorses the founding of WAVAO in all WA-member nations;
    b) Proclaims the World Assembly shall finance WAVAO in its entirety, within WA-member nations;
    c) Notes that the cost of WAVAO, financed by the World Assembly, shall include the establishment of offices, services, and other expenses incurred by the program;
    d) Invites WA-member nations to assist non-member nations who desire to establish WAVAO in their own states, at the discretion of the former;

  2. DECLARES that all returning veterans shall be guaranteed full re-instatement, conditional upon a satisfactory review to their place of employment, upon their return to civilian life;

  3. URGES that this re-instatement shall include, but not be limited to, the following;
    a) Current or equivalent position at time of deployment;
    b) Rate of pay at time of deployment, appropriately adjusted for inflation or deflation;
    c) Access to any bonus pay or monetary raise that the veteran would have achieved under typical circumstances;
    d) Reasonable consideration of the veteran for promotions that they would have been eligible for;

  4. ENCOURAGES that this re-instatement shall also include assistance in finding alternative employment, under the following conditions;
    a) Veteran may select any employment or government agency of their choosing, should they wish to seek this assistance;
    b) The selected agency shall assist in trying to find employment for the veteran that matches their current skills, technical ability, and past job history;
    c) Until sufficient employment is achieved, the veteran shall receive a check equal to their monthly rate of military pay, payable monthly for a maximum of twelve months, and financed by the World Assembly through the WAVAO;
    d) If acquired employment is lost, the veteran shall be subject to their jurisdiction’s unemployment laws and code.

  5. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS that all veterans shall be offered access to state-of-the-art medical and psychiatric treatment, with monetary assistance being provided by the World Assembly through the WAVAO as needed;

  6. FURTHER RESOLVES that monetary insurance shall be provided for combat-related injuries and illnesses, and that the WAVAO shall work with the individual nation to determine appropriate compensation levels for different conditions;

  7. REMINDS all nations that dishonorably discharged veterans may be excluded from any of the services applied by this resolution, at the individual nation’s discretion.

  8. PROCLAIMS that a veteran under investigation for war crimes / already found guilty of war crimes, will be excluded.

I voted for as a militaristic nation like Drakkengard should support a resolution that gives due consideration to veterans.

This is being discussed in the WA forum at: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=579245

It appears that nations without large militaries will be forced to pay a much larger expense to support veterans in other nations.

Against it fully.

Even as a player with a ‘large-isk’ military, it’d not function, I can tell you. The WA can’t investigate a nation’s goings on without the permission of that nation, and likewise, it’d be costly for those who are non-militant, and who have only a small military force, or none-at-all.

The WA is not a meta-nation, it’s an place to discuss lateral discussions from country to country.

Due to the turmoils of the past, Vekaiyu has many men and women in the armed services, and would therefore by definition have to pay not as much as, say, if it wasn’t supported by a WA resolution. While that is appealing, I don’t think it is under the jurisdiction to entice nations such as Vekaiyu to fight more and thus save on the budget with reparations coming from the collection pot of the WA and not their own nation’s budget.

In short, I have to vote this one down. No.

This sort of legislation is best done on the nation level. No external bureaucracy can ever properly tackle such situations. Such situations will vary from nation to nation throughout the region. This is not the sort of situation the WA can handle. At best it would create a patch-work of regulations that would never be able to handle the varying degrees of need each nations Veterans will have. It is best left to each nations National Veterans Administrations to handle such things without interference from the WA or any Committee it might create.

EM = No.

I’ll go along with Bolshikstan, this is best kept at nation level.

Morhams - No

This really is a national issue and not something the WA should be legislating on.

I do believe if a state wants people to risk their lives for it they have quite a bit of an obligation to those who survive, but if other nations want to screw with their people and in so doing make it less palatable to join the armed forces, it’s their problem.

Furthermore, while we’re on this tack of making joining up attractive, do we really want to encourage more people to join the military by guarenteeing benefits WA-wide? That wouldn’t be the best move in the interests of world peace, is it?

I agree with Kelssek that this resolution do nothing for world peace…

But i disagree with the idea this a national issue and not something the WA should be legislating on.

The way i see, it´s only WA seeking to protect a segment of population. If we go along with the “national issue” line of thought, we could later claim that workers or patients rights are national issues too, and then WA would end up with little reason to exist.

Patients rights and workers rights -are- national issues. The WA would only be necessitated to make sure that the nations don’t heavily abuse their populace. This is against world peace, and likewise is illogical.

It’s not something that the World Assembly should be trying to legislate on, and it’s not something it -could- legislate on, because it’d be impossible without infinite funding, to be able to take care of every veteran in every nation [go ahead and say WA nation, but nations not apart of the WA can have such facilities installed by WA member nations they’re friendly with], it would require such. Likewise, it allows for WA nations to have as large of armies as they wish, larger than they otherwise would be able to muster, because they don’t have to put up the Veteran’s fees. It would insight nation-to-nation warfare, and elevate the level of break away nations to an unprecidented degree, as people who want socialized health care can just break away, fight for so and so land, get a few nations to recognize them, join the WA, and then have free socialized healthcare, their government doesn’t have to pay for, if they call any member of their nation a member of the military, as they were just veterans from fighting the civil war against the home country.

It’s not something WA has the right to legislate, or should legislate. Remember, that every time there’s a vote that’s not on the national level that deals with your nation, that’s less democracy and say for your citizens, as citizens don’t vote in WA elections, nations do.

I oppose this bill: Partly because i (also) see it as a national issue but also because (as Warr said very well) it would require -alot- of funding to carry out
(other than the problems i have with the scope of the bill and the “holes” (loopholes?) in the way it is written: Warr´s objections to the bill mirror my own,i think,and he puts his objections into writing better than i would ever be able to)

I agree,though,with what i feel is the principle of the bill: that a nation is beholden to those that are willing to help defend it,but i feel that is something that the individual nation must deal with.

-in short- Stagnationstan votes no.

edit: my spelling has not improved (or so it seems :slight_smile: )
re-edit: spelling again (gah!)

Against.

Even if Hoi Oligoi were a more warlike nation, this resolution does not seem well thought out. The burden of large member nations slugging it out would still have to be borne by the smaller ones, and those nations with little or no military currently standing would in effect be throwing money in a hole, as far as their people were concerned.

It has also been aptly pointed out that any WA-headed organization of this kind would be a gross violation of national sovereignty. Hoi Oligoi has little desire to have its own government departments completely superseded by the WA, and for this reason, we vote no.

Whats next? the WA begins to pay the wages of our armed forces? Who then shall truly command the loyalty of their troops?

As voting ends tomorrow, i believe we already can say that TEP is against this resolution. Now its up to ASBS (or Todd).

I also vote against.

The will of the region seems to favor a no vote. I’ll vote no now.

Votes For: 1,932

Votes Against: 1,952

Now is…

Votes For: 2,076

Votes Against: 1,964

And only a few hours to end the voting in WA