NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings, Delegates. I am asking your support on a proposal I very recently submitted to the UN, entitled Living Wage. I am asking for your support.

The fact is, time has borne out the fact that CEO's will not negotiate in good faith with their employees, and refuse to pay decent, livable wages, so that families are not forced to choose between food and heat in the wintertime...or food and taking the kid to the dentist, etc. etc.

All the while, the filthy, greedy, stinking, oinking fat-cat capitalist pig, lying, scoudrel, theiving, dirty, rotten CEO's make over 400 times what an aveagre employee earns. My proposal seeks to correct this imbalance.

While we do not feel it is wrong for a corpoation to make money...or for a CEO to make more than an average employee...we do believe it is not in keeping with plain human decency...or ethical business practices, for that corporation to make a profit, or that CEO to get filthy at the expense of, and to the detriment of, his workers.

Since CEO's have shown through the years they are unwilling to play by the rules of common human decency, and ethical business practices, it is up to us, as governments, to FORCE the CEO's and fat-cat corporations to play fair.

It is up to us to teach these lying, thieving scoundrels a lesson they will NEVER forget! I'm asking support for this Proposal for this reason.

I thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Queen Angelika
The Socialist Queendom of Labrador

While we empathize with what we gather is a problem in other nations, Gethamane would like to be clear about the impact on our government. We are a religious state, led by our Viceroy (not a CEO, like some nations in our region), have outlawed capitalism, and already provide the necessities (and more) for our population. Presuming things remain as they are, would this proposal have any affect on Gethamane?

By the way, for those who want to view the proposal:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/08337/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1

(...)
All the while, the filthy, greedy, stinking, oinking fat-cat capitalist pig, lying, scoudrel, theiving, dirty, rotten CEO's make over 400 times what an aveagre employee earns. My proposal seeks to correct this imbalance.
(...)


However enlightened and honourable your ideas may mean, the PRoGG sincerely hopes that no resolution with this kind of phrasing shall pass.

Regards,

UN Ambassador of the People's Republic of Groot Gouda

I, too, encourage you to approach this topic cautiously. While some of us may tend towards the more liberal edge of policy, still more of us resent the United Nation's numerous attempts to encroach upon a nation's right to soveriegnty. Be careful.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

As a filthy, greedy, stinking, oinking fat-cat capitalist pig, lying, scoudrel, theiving, dirty, rotten CEO, the Emperor cannot support this attack on his right to oppress the peasantry.

I am of the opinion that the proposal should always be shown:

Living Wage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Labrador
Description: There are many people and families who work for stingy, cheapskate bosses who have to choose between food and heat during the wiintertime, even though they put in a full 40 hour work wekk, plus occasional overtime! This is a travesty! The fat-cat bosses do not feel their employees' hunger or cold, and they don't care, either.

To address this obvious injustice, be it resolved that a minimum Living Wage be established in all UN nations. This Living Wage shall be set to a level where no person who works a full-time job should ever have to go without any of life's basic necessitites: Food, clothing, decent shelter, medical care, and reliable transportation to and from thier job.

Be it further resolved that should any employer be found to be paying any employee a sub-standard wage shall have the following sanctions taken against them:

1. The citizen who makes a claim to the government for a voucher to pay for any of these basic life necessities, due to their inability to provide it for themselves given the wages they are paid...the government shall provide it to the citizen, and will back-charge the citizen's employer to pay for it.

2. The employer found to be paying sub-standard wages will be fined heavily for this offense. For the first offense, the fine shall be no less than ten percent of that company's gross profits for the year. The second offense will result in a 25 percent fine. The third will result in a 50 percent fine. Subsequent offenses will result in the imposition of the 50 percent fine, and the sale and seizure of the CEO's property to reimburse the government for having to provide to the citizen what the boss was too stingy to provide for his employee.

Be it further resolved that no CEO shall be allowed to earn more than 3 times what his average employee earns. For the purposes of this resolution, the CEO's salary shall include any and all forms of compensation, including any fringe benefits, as well as stock options or other forms of compensation. There will be no loopholes for these filthy, greedy stinking fat-cat CEO's to exploit. They will earn no greater than 3 times what they pay their average employee.

Approvals: 13 (Kerry Haters, Concerted Socialists, Atlantic Quays, Freedmark, Geministan, Faction Paradox, Lithiumania, Jonathalia, Kierig, Temme, Blackbird, Avios, Sacadland)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 141 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Apr 22 2004

Now for my thoughts:

1. You're being very rude and obrasive with your wording. Stop it.

2. While some of the people in the UN are, in fact, socialists and communists, most of them (myself included) are more conservative and support democracies.

3. If people don't have the opprotunity to work harder, and then earn more after reaching certian levels of accomplishment, they won't work as hard. This is a (may I emphisize A?) reason that the Soviet Union fell.

4. This not only infrenges upon national soveregnty, but the rights I've given my county's buissnesses to do as they please.

Overall, it's an honourable idea, it trully is. I wouldn't support this resolution, though.

I would recommend you work with the one who proposed a minimum wage. I would also be willing to work with you guys. A perspective from the right might make it balanced enough to pass.

Being a correctly-run nation, the Republic of G Bugles vehemently opposes any proposal to mandate government intrusion into what is a private matter between employer and employee.

Being a correctly-run nation, the Republic of G Bugles vehemently opposes any proposal to mandate government intrusion into what is a private matter between employer and employee.

No, bugles...it becomes a PUBLIC matter when one is forced into recieving government assistance due to having a stinking, lousy, rottn filthy, scoundrel, cheapskate boss!

All's I'm saying is that an employee has a RIGHT to expect an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.

And an employer should have a OBLIGATION to provide that honest day's pay for the honest day's work. since they so obviously do not want to do that, I say it is up to the government to FORCE the business to do that. After all, it isn't a fair contest employer against employee...the employer has far more muscle, and it isn't fair.

And being as it is in the interest of a government to see to the general welfare of it's citizenry...this IS an issue which the government ought to be involved in.

So, respectfully, I vehemently disagree with your statement.

And just by the way, the verbiage of the Proposal is as it is because, when I wrote it, I was seriously pissed off with my boss for lying to me about what I could expect in terms of compensation for my job.

When I was being recruited, I was led to believe I could expect a certain average wage (my employer pays on a piece rate)

The reality is that I'm pulling down a wage four dollars an hour lower than I was led to believe I would be, when I was being recruited.

And the reason for this is not that I'm a poor worker (I have held the same job for three years) The reason is my boss is a lying, scoundrel, and a cheating bastard.

And the reason for this is not that I'm a poor worker (I have held the same job for three years) The reason is my boss is a lying, scoundrel, and a cheating bastard.

(OOC!)
I suggest you start looking for another job...then when you leave you can pull all the wonderfully cruel and tormenting (best if they're legal...) pratical jokes you want, to better drive the nail into their bitter cold underpaying hearts...

-angry and under-employed (the oxymoron of the century)
(/OOC)

No, bugles...it becomes a PUBLIC matter when one is forced into recieving government assistance due to having a stinking, lousy, rottn filthy, scoundrel, cheapskate boss!
Correctly-run nations (of which G Bugles is one) do not HAVE this "government assistance" you speak of.

All's I'm saying is that an employee has a RIGHT to expect an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.
No, he doesn't. He only has a right to what he and his employer agree on.

And an employer should have a OBLIGATION to provide that honest day's pay for the honest day's work.
No, he is only obligated to pay what he and the employee have agreed on.

since they so obviously do not want to do that, I say it is up to the government to FORCE the business to do that.
Why must you support slavery?
After all, it isn't a fair contest employer against employee...the employer has far more muscle,
BS. They both depend on each other.
and it isn't fair.
The phrase that shows how fucktarded you are.

And being as it is in the interest of a government to see to the general welfare of it's citizenry
The key word being GENERAL (in other words, getting rid of killers, thieves, and rapists)

So, respectfully
Cretins such as you who wish to enslave us all do not deserve respect.

G-bugles

I am concerned as you appear to be avoiding some necessary issues for deciding this issue, either willfully or otherwise.


The Employer == Defined as a company. The majority has considerable stored finances and wealth, resources (and in traditional societies this would be grain--ie. the king collects grain from those who work under him/her, and reap the rewards of this necessary and stored resource). Enough to hold over for a considerable amount of time.
(Granted--not all businesses have this luxury, but the vast majority who are in the business of hiring and firing DO. These are facts that I'm sure even you would have a difficult time disputing.)

The Employee == Defined as an individual, either employed or seeking employment. Due to the very definition of being an individual, the sources of collecting resources (grain, money, what have you) is necessarily more limited. (Employee isn't collecting from other employees (otherwise would be an employer).)
Employee needs minimum resources to afford housing/food, else employee object ceases to exist (dies from starvation/elements).



Fact: Employee has the opportunity to decline job for insufficient wages.
Fact: Employees will not be able to hold out without employment for as long as an employer (with accumulated resources) will.
Fact: As a result, the employer necessarily has far more clout in ability to set wages. This violates the principle of an employee and employer having an equal share in dictating wages. The fact is that this is not true.

As a result, the quest is to find a solution that gives an employee more clout, equalling the employers, while not disrupting the ability of the employer to exist productively.

There's no point in attempting to reason with G Bugles (previously known as Ithuania). He seems to me to be an intelligent kid who's read some books on neoliberal economics and decided that he will follow their doctrines religiously. He's not yet mature enough to debate with reason and respect.

G-bugles

I am concerned as you appear to be avoiding some necessary issues for deciding this issue, either willfully or otherwise.


The Employer == Defined as a company. The majority has considerable stored finances and wealth, resources (and in traditional societies this would be grain--ie. the king collects grain from those who work under him/her, and reap the rewards of this necessary and stored resource). Enough to hold over for a considerable amount of time.
(Granted--not all businesses have this luxury, but the vast majority who are in the business of hiring and firing DO. These are facts that I'm sure even you would have a difficult time disputing.)

The Employee == Defined as an individual, either employed or seeking employment. Due to the very definition of being an individual, the sources of collecting resources (grain, money, what have you) is necessarily more limited. (Employee isn't collecting from other employees (otherwise would be an employer).)
Employee needs minimum resources to afford housing/food, else employee object ceases to exist (dies from starvation/elements).



Fact: Employee has the opportunity to decline job for insufficient wages.
So far, so good.

Fact: Employees will not be able to hold out without employment for as long as an employer (with accumulated resources) will.
Fact: As a result, the employer necessarily has far more clout in ability to set wages. This violates the principle of an employee and employer having an equal share in dictating wages. The fact is that this is not true.
This is where you go wrong. After all, the employer wants to stay in business and make even MORE money, so he needs employees just as much as the employee needs a job.

And even if your premises WERE true, your conclusion still does not follow. Regardless of the situation, it is not government's job to make things "fair". It is government's job to protect against violence and fraud.

And even if your premises WERE true, your conclusion still does not follow. Regardless of the situation, it is not government's job to make things "fair". It is government's job to protect against violence and fraud.

Actually, I fear that you misunderstand what a representative democracy is. People elect their leaders to enact and administrate policies that best suits their interests. If the intersts of the people vote for a leader to enact reforms to correct balances that make their lives miserable, then it is *indeed* the government's job to make things more fair. Voting and government is a way of ensuring that even those who are at a disadvantage economically, have a stake in their situation and can exert some control to correct the imbalances and excesses of business. At the same time large businesses still seem to throw large money at politics to get their way.

While we appreciate the motivations behind this proposal, we feel a factor of 5 or 6 would work better than 3, for a CEO-to-worker pay ratio.
This would be enough to encourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship.
If the average worker made $30,000, the CEO would get no more than #180,000; that does not seem unreasonable.

"To address this obvious injustice, be it resolved that a minimum Living Wage be established in all UN nations. This Living Wage shall be set to a level where no person who works a full-time job should ever have to go without any of life's basic necessitites: Food, clothing, decent shelter, medical care, and reliable transportation to and from thier job. "

My concerns here are the vagueness of the language and the full-time job restriction. They are as follows:

full time job: what will designate a full time job? 40 hours? 50 hours? What if this is different from nation to nation?

food, clothing: what would be an acceptable level of food? Will the UN be calorie counting for everyone? How will the allowance for clothing be determined? X number of outfits per week?

decent shelter: again, what would "decent" mean? square footage? value?

medical care: a whopper here. Are we mandating universal healthcare here? Or in response will this cause the creation of a substandard medical system that the living wage people would be forced by economics to use?
What about the fact that healthcare quality itself is vastly different from nation to nation?

Are part-time workers excluded from this proposal? Won't businesses then simply follow the "full-time minus one hour" model to avoid paying a living wage?

And finally, what about families? will the above calculations take into account dependents? Or is it as the resolution seems to state merely calculated for the worker themselves?

So, for the record, I'm not philosophically opposed to the resolution as I am taking issue with some serious wording issues that hide what the true extent of this resolution really is.....

Dunlend

I'm responding to several posts here, so I'll indicate who I'm responding to on each point:

G Bugles: You don't even deserve a response. However, I'm sure even you, as far gone to the Repugnicans as you obviously are...even you, I think, would agree that a business should not be able to legally mislead and lie to job candidates about what they can expect in terms of compensation when recruiting them...then, after they get in, pay them something different than what the candidate was led to believe he/she could expect. This is what was done to me by my lying, cheating, bastard of a boss.

The Jovian Worlds:
You said it far better than I could. Perhaps we ought to work together on a possible Proposal to address these issues, since you and I seem to have the same outlook. I do not have a problem with a corporation making money...so long as they do not do it to the detriment of those they employ, so long as they do not make money by screwing over employees and consumers. I insist on businesses only making profits by ETHICAL means.

Ecopoeia:
Exactly. This is why I said G Bugkes doesn't even deserve a response.

The Jovian Worlds:
Exactly. Corporations throw huge money at politicians to get what they want...and what they want, more often than not screws over employees and consumers, and they basically pay off the goverment to either legalize these activities, or turn a blind eye when corporations engage in that bullshit unethical behavior towards employees and consumers.

Collaboration: Your point taken into consideration, I'll exaplin a bit more about this in my response to Dunlend.

Dunlend: You raise excellent points. First, let me say this is no cap on anyone's earnings, they can still earn just as much as they want...but the big-shot fat ats are gonna have to bring along the folks that broght 'em to the dance, as it were. The rising tide should rise ALL BOATS...not just the CEO's boat!
And the reason for the no more than 3 times average wage paid to employees for the CEO was to address the very idea you suggested, businesses going full-time minus one hour to get around Living Wage. They could do this...but in so doing, they will also hold their own SELVES down, as they will not be allowed to earn more than 3 times what they pay their average employee....See? I thought of that.

Lastly, Dunlend, the amount of a Libing Wage would vary from nation to nation. A Living Wage would be defined as that wage at which all of life's basic necessities could be obtained at fair market value. Example...in Country A say a house costs 200 a month, medical care 100 a month, food 50 bucks a month, heat and other utilities cost 50 bucks a month, reliable trasportation costs 50 bucks a month, and clothing also 50 bucks a month. This is for one person. Thus that Living wage is set at 500 bucks for a single person. if you are talking a couple, then each person in that coupe would work, and each pull down 500 bucks, thus making collectively 1000 bucks, and enough to provide for the two of them. If the couple has two dependent children, then they need to be collectively earning 2000 a month, so each would be required to be paid no les than 1000 a month...and this would vary from country to country, depending on what the free market price would bear in a given country.

And you question about part-timers? Again, the CEO not earning more than 3 times average employee takes care of that. The CEO will have to pay them a decent wage if they want to make a decent wage themselves! See, we make stinginess hurt the bastards who are stingy!

full time job would be an internationall standard of 4o hours per week.

acceptable level of food is determined as that which is needed to maintain good health for a person. Again, a rough dollar figure is appropriate here.

Thus it is if some asshole earns the Living Wage, and makes bad choices, blowing all his money on booze, he can't go to the Government for help...because he was paid enough to provide himself with the life necessities. He chose to spend it on other things. This only addresses that a person should, if making correct choices, be earning enough to where they can meet all of life's basic necessities. and no not mandating universal health care...just that this is part of the equation of determining a living wage. If the moron chooses to spend it somewhere else, that's his problem then if he gets sick. He shoulda bought medical coverage.

See?

It places people in a position to be responsible with their resources, but insures that they will have enough resources to, where, if they make responsible choices, they can provide all which is needed to sustain life.

See?

Anything you're not clear on?

And even if your premises WERE true, your conclusion still does not follow. Regardless of the situation, it is not government's job to make things "fair". It is government's job to protect against violence and fraud.

Actually, I fear that you misunderstand what a representative democracy is. People elect their leaders to enact and administrate policies that best suits their interests.
Which is exactly why representative democracy is an incorrect form of government. Ever hear of "tyranny of the majority"?

If the intersts of the people vote for a leader to enact reforms to correct balances that make their lives miserable, then it is *indeed* the government's job to make things more fair
Not true, and especially not true if doing so violates the rights of others. Just because the majority approves of enslaving the rest does not justify it.

G Bugles: You don't even deserve a response. However, I'm sure even you, as far gone to the Repugnicans as you obviously are...
Interesting that you should call me a "Republican" even though the GOP is just as socialist as you.

even you, I think, would agree that a business should not be able to legally mislead and lie to job candidates about what they can expect in terms of compensation when recruiting them...then, after they get in, pay them something different than what the candidate was led to believe he/she could expect. This is what was done to me by my lying, cheating, bastard of a boss.

However, that has nothing to do with the original post in this thread.