NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is a new proposal from the CACE UN Think Tank. We are currently looking for constructive suggestions before sending it off to the UN body.
AFoFS UN Council

(Pardon the lack of psuedo-legalese, but I hate it both ooc and ic)

1. The maximum standard full-time work week shall be set at 40 hours. Nations shall remain free to set their work weeks lower than this.

2. No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week, except for the following exemptions,
a ) military personnel
b ) civil defense forces
c ) civilian emergency response personnel
Excepting military personnel, these exemptions shall only apply during emergency situations.

3. No one may be contractually obligated to remain on the worksite without pay.

4. On call hours shall count against the 40 hour limit.

5. Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu. Nations shall remain free to set their allowable overtime hours lower and their overtime pay rates higher than specified in this proposal.

6. The 40 hour week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers. Nations shall enact the laws needed to comply with the 40 hour week within 1 year of the passing of this resolution and they may phase in the changes over the course of up to 4 years. The necessary changes must be fully implemented within 5 years of the passing of this resolution.

7. In time of declared emergencies the national government may suspend this directive to any sector of the workforce it deems essential to the effective running of the country for the duration of that emergency.

The Republic of G Bugles suggests that this proposal be canned altogether.

Government has no place interfering in private agreements between employee and employer; suggesting that it does is a blatant endorsement of slavery.

The Republic of G Bugles suggests that this proposal be canned altogether.

Government has no place interfering in private agreements between employee and employer; suggesting that it does is a blatant endorsement of slavery.

yes yes, your suggestion has been noted and ignored. thank you for your time.

do you honestly believe that a person would freely choose to work 16 hour days?

I'm utterly bewildered by these people going on about restrictions on industry as if they represented slavery, rather than what they actually are, which is a protection against it.

The Republic of G Bugles suggests that this proposal be canned altogether.

Government has no place interfering in private agreements between employee and employer; suggesting that it does is a blatant endorsement of slavery.

Agreed. Introducing more government regulation into business can only hurt commerce.

Government has no place interfering in private agreements between employee and employer; suggesting that it does is a blatant endorsement of slavery.

that's right! i mean, what the hell were people thinking when they campaigned for the 40 hour work week a hundred years ago.

i would like to point out that this resolution is actually more lax than current labor laws in the EU, and is really quite moderate since it is based upon bringing the NS UN in line with RL labor laws in the industrialized world. nothing radical here, folks, just sensible protection of human rights.

I don't like the idea of the government regulating the hours of non-govt jobs and occupations . . . it's a little to communism-esque for me

Communism? Actually, I'll think you'll find that the two biggest capitalist blocs in the world - the USA and the EU - both have regulations on working time, and set the working week at 40 hours, just as this does.

7. In time of declared emergencies the national government may suspend this directive to any sector of the workforce it deems essential to the effective running of the country for the duration of that emergency.

This clause offers a rather apparent loophole which could be easily exploited by any government without significant effort. What's to stop a corrupt government from declaring an emergency? I'd recommend a rewrite for that.

i would like to point out that this resolution is actually more lax than current labor laws in the EU, and is really quite moderate since it is based upon bringing the NS UN in line with RL labor laws in the industrialized world. nothing radical here, folks, just sensible protection of human rights.

Might I remind you that Europe has the highest unemployment rates in the Western world?

do you honestly believe that a person would freely choose to work 16 hour days?

No, they wouldn't, and that's the point. If the employee doesn't like the job, they can vote with their feet. If they don't think they're paid enough or the conditions are horrible, they can leave -- if they're quickly and easily replaced, then evidently they were paid enough or the conditions weren't so bad.

Communism? Actually, I'll think you'll find that the two biggest capitalist blocs in the world - the USA and the EU - both have regulations on working time, and set the working week at 40 hours, just as this does.

I can't speak for the EU, but I can tell you that the US has no concrete restriction on working hours that I know of. US Code, Title 29, Chapter 8, Section 207 states that workers must be paid no less than time-and-a-half if they work over 40 hours in a week, but there is no concrete, federally set cap that I know of.

do you honestly believe that a person would freely choose to work 16 hour days?

No, they wouldn't, and that's the point. If the employee doesn't like the job, they can vote with their feet. If they don't think they're paid enough or the conditions are horrible, they can leave -- if they're quickly and easily replaced, then evidently they were paid enough or the conditions weren't so bad.


If a region is depressed enough, and people are poor enough--ie. living close enough to minimum income to afford both house and food, then for the most part individual employees will have little flexibility in affording to walk out of a job for a better opportunity. You'll find this is true even in teh U.S. As suggested, an ideal system would set pay at time-and-a-half for over the required limit. This does not explicitly make it such that an employer *can't* overwork an employee, but sets incentives for maintaining a healthy lifestyle for the employees.

This reminds me of May Day. It's a good proposal and if Letila hadn't left the UN to escape copyright laws, we would support it.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Does anyone see anything else that needs fixing, clarification, etc?

Oh yeah, and happy May Day.

bump

No, they wouldn't, and that's the point. If the employee doesn't like the job, they can vote with their feet. If they don't think they're paid enough or the conditions are horrible, they can leave -- if they're quickly and easily replaced, then evidently they were paid enough or the conditions weren't so bad.

This is ridiculous. As was pointed out, if there are a lot of people with the same skills as you, this would essentially give your employers free license to treat you like dirt - since if you wouldn't put up with it, there'd be plenty of people who would rather than face unemployment, and your chances of getting another job would be even lower if other employers were aware you'd quit previous jobs.

Human rights come before profits. Without regulation, things will always be the other way around.

Why is this so difficult?

As long as there's no gun at your head, you're free to leave if you don't like it.

Why is this so difficult?

As long as there's no gun at your head, you're free to leave if you don't like it.

Because the world doesn't conform to your objectivist state-religion, perhaps. Or because there are other kinds of force that we would like to protect people from. You spew dogma, but until your dogma takes into account the real conditions of real people you can just shove it.

Diplomatically speaking, of course.

The workers put up with the totalitarian corporation because the alternative is worse.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I should probably mention at some point that I don't object vehemently to this proposal; I'm fairly indifferent and may endorse it. I'm debating a more abstract point about what would happen if we were to continue down the path of regulation.

As was pointed out, if there are a lot of people with the same skills as you, this would essentially give your employers free license to treat you like dirt - since if you wouldn't put up with it, there'd be plenty of people who would rather than face unemployment...

So let's take a quick look at things, shall we?

-Your job is terrible.
-You don't like your job.
-You strike for better pay.
-A massive line of a hundred qualified people gathers to take your job.
-The employer fills your position easily and smoothly.
-Clearly those people wanted your job.
-If so many people really want the job you think is terrible, is it possible you might be wrong?

Jobs everyone can do are called entry-level jobs for a reason. You're not supposed to make careers out of them.

...and your chances of getting another job would be even lower if other employers were aware you'd quit previous jobs.

Why hire someone who whines for higher wages they don't need or deserve? Have you ever noticed that a goodly number of strikes do succeed? Where employees deserve to be paid more, they can exert their power over the company and get that pay -- if they are as easily replaced as the worker in my scenario, I sincerely do question whether they deserve such a pay raise.

Human rights come before profits. Without regulation, things will always be the other way around.

Yes, human rights do come before profits. But the right to control one's own property is a human right, is it not? I agree that some regulations of corporations are required, but when the government and the people cease to represent the interests of the economy, the economy can and will move elsewhere.

Where employees deserve to be paid more, they can exert their power over the company and get that pay -- if they are as easily replaced as the worker in my scenario, I sincerely do question whether they deserve such a pay raise.

That has nothing to do with how much they deserve and everything to do with what the demand for labour is at the moment.

Here's an example. Let's say there's a great many people with IT skills looking for work. A lot of them are so desperate they'd take any job whatsoever, so employers can pretty much guarantee that they'll fill any position they advertise.

Now, a cynical employer might just decide to exploit this situation. They might expect whoever they employ to do the work of three people for the wages of one, slash all benefits and so forth.

The only reason the employees are getting treated like dirt in this scenario is because there are a lot of other people around with the same skills. Analogy: in the Industrial Revolution, factory bosses employed workers, many of them preteen children, at subsistence wages in horribly polluted and dangerous environments. People would take any work they could get because the alternative was starvation. Did they deserve this treatment just because labour was abundant?

Well without getting into the same old 'capitalism' vs. 'communism' debate I would just like to say that I will not support this resolution because-

a) I don't know if all UN countries have the same length of day.
b) Some people may want to work longer.
c) Sometimes the self employed have to work longer one week and shorter the next.
d) What is classified as work? What about business parties, conferences, ect.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

a) I don't know if all UN countries have the same length of day.
Argh. Not the bloody sci-fi nations again. Personally, I consider that godmodding; if you don't, take the Earth standards for 'day', 'week' and so on.

b) Some people may want to work longer.

And that's provided for in this document - up to 80 hours a week. Working for more than this just isn't healthy, and I'd rather that there was no way that an employer could push anyone into doing it. Overtime is sometimes optional only in name.

If you're utterly dedicated, there's nothing to stop you taking your notes home - but you shouldn't be expected to do so. A cut-off somewhere is necessary.

c) Sometimes the self employed have to work longer one week and shorter the next.
The self-employed aren't covered by labour regulations.

Okay, I'm fine now, you have my support.

Argh. Not the bloody sci-fi nations again. Personally, I consider that godmodding; if you don't, take the Earth standards for 'day', 'week' and so on.

Respect the will of the sci-fi. :wink:

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

I have a decent and (hopefully) acceptable compromise for all. Knowing my luck, it will be a compromise that everyone hates :D

Start with a standard 45-hour work week. If anyone works longer than those 45 hours, they are automatically paid overtime (time and 1/2) for the amount of time they work above and beyond the regular call of duty, even regardless of whether they are ordinarily salaried employees.

Each individual country / governmental subdivision shall be free to tighten these restrictions should they so wish, but all must abide by the minimum requirements to ensure that nations are engaging in fair and nonexploitative labor and human rights practices.

Start with a standard 45-hour work week. If anyone works longer than those 45 hours, they are automatically paid overtime (time and 1/2) for the amount of time they work above and beyond the regular call of duty, even regardless of whether they are ordinarily salaried employees.

do you come from a place in real life that has a 45 hour week? if so, where?

One can not presume to be able to understand and know what best suits individual nations. What is the old idiom? Time= money! More time more money, people need money. This resolution would force union-like rules upon nation with completely different policies. Nations are just too diverse politically and economically too have this forced upon them. Though I do believe that this resolution would be easily passed.

It has been well constructed and requires little change, I await its presentation in the UN.

La Voile

We support this proposal.

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

Why is this so difficult?

As long as there's no gun at your head, you're free to leave if you don't like it.

Because the world doesn't conform to your objectivist state-religion, perhaps... You spew dogma, but until your dogma takes into account the real conditions of real people you can just shove it.

I'm failing to see the connection with religion here.

Also, I must voice concern over this proposal.

I would recommend that the UN says there should be SOME standards, but that the UN doesn't set them.

I'm slowly losing control of my nation to the UN. I'm fine with sharing some power with them, but in a nation with little government interference in the economy, I don't like the thought of an international group crossing lines in my nation that I refuse to cross themselves.

I'm failing to see the connection with religion here.

The nation of G Bugles is(was) run along objectivist lines. Everything they disagree with is voiced in terms of morality. Objectivism is a sort of atheist cult religion.

I would recommend that the UN says there should be SOME standards, but that the UN doesn't set them.

Setting some standards without specifying what they are amounts to setting no standards. Besides, the standards set here are fairly lenient - it allows for people to work up to 80 hours per week. If people are consistently working like that and getting 8 hours of sleep a night, they would have an average of 3 or 4 hours a day to themselves (or less, depending on commute times). That just isn't a way for humans to live.

bump

Does this issue mean one person can only work 40 hours per week per job or at all jobs a person may have total? Some citizens, in all nations, have multiple jobs. Thus, this needs to be defined quiter clearer than presented.

Um... it's talking about full-time jobs. People who have multiple jobs have multiple part-time jobs. I don't know of anyone who has more than one full-time job.

I'm debating a more abstract point about what would happen if we were to continue down the path of regulation.

Slippery slope logical fallacy. Just because this proposal regulates, does not mean that as time goes on even more regulation will be put forward.

Um... it's talking about full-time jobs. People who have multiple jobs have multiple part-time jobs. I don't know of anyone who has more than one full-time job.

And even if they did, they wouldn't be able to work more than 40 hours or so at each of them. People need to do things besides work. Things like eating and sleeping.

bump for additional thoughts