NationStates Jolt Archive

The proposal "40 Hour Workweek" is extremely close to quorum. It is also extremely close to its deadline.

Delegates: Here's your chance to make a difference! Approve this resolution and it will be the next to come up to vote!

It is to this delegate's great admiration of his fellow UN associates that he can say the proposal "The 40 Hour Work Week" has now reached its quorum and will be the next proposal to vote on.

I'm sorry, I have no intention to offend, but this is the dumbest resolution I've ever seen. You cannot force entire nations to pay all its employees on an hourly basis. It will cause massive upheaval in companies and increase taxes for no good reason. There are millions of salaried employees whose wages will drop. No longer salaried, they will feel as if their positions have been compromised and not work overtime. Production will decrease. The fabric of the economy will be altered. Military personnel will make the most money and become the ruling elite. The UN has no business in changing nations to this effect. There are already overtime policies in place for those who receive hourly wages. There is no benefit to this resolution, excepting of course if you want to make all workers the same and deny the potential they envision of betterment for themselves.

I'm sorry, I have no intention to offend, but this is the dumbest resolution I've ever seen. You cannot force entire nations to pay all its employees on an hourly basis. It will cause massive upheaval in companies and increase taxes for no good reason. There are millions of salaried employees whose wages will drop. No longer salaried, they will feel as if their positions have been compromised and not work overtime. Production will decrease. The fabric of the economy will be altered. Military personnel will make the most money and become the ruling elite. The UN has no business in changing nations to this effect. There are already overtime policies in place for those who receive hourly wages. There is no benefit to this resolution, excepting of course if you want to make all workers the same and deny the potential they envision of betterment for themselves.

What an interesting ridiculous misreading. Ususally it takes people longer to start coming up with these. Would you care to enlighten us as to where you see any of this in the resolution?
AFoFS UN Council

France is having such a good time with their 35 hour work week. We ought to shoot ourselves in the foot too!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-france18.html

France is having such a good time with their 35 hour work week. We ought to shoot ourselves in the foot too!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-france18.html

Given some more driven capitalist nations aren't given over to advocating 35 hour work weeks, I think the proposal is a marvelous and most reasonable compromise. Enough of this 35 hour work week business.

France is having such a good time with their 35 hour work week. We ought to shoot ourselves in the foot too!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-france18.html

so you're saying that the right-wing, extreme free-marketeer, finance minister who is in bed with the capitalists thinks that people should work longer hours for shorter pay? really?! that's the most shocking thing i've heard in minutes. in other news, unemployment in france is lower than it was when the 35 hour week was introduced

Sounds like a great way to halt economic progress and breed a population of no account lazy bums who don't know what a day's work is. I'm glad I resigned from the sickening cesspool of sloth that is the UN.

I see a couple issues with this resolution.

If the net result of this act will restrict the 'efficiency' of free trade. That is, allowing certain types of labor to be extremely undervalued for the product produced.

Then for this resolution to REALLY have any effect, it must restrict the importation of goods at a below value labor rate from NON-UN nations as well. Otherwise, the overarching goal will necessarily fail....

I suggest a last minute edit!

Sounds like a great way to halt economic progress and breed a population of no account lazy bums who don't know what a day's work is. I'm glad I resigned from the sickening cesspool of sloth that is the UN.

Given how many hard working individuals put in a good 8 hours worth of work per day and do their best to make ends meet with their 40 hour a week job, I think it incredily rude of you to declare them lazy bums who don't know what a day's work is. More than likely their work doesn't end in the office, but they then go home to families, wives, husbands, children, and continue the essential work of homemaking as well. I'm glad you resigned to the sickening cesspool where the values of humanity and family life aren't held in regard. We don't need the kind of people who would have individuals eek out a living while sacrificing attention to the most important of human bonds and undermining the social well-being of a nation's citizenry.

I see a couple issues with this resolution.

If the net result of this act will restrict the 'efficiency' of free trade. That is, allowing certain types of labor to be extremely undervalued for the product produced.

Then for this resolution to REALLY have any effect, it must restrict the importation of goods at a below value labor rate from NON-UN nations as well. Otherwise, the overarching goal will necessarily fail....

I suggest a last minute edit!

I do apologize, but given the fact that the resolution will be going up for a vote tomorrow, I don't believe our friends in Free Soviets will be able to edit the proposal. However, while recognizing your concerns regarding presumably third world labor and a market's ability to purchase from cheaply-paid, overworked sources, it is unreasonable to think the UN should and even could become a massively exclusive trade bloc. For the resolution to REALLY have any effect, it needs people like yourself to vote in favor of it for the reasoning that it is insurance of a basic human right throughout first world countries, the right to a fair wage for work done and an equitable working environment that does not demand more than any person should be asked. I personally find the resolution wholly acceptable and still worthy of support, as it cannot be helped if greedy corporates will outsource to cheap labor markets in order to make a profit. The resolution is still wholly proactive and worth the vote.

I personally find the resolution wholly acceptable and still worthy of support, as it cannot be helped if greedy corporates will outsource to cheap labor markets in order to make a profit.

These are interesting points both your nations bring up, however, this last point carries great weight with my government.

UN resolutions can't be expected to work effectively in all nations, but if enough nations agree to a unilateral standard, then perhaps bilateral mechanisms can be used to slowly put political pressures on hold out nations.

I sincerely hope that this proposal goes to vote in the next 24 hours, otherwise my nation will be forced to abstain this time. Of course if there is a nation that feels I should reconsider my nation's opinion on this issue, it should act fast to convince me otherwise. I think you'll find my nation is open to all opinions with respect to this topic.

10kMichael

Peoples of Galdalgo:

What we of the Jovian Worlds fear is a resolution, that however well meaning and intentioned, will ultimately fail if it has a dangerous loophole to be exploited.

Why? If the UN fails to cut off trade with Non-UN nations, it will increase Non-UN nations bargaining power on the market for labor. The net effect would be to seriously damage UN Nations' citizens the ability to compete with non-UN nations. This will have long term damaging effect on the members of the UN and ultimately decrease the efficacy of the UN to improve worldwide living conditions for all.

At the same time, this would create an incentive for non-UN member nations to join and comply with UN resolutions and cease to be potential rogue threats.

To the delegation of the Jovian Worlds, given that several countries within the UN already advocate a mandatory forty hour work week, I hardly see this as a reason to be such an overarching concern for voting in favor of this resolution. Given that this would undoubtably LEVEL the playing field for UN trade partners relative to evening off the value of labor markets throughout this body, I fail to see why you are in such alarm over this resolution. The effects that you claim are improbable and marginal at best, and the wellbeing of your citizens should take precedence over your nation's ability to sustain massive amounts of production. Your nation's capacity to produce a larger quantity of goods at a cheaper price is poor insurance for a sustainable economy and will be less of a considerable factor in sustainable trade than you care to admit. This resolution will provide an excellent foundation for UN nations to exert soft power in the pursuit of increased human rights worldwide if governments will take a proactive stance to offer incentives and place sensible regulations for corporations to treat workers with equity while allowing a corporation an equally sustainable capacity to produce a product for a reasonable profit.

"Sorry, but I also think this resolution is once again unintelligent and intrusive. This will further damage the economies of UN nations without actually contributing anything to the plight of the working man and woman.

Again, the goal of this resolution is noble; to protect employees. However, instead of the collective systems that are implied we do have opportunities for individual negotiations that are being strongly curtailed. The setting of working hours is traditionally a subject of negotiation in the Sociaal Economische Raad (Social Economic Council) here, and it is slightly more sophisticated then 'x hours for everyone'.

At this point if I recall, on average, the workweek of the average white-collar employee in the DDR is 29 hours with the average blue-collar employee hovering at 39,5 hours. But this number wildly varies for individuals and is skewed because there are many part-time jobs. We don't have a problem with the standard for the resolution as a whole, which is not unreasonable, but with its effects for individual employees.

The resolution fails to take into account the realities of the flexible labour market, and I suspect it to be a deliberate plot to upset them as is traditionally the case with these communist-proposed resolutions. Labour market flexibility means that individual employees should be allowed to work more -or less- if they desire to. At one stage in life one may want to take care of children and spend less time at work; in another stage a employee may just want to save up for something.

For politicians, too, implementing this resolution in its spirit would mean cutting workloads severely. I have been told that our Prime Minister nos Cirdan regularly puts in 90 hours a week. Other flexible jobs, for example people working in small businesses, also put in more hours then the designated 40. Currently, our hospitals are lagging behind in euthanising elderly patients and there are waiting lists for those who are not sick or in pain. We have asked our nurses to volunteer for more hours this year but hospitals cannot afford this if they all have to get overtime. Was this resolution made with these people in mind?

I will not even speak of the effect this resolution may have on the economies of developing nations. Their economic growth will be slashed and their industrialisation process destroyed. I don't expect many sweatshop owners and their governments to comply with this directive and it would force industries to push their employees to accept pay cuts.

While I cannot speak for the employers in my own country, I am afraid that 'overtime' will be taken into account at the wage negotiations around this autumn, and I do not see severe pay cuts to compensate employers for raises in pay as an unrealistic scenario. For those few who do have 60 hour contracts this would mean that net wages would remain the same

Unfortunately, this would in effect mean that the resolution would actually force people to work longer for the same amount of pay as all hours below the forty hour limit would be less well-paid. I have been informed by the minister of economic affairs that the government will support such measures, in principle, provided they only apply to those individuals with contracts allowing for workweeks of more then forty-five hours. We care for our workers and do not want part-time work to be made impossible because of this UN resolution."

((OOC: I should add... this is an IC opinion. More OOCish stuff posted in this general forum thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144957&highlight=) a while ago.

Summary: people should be allowed time to pick mushrooms and cook for themselves etc, though I do IRLly think that this resolution is damned inflexible, even if the alloted time is not unreasonable in an IRL context for western nations. IRLly it would also never be accepted because third world nations wouldn't go with it. For NS, the situation is entirely different because of UN-members and non-UN members etc.))

My main concern would be the fact that not all nations work under a 40 hour and so it needs to be up-ed to about 50; which is a substantial amount of time as it is. Also, 80 hours is another thing that struck me wrong. Some people might have to work more than 80 hours to make ends meet. You would be doing them a disservice by forcing them to stop after that amount of time.

If a job pays you so abysmally badly that you can't make ends meet after 80 hours a week (or to put it another way: 9am to 8.15pm with no weekends or breaks) on overtime pay, then the fault lies with the employer, not the regulator.

*waves to the CACE-UN person*

"While this is correct, consider the people who want to work longer, or who want to work that long in order to buy their dream house/.

Would it not have been better to prase it thus that no worker can be [i]obligated to work for certain amounts of time? In order to make this a realistic right, written permission would have to be given then. Perhaps combined with a limit on total overtime that a company can ask of its workers. This would be more economically viable and would not hurt individual rights as much. Heck, a limit on total overtime would even create more employment.

This resolution has no place in the UN, and the UN has no rights in this area of our countries activity. Vote it down now!

Hyarnustar

I'm afraid my nation will be voting against this resolution. While the large majority of our nation's workers already average an approximate 40 hour work week, we have no hard and fast rules mandating it. You see, the free market has already brought about this average work week. Most workers refuse to work significantly longer. Employers and employees have basically settled on the 40 hour work week together; it's the best number for the highest productivity. Of course there are some exceptions, but largely the workers gladly volunteer for the long hours; very few take them because it's all they can get. The main reason why we must vote against this resolution, however, is that this is a gross violation of national sovereignty. This is a matter strictly for each individual nation to decide. The UN has no business in this matter. It is not my concern if nation x has a standard 40+ hour week nor is it their concern what my standard work week is. It is a matter for the residents of each individual nation to decide what is best for them. Do not take that free choice away.

*laughs out loud at the notion that the free market could ever produce a result so rational*

*OOCly points to corporatist societies with negotiations on such matters on a national level*

The market wouldn't, but it does not require a UN per se.

Another bit of medling from the UN. Why should we have a working week set by the UN. If my people want to work 24 hours a day 7 days a week, that's their look out. If this is passed I will declare a state of emergency across all sectors of business so that none of this nonsense affects our economy. I think the fact that I can do that shows how useless this proposal is in the first place.

Sorry, but if you think the line between compulsion and volunteering is so inviolable, you've got your head in the sand. You'll note that the UN has no work-contract law and no minimum wage. There's nothing to prevent employers keeping all their employees on wages that make full overtime necessary to survive, and keep them on one-week contracts which they can then, ahem, 'fail to renew'. If the majority of entry-level unskilled jobs in the country are run like this, employees would have little alternative - and if you want to suggest labour negotiations are the answer, you try finding the time and energy to form a union when you're working a week of over 80 hours.

Another bit of medling from the UN. Why should we have a working week set by the UN. If my people want to work 24 hours a day 7 days a week, that's their look out. If this is passed I will declare a state of emergency across all sectors of business so that none of this nonsense affects our economy. I think the fact that I can do that shows how useless this proposal is in the first place.

Well, thanks to the Rights of Labor Unions resolution, your workers also have the free right to join a trade union. So we suspect that if you pulled a foolish stunt like that you'd immediately have a general strike on your hands.

*laughs out loud at the notion that the free market could ever produce a result so rational*

Except that it has done exactly that. Of course I do not expect a Socialist nation in the Anti-Capitalist Alliance, where everything and everyone belongs to the State, to understand such a concept as individual liberty. I will try to explain how the free market has brought about such a change.

You see industry would love to impose long hours for low pay by nature. After a point though, long hours are counter-productive. Worker productivity languishes. It's better for business to hire extra workers and work them in shifts. Working one man 16 hours at x rate and working two men eight hours at x rate is equivalent. You pay out the same amount of money. But the productivity is far greater, as the workers do not tire out as much. So it's good for business and the worker. Everything else is playing at the margins. Can we as a business get workers to work a little longer, and/or can we pay them a bit less. But in the land of competition, which is rigorous in a free market, another business is willing to pay just a bit more or provide a slightly better schedule to get the best workers. Thus we arrive at an equilibrium good for all involved. It's amazing, but the system does work. You should try it.

I'm fully in support of this. As for saying that it infringes on national sovereignity, EVERY UN resolution "infringes" on sovereignity. For example, all UN nations have to allow gay marriages, like it or not. They also cannot have single-hulled oil tankers, and must use the metric system. "World Blood Bank" also infringes on sovereignity, doesn't it? Why can't my citizens do what they want with their blood/organ donations?

They can work more than 40 hours if they want. No one's going to arrest them. Hey, they can even work 100 hours. Nothing can stop them. What this stops is anyone being obliged to work more than 80 hours, and that anything more than 40 hours a week is paid 1.5 times as much. It acts against the EMPLOYER, not the EMPLOYEE.

And well, Disney can do that, safe in the knowledge that his citizens don't actually exist, because if they did they'd be burning down your legislature buildings pretty quick.

It's amazing, but the system does work. You should try it.

We did. Civil war erupted.

No, seriously. A perfect little scenario like you described only happens in the fairyland dreams of free marketers. In reality, the companies would band together for mutual benefit and cooperate to keep pay low and working conditions lousy. No company will compete when there's no need to, when they can cooperate for mutual gain and mutual profit. That's why there is no completely free market in the real world - it doesn't work.

Thank you, Demonic Overlords, we understand individual liberty just fine, which is why we have so much of it.
Sadly, your argument is based in dogma and not backed up by evidence in the real world or, from what we've seen, many NS capitalizt nations. See, it's considerably easier to flog your existing workers into the ground than to actually go to all the administrative trouble and expense of recruiting new ones. The tailing off in productivity's balanced out by that, and as for the misery you make of the workers' lives - well, the bosses don't have to worry about that.

What we of the Jovian Worlds fear is a resolution, that however well meaning and intentioned, will ultimately fail if it has a dangerous loophole to be exploited.

Why? If the UN fails to cut off trade with Non-UN nations, it will increase Non-UN nations bargaining power on the market for labor. The net effect would be to seriously damage UN Nations' citizens the ability to compete with non-UN nations. This will have long term damaging effect on the members of the UN and ultimately decrease the efficacy of the UN to improve worldwide living conditions for all.

At the same time, this would create an incentive for non-UN member nations to join and comply with UN resolutions and cease to be potential rogue threats.

In response to the honourable member of The Jovian Worlds, we believe that this resolution will have exactly the opposite effect you specified in your comments above because, you have not considered the social impact this resolution may have on the workforces of non-member nations. By passing this resolution UN members are setting a benchmark for the behaviour of corporations and nationalised industries within the UN.

This will be recognised by the workforces of non-member states and many citizens with poorer conditions, will starting asking their employers why this is so? The longer these employers refuse, the bigger their cries will get. Both government and industry will have little choice ultimately to follow suit before mass industrial action and the exodus of highly qualified workers cause crippling damage to their economies.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia.

Quite. By DO's arguments, the cotton mills of the Industrial Revolution would have become happy, safe, humane work environments where the little six-year-olds would whistle cheerfully through their 8-hour workday - all by the magic of market forces.

And claiming that everything in the ACA belongs to the State merely demonstrates your ignorance about non-capitalist economic systems.

Kamquin Dakar
Minister of Trade and Industry

This resolution is outrageous. The UN has NO RIGHT to interfere in this business. This is an issue which needs to be setteled in the national state. It is an issue of national souveraignity.
I would respect if the UN would set some minimum standars like for example a maximum work time of 80 hours per week, but it has no right to regulate or amend the average work time in any country or impose any regulations about payment, which is done through this resolution.

Yours sincerely

Marc Smith, president of the republic of Kybernetia

They can work more than 40 hours if they want. No one's going to arrest them. Hey, they can even work 100 hours. Nothing can stop them. What this stops is anyone being obliged to work more than 80 hours, and that anything more than 40 hours a week is paid 1.5 times as much. It acts against the EMPLOYER, not the EMPLOYEE.



Actually, the resolution as writen does restrict total worker hours.
"Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week"

Besides the trade inequalities this will cause between member states and non-members, there are also many loopholes that would easily be exploited. For example, our farming industry operates on a per-piece basis, meaning that time isn't even tracked. It would be quite simple to organize all of our industry in such a way, when compared to the possible economic implications of this proposal.
We should vote down this proposal in it's current form, and write a new version with a focus on total compentation for worker that meets the minimum needs for families based on local economic and social factors.
There's no shame in trying to get it right. Vote NO

40 Hours? We should be able to choose what times our people work!! Not have a restriction

5 X 8 = 40

8 hours a day....

For 5 days

We need more workforce not less!!!

Kelssk: "In reality, the companies would band together for mutual benefit and cooperate to keep pay low and working conditions lousy."

And if that's the case, it is perfectly reasonable for the government of that nation to address it. However, no other nation has the ability to impose their own rules addressing it. One could refuse to trade or work with that nation, but you cannot write their laws. Any attempt to do so would be ignored, and any attempt at enforcing it would be met with armed resistance.

East Hackney: "Sadly, your argument is based in dogma and not backed up by evidence in the real world or, from what we've seen, many NS capitalizt nations. See, it's considerably easier to flog your existing workers into the ground than to actually go to all the administrative trouble and expense of recruiting new ones."

Actually it does work in the real world. Ever hear of the United States. Yes, it does occasionally require some regulation as I mentioned above, but that regulation must come from that nation itself, not a world body.

Rehochipe: "By DO's arguments, the cotton mills of the Industrial Revolution would have become happy, safe, humane work environments where the little six-year-olds would whistle cheerfully through their 8-hour workday - all by the magic of market forces.

Actually, the mills and factories of the Industrial Revolution did become happy, safe, humane work environments. It didn't happen overnight; it took decades, but it happened. It's become what we have today. And it was a combination of market forces, regulation (again not by a world body), and the rise of the labor union that brought it about.

"And claiming that everything in the ACA belongs to the State merely demonstrates your ignorance about non-capitalist economic systems."

Quite the opposite in fact. Your tax rate is 100%. That means every dollar earned is given to the State which then dispenses it how it chooses. That means the state owns everything. It may then give back goods and services, but it does so by it's own decisions - for it controls (owns) all of the money.

Look, I'm not saying there shouldn't be any regulation of business. It's just not an international concern. Additionally, as you Socialists should know, in the end the worker has the power. The worker is not forced to work. One can be entirely self-sufficient without industry. You can live in an agrarian society, bartering for what you cannot get or do yourself. Most of the real world's history was this way. We advanced into an industrial society out of choice. We wanted the goods industry could provide. We wanted easier lives that industrial inventions could give us. Why spend all day seperating cotton, when a machine can do it for us? In time farmers stopped farming because it was much easier and profitable to work for business than in the agrarian past. It wasn't forced upon us; we chose it.

The whole idea of the un is stupid, they are running your lives. I live in a dictatorship and I love it. Well I might be biased because I'm the dictator so just post random smileys and don't vote for anything in the un that way it will close. :arrow: :idea: :?: :!: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :cry: :oops: :P :x :shock: :? 8) :lol: :o :( :) :D

Actually, the mills and factories of the Industrial Revolution did become happy, safe, humane work environments. It didn't happen overnight; it took decades, but it happened. It's become what we have today. And it was a combination of market forces, regulation (again not by a world body), and the rise of the labor union that brought it about.
OOC:

And then the mills buggered of to a place of cheaper labour leaving mass unemployment.

Slightly off topic but I live in an old industrial town and my Nan still tells me horror stories about when her Mum used to have to pin her skirt together because she couldn't afford knickers and how she darned socks for her teacher for a piece of fruit. But then again there's nothing like walking through the park and coming across an old falling apart mill, sort of romantic really.

Of course what happens in the real world is irrelevant. If they say it happened, as far as I'm concerned, it happened.

This resolution is outrageous. The UN has NO RIGHT to interfere in this business. This is an issue which needs to be setteled in the national state. It is an issue of national souveraignity.
I would respect if the UN would set some minimum standars like for example a maximum work time of 80 hours per week, but it has no right to regulate or amend the average work time in any country or impose any regulations about payment, which is done through this resolution.


We note the above comments of the honourable member from Kybernetia, but we are unable to concur. One of the primary aims of the UN is to try and improve the quality of life for all nations around the world. Inevitably, there will be resolutions that some nations would feel infringe their sovereignty, but there is little or no other way to achieve its aim unless member nations agree to be collectively bound by resolutions for the greater good.

In any case, it is a voluntary and democratic body so vote against it if you wish and you have the right to try and convince others to do so. Please however, do so by constructive criticism, using the time old sovereignty argument does little to achieve your goals. Finally, in response to your final comment, I believe the aim of this resolution is to set a minimum aim, being 40 hours.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia.

I'm in favor of the resolution for the following reasons:

1) It makes no sense. Paragraph 1 says 40 hours is a "maximum standard." But paragraph 5 says going over it is voluntary. They contradict, making enforcement a nightmare that will tie up the courts for years.

2) It destroys salaried agreements.

3) Paragraph 6 forces huge pay raises to people who normally work long hours, and/or were salaried workers.

4) The previous three points make this an unworkable solution for corporations, and will cause them to immediately relocate to nations where the UN has no voice, and free markets are still in existence. Like Cabinia.

Cabinia continues to support the UN and its member states in their willingness to economically fall on their own swords.

Interesting. We seem to have one set of neolibs arguing that this isn't needed because shorter working weeks are the economically efficient thing to do anyway, and another set arguing that this is destructive to economies. Contradiction?

A fuller reply to follow, but here's a quick quote from an academic study on working hours:

http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/JournalArticles00/HoursOptions00.html

A central feature of the American 'New Economic' has been the reversal of the long-standing trend towards shorter working hours. After the intensive exploitation of the Industrial Revolution, working hours declined steadily for nearly 150 years, under the pressure of union campaigns and legislation. These campaigns are still commemorated in holidays such as Labour Day (originally Eight-Hours Day).

Annual working hours in the United States fell to 1882 hours per employed worker in 1983. Since then, however, annual hours have risen steadily towards 2000 hours per year. Eighty per cent of male American workers and more than 60 per cent of female workers put in over 40 hours per week, and many get only two weeks' annual leave.

The result is like turning the clock back several decades.

We have received the comments of the right honourable member of Telidia. However we disagree with its argument.

We think that the UN should act according to the subsidary principle: meaning: any discission which can be done on a local, regional or national level should be done there, and only actions which need to be solved on the international level should be settled and decided there. We see no need what so ever to regulate this issue on the international level.

The proposed resolution those harm to all member states because they become less competitive towards other members. Some nations face a demographic development which means that they are having a shortage of workers and need therefore to exceed working hours. This resolution would make working cost which are already high in those countries even higher and would make them less competitive on the market. The resolution is a JOB KILLER in UN member states and supports the exports of jobs in NON-UN-member states who have free labour laws.

The UN is destroying itself by passing such resolutions. They would become more and more a left-wing and socialist playing field and more and more conservative and liberal countries would leave the UN. The UN would become even more irrelevant than it is today (only a minority of states are UN members). It is our will to have a strong UN which increases the number of its members, which is truly representative for all nations, regardless of their form of government: whether their are conservative, liberal, moralistic, capitalist, islamist, socialist, comunist or whatsoever. But in order to reach that the UN must stop to produce so many resolutions and must focus on the important issues of global politics. We think that if the UN supports free-market economies and free trade it would become a very effective organisation. Change, dialogue and cooperation between countries are created via trade. But in order to do that the UN should not impose so many restrictions and regulations. In contary. It should remove the obstacles to trade.

This resolution does the contary. It creates obstacles, harms our economies and makes the UN less attractive for its own members to remain in it and for other states to join it.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of the republic of Kybernetia

Laws and resolutions to limit the work week may be wise, in theory- people work harder when they don't work themselves to exhaustion, and productivity may actually increase.

However, this proposal is deeply flawed.

In additions to all the reasons previously stated by other delegates, I have a new one to add to the pile: the list of occupations. It was clearly written by someone with an incomplete view of the diversity of a nation's workforce. What about physicians, scientists, and other professionals? Their work weeks often exceed 40 hours. In fact, they are rarely paid on an hourly scale. This is appropriate for their kind of work: it's a matter of intellectual activity, not a time clock drudge. If you limit their work week, you will simply cut down their output, stifling the technological progress that is essential for a modern nation, even in such far-flung regions as my own. The only way to adequately address problems of professional overwork is through education and training to increase their numbers, not a time cap applied arbitrarily across all occupations.

In short, the limited list of exempted professions will lead to dire consequences for the economic, military, and social well-being of member states. Do not make the mistake of voting for a proposal that will cripple your nation's progress in science, engineering, and medicine.

The government of Telidia find it impossible to agree with the esteemed member from Cambina, allow me moment to explain.

Cabinia wrote:
"It makes no sense. Paragraph 1 says 40 hours is a "maximum standard." But paragraph 5 says going over it is voluntary. They contradict, making enforcement a nightmare that will tie up the courts for years."

The resolution in paragraph 5 recognises the fact that some workers may of their own free will work beyond the 40 hour limit and will allow them to do so provided they are remunerated according to the proposal. In turn it seeks to protect employees by not allowing employers to force anyone to work beyond 40 hours. In my mind this is quite clear and I believe that a well trained judge would be able to distinguish the difference.

Cabinia wrote:
"2) It destroys salaried agreements.

3) Paragraph 6 forces huge pay raises to people who normally work long hours, and/or were salaried workers."

I fail to see this argument also, a salary is fixed fee for a period of time, normally a month. By dividing the monthly contracted hours into the monthly salary you will have an hourly rate. Surely, this can used to pay any extra hours worked. In fact, in our own country many companies follow this policy where workers work overtime beyond their normal contracted hours. Besides should the resolution pass, employees on monthly contracts, which fall short of the resolution, will have to be amended and brought in line.

Cabinia wrote:
"4) The previous three points make this an unworkable solution for corporations, and will cause them to immediately relocate to nations where the UN has no voice, and free markets are still in existence. Like Cabinia."

I believe I have already covered this point, and refer the honourable delegate to the comments I made to the honourable of The Jovian Worlds.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

We think that the UN should act according to the subsidary principle: meaning: any discission which can be done on a local, regional or national level should be done there, and only actions which need to be solved on the international level should be settled and decided there.

Pretty much agreed.

The proposed resolution those harm to all member states because they become less competitive towards other members. Some nations face a demographic development which means that they are having a shortage of workers and need therefore to exceed working hours. This resolution would make working cost which are already high in those countries even higher and would make them less competitive on the market. The resolution is a JOB KILLER in UN member states and supports the exports of jobs in NON-UN-member states who have free labour laws.

I disagree. I've seen very little evidence to support the assertion that this kind of action would be a "job killer". However, to protect against the possibility of this employment-based genocide, it would be wise of the UN to get a move on and endorse fair trade, etc.

The UN would become even more irrelevant than it is today (only a minority of states are UN members).

OOC: Remember that a vast number of nations are "puppets" and consequently are unable to join the UN.

It is our will to have a strong UN which increases the number of its members, which is truly representative for all nations, regardless of their form of government: whether their are conservative, liberal, moralistic, capitalist, islamist, socialist, comunist or whatsoever.

Commendable and worthy. I am glad to see this.

We think that if the UN supports free-market economies and free trade it would become a very effective organisation. Change, dialogue and cooperation between countries are created via trade. But in order to do that the UN should not impose so many restrictions and regulations. In contary. It should remove the obstacles to trade.

This is a puzzling statement as it completely undermines the arguments you have been making. These are policies that belong to a particular stream of economic theory. This smacks of having your cake and eating it.

Kind regards

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for Economic Affairs

We respectfully note the comments from the honourable member of Kybernetia and wish to state that we wholeheartedly agree with their sentiment to build a strong and inclusive UN.

However, we find the argument that UN nations will now somehow become less competitive than our non-UN counterparts erroneous. We refer the honourable member to the comments we have already made in response the Jovian representative from The Jovian Worlds, who made the same argument.

It is our belief that this resolution will enhance the economies of the world, mostly because of the socio-economic impact this resolution will bring. As mentioned before, nations who will fall below this benchmark will ultimately have to comply whether they are in the UN or not, because if they offer lesser standards their workforce would want to know, why?

Furthermore, as corporations and nationalised industries align, it will create a far more competitive labour market where conditions will continuously have to improve if employers wish to attract higher calibre of employees. The choice now lies with the employee and not the employer. Where previously the employer could set any standard, employees are now given a choice because they have a benchmark for comparison. The challenge however is for government to keep up the growing education demands as the expectations of the commercial sectors increase on the calibre of employees they wish to employ.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

@Honourable Senator Ecopoeia,


We think that the UN should act according to the subsidary principle: meaning: any discussion which can be done on a local, regional or national level should be done there, and only actions which need to be solved on the international level should be settled and decided there.
Pretty much agreed.“


We welcome your support for this principle which we consider as a principle of utmost importance.

The proposed resolution those harm to all member states because they become less competitive towards other members. Some nations face a demographic development which means that they are having a shortage of workers and need therefore to exceed working hours. This resolution would make working cost which are already high in those countries even higher and would make them less competitive on the market. The resolution is a JOB KILLER in UN member states and supports the exports of jobs in NON-UN-member states who have free labour laws.

„I disagree. I've seen very little evidence to support the assertion that this kind of action would be a "job killer". However, to protect against the possibility of this employment-based genocide, it would be wise of the UN to get a move on and endorse fair trade, etc.“

I disagree with you. First of all it is one thing to use nice words like fair trade, but the real question is what is meant by this. It is of now use to impose high social standards on poor countries because they simply can´t afford this. Cheap labour is an opportunity for them to counterbalance other disadvantages they have (poor infrastructure, not many qualified workers, e.g.). That can jump start there economies and in the long run they can develop their economies, improve infrastructure and education and in the medium and long run the standard of living increases. The best example for such a development is South-East Asia.

International regulations regarding social standards imposed by others would have it made impossible for those countries to develop their economies the way their did.


The UN would become even more irrelevant than it is today (only a minority of states are UN members).

„OOC: Remember that a vast number of nations are "puppets" and consequently are unable to join the UN.“
I´ve spoken to many UN members who are very dissatisfied with the UN and are looking for ways to avoid implementing the regulations and are considering leaving the UN. The policy of the UN to impose so many overregulating resolutions is frustrating more and more UN members.



We think that if the UN supports free-market economies and free trade it would become a very effective organisation. Change, dialogue and cooperation between countries are created via trade. But in order to do that the UN should not impose so many restrictions and regulations. In contary. It should remove the obstacles to trade.
„This is a puzzling statement as it completely undermines the arguments you have been making. These are policies that belong to a particular stream of economic theory. This smacks of having your cake and eating it.“´

It is not contradictory to the other statement. We have the right to point out our opinion and our ideas about an international order. However: we are ready to compromise.

But compromise means that both sides are making concessions. This resolution doesn´t do it. It smacks of having your cake and eating it.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of the republic of Kybernetia, founder of the free-trade region Futura

Rehochipe: "By DO's arguments, the cotton mills of the Industrial Revolution would have become happy, safe, humane work environments where the little six-year-olds would whistle cheerfully through their 8-hour workday - all by the magic of market forces.

Actually, the mills and factories of the Industrial Revolution did become happy, safe, humane work environments. It didn't happen overnight; it took decades, but it happened. It's become what we have today. And it was a combination of market forces, regulation (again not by a world body), and the rise of the labor union that brought it about.

Well, back then there weren't any world bodies. The regulation came from, essentially, the same people it's coming from now: ethical political groups inclined to stick their noses in where they're not wanted.


"And claiming that everything in the ACA belongs to the State merely demonstrates your ignorance about non-capitalist economic systems."

Quite the opposite in fact. Your tax rate is 100%. That means every dollar earned is given to the State which then dispenses it how it chooses. That means the state owns everything. It may then give back goods and services, but it does so by it's own decisions - for it controls (owns) all of the money.

You'll also note that "it is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins". Which is to say, just about everyone is the State, and hence the claim that the State controls all the money is true, but trivially so. (Oh, and kindly don't use the word 'dollar' when talking about our economy).

Actually, the mills and factories of the Industrial Revolution did become happy, safe, humane work environments. It didn't happen overnight; it took decades, but it happened. It's become what we have today. And it was a combination of market forces, regulation (again not by a world body), and the rise of the labor union that brought it about.

Well, back then there weren't any world bodies. The regulation came from, essentially, the same people it's coming from now: ethical political groups inclined to stick their noses in where they're not wanted.


OOC:Thanks, in part, to Peterloo. (I have probably spelt that wrong)

And let's face it in my town only one of the six mills still standing and the several others demolished still fulfil their original function. Why, because the labour and production costs are cheaper abroad.

The capitalist market is the ultimate democracy. Here everyone decides for themselves what best suits them, instead of politicians taking guesses about peoples needs. As everyone knows himself best, interference from the government can NEVER do any good unless it is ment to protect anybodys rights since the government interference in itself is a violation of every innocent person´s right to freedom. Since it is impossible to violate another persons rights by doing something they want you to or letting them do something that they want to, a market regulation can never do any good for anybody. It´s just a criminal act against everybody who´s willing to sign a contract that the law doesn´t allow, wether worker or employer. Only by regulating the market can workers´ rights be violated.

I can´t see how anybody could be stupid or mean enough to vote yes to something like this but those who do should pay for their crime. Some kind of penalty should be there for every opresser that tries to regulate the market.

The government of Telidia find it impossible to agree with the esteemed member from Cambina, allow me moment to explain.

Cabinia wrote:
"It makes no sense. Paragraph 1 says 40 hours is a "maximum standard." But paragraph 5 says going over it is voluntary. They contradict, making enforcement a nightmare that will tie up the courts for years."

The resolution in paragraph 5 recognises the fact that some workers may of their own free will work beyond the 40 hour limit and will allow them to do so provided they are remunerated according to the proposal. In turn it seeks to protect employees by not allowing employers to force anyone to work beyond 40 hours. In my mind this is quite clear and I believe that a well trained judge would be able to distinguish the difference.


Actually, this is quite ridiculous. With the exception of any slave states or feudal governments Cabinia has yet to establish diplomatic relations with (and never will), ALL working hours are voluntary.


Cabinia wrote:
"2) It destroys salaried agreements.

3) Paragraph 6 forces huge pay raises to people who normally work long hours, and/or were salaried workers."

I fail to see this argument also, a salary is fixed fee for a period of time, normally a month. By dividing the monthly contracted hours into the monthly salary you will have an hourly rate. Surely, this can used to pay any extra hours worked. In fact, in our own country many companies follow this policy where workers work overtime beyond their normal contracted hours. Besides should the resolution pass, employees on monthly contracts, which fall short of the resolution, will have to be amended and brought in line.

Salaried agreements are generally entered into by highly-paid professionals, and in these cases the long hours are an accepted consequence of the high standard of living afforded by these jobs. A VP of marketing in a large corporation may be travelling all over the country to various trade shows or visiting with vendors. The travel time is certainly not leisure time, so it would count against the work week.

As an example, let's say this particular VP makes $150k/year. That comes to $2884/week, or about $72/hour based on the model you provided. Now let's say in a particular week he has to make a visit to a 3-day conference, then meet with a vendor in Japan. Total time from leaving to the conference to coming home from Japan is 128 hours. Under your proposal, for that week he will make $12388... over four times what he made under salary.

That same professional would have no problem being away from home for a little over 5 days, then coming home and spending the time with his family, and still making a great wage under his present salary.

These are the kinds of people who will benefit from this proposal. WHY are we helping the rich? The poor guy who works three full-time jobs will not be affected, since he'll still be working 40 hours or less at each one. But the doctors, lawyers, scientists of all disciplines field and lab, politicians, corporate officers, and their ilk will all benefit hugely from this measure... except that then nobody will be able to afford them anymore.

Another silly consequence that hasn't been brought up yet is the ridiculous idea that oncall hours would count against the 40 hours. IT professionals typically share oncall responsibilities, and are compensated at a rate determined by the employer and accepted by the employees. Many information systems require 24/7 support by level 2 support personnel, consisting of people like systems administrators, communications engineers, and application developers. These people perform their primary jobs during normal working hours, but are needed after hours only in emergencies. Your proposal would force employers to spread out these experts into 3 shifts to ensure 24/7 availability. Oncall benefits would disappear from these employees, and they would work hours they would not prefer to work. Communications and cross-training among these professionals would become severe problems, and infrastructure support in general would degrade. The customer is unhappy, the employer is unhappy, and the employee is unhappy.

Until they outsource to Cabinia, anyway.

Rehochipe: "Well, back then there weren't any world bodies."

Exactly, and we still managed to fix the problem.

"Which is to say, just about everyone is the State..."

Which is exactly the point I made that started this bit of discussion, that in a Socialist nation everything and everyone belonged to the State. Feel free to live that way, just allow me not to.

"(Oh, and kindly don't use the word 'dollar' when talking about our economy)."

Hehe, umm, that must have been a problem with translation. :wink: Point taken.

Rehochipe: "Well, back then there weren't any world bodies."

Exactly, and we still managed to fix the problem.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's an inevitable process. Just because some nations have sorted themselves out and got humane working conditions doesn't mean the rest will inevitably follow. You might as well say, "Well, we eradicated polio from our country without international assistance, so the rest of the world will too if we ignore the problem and let them get on with it - international cooperation would just muddy the waters."

The Protectorate of Dimoko is a new member to the U.N. but not an underspoken one.
I agree with some princibles of this resolution, the way it actually reads is very flawed.
This resolution needs to be re-written to take into account several of the points made earier in this debate, (IE physicians, scientists, etc.) and also the clause concerning on call hours to count against the forty are unrealistic. If you are not working, why should it count against your work. In light of all of this, i cannot vote for this resolution, and delegatess who are yet undecieded should read the whole resolution, before agreeing on priciple.
Dimoko

In additions to all the reasons previously stated by other delegates, I have a new one to add to the pile: the list of occupations. It was clearly written by someone with an incomplete view of the diversity of a nation's workforce. What about physicians, scientists, and other professionals? Their work weeks often exceed 40 hours. In fact, they are rarely paid on an hourly scale. This is appropriate for their kind of work: it's a matter of intellectual activity, not a time clock drudge. If you limit their work week, you will simply cut down their output, stifling the technological progress that is essential for a modern nation, even in such far-flung regions as my own. The only way to adequately address problems of professional overwork is through education and training to increase their numbers, not a time cap applied arbitrarily across all occupations.

Where does this proposal demand that people be paid hourly? Where does it demand that people not ever work more than 40 hours per week?

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.

You are essentially demanding that certain professions be required to work long hours all the time with no reward for doing so. We are demanding fair and equal treatment for all. If you want more "progress" train more scientists.

Actually it does work in the real world. Ever hear of the United States. Yes, it does occasionally require some regulation as I mentioned above, but that regulation must come from that nation itself, not a world body.

"Occasionally" isn't the word, in fact the US labour market is very regulated. Recently, it's become less so as the labour unions lose power, and working conditions have deteriorated and literally thousands of blue-collar jobs are running away to Mexico and beyond forever, leaving the American workers in the lurch, partly thanks to NAFTA.

To run a successful capitalist economy like the States, you NEED regulation, and lots of it, because the government is the only power that can be trusted to take care of the people, because the people vote in the government.

Socialism doesn't mean complete government control of the economy, that's communism. Socialism is in between, where the government plans and takes an active hand in the economy, but not complete control. DO seems to think that this resolution is going to impose communism on everyone. That's not what's going to happen.

As for all the complaints about how the UN shouldn't be taking a hand in this, well, like it or not it got through the endorsements process. I know from pushing my own proposals that it's not an easy task, and the fact it got this far means the UN is taking a hand in this issue and that enough delegates feel the UN should be taking a hand. So like it or not, it's a UN issue, and whether it should or should not be voted on is moot.

The government of Telidia find it impossible to agree with the esteemed member from Cambina, allow me moment to explain.

Cabinia wrote:
"It makes no sense. Paragraph 1 says 40 hours is a "maximum standard." But paragraph 5 says going over it is voluntary. They contradict, making enforcement a nightmare that will tie up the courts for years."

The resolution in paragraph 5 recognises the fact that some workers may of their own free will work beyond the 40 hour limit and will allow them to do so provided they are remunerated according to the proposal. In turn it seeks to protect employees by not allowing employers to force anyone to work beyond 40 hours. In my mind this is quite clear and I believe that a well trained judge would be able to distinguish the difference.


Actually, this is quite ridiculous. With the exception of any slave states or feudal governments Cabinia has yet to establish diplomatic relations with (and never will), ALL working hours are voluntary.


Cabinia wrote:
"2) It destroys salaried agreements.

3) Paragraph 6 forces huge pay raises to people who normally work long hours, and/or were salaried workers."

I fail to see this argument also, a salary is fixed fee for a period of time, normally a month. By dividing the monthly contracted hours into the monthly salary you will have an hourly rate. Surely, this can used to pay any extra hours worked. In fact, in our own country many companies follow this policy where workers work overtime beyond their normal contracted hours. Besides should the resolution pass, employees on monthly contracts, which fall short of the resolution, will have to be amended and brought in line.

Salaried agreements are generally entered into by highly-paid professionals, and in these cases the long hours are an accepted consequence of the high standard of living afforded by these jobs. A VP of marketing in a large corporation may be travelling all over the country to various trade shows or visiting with vendors. The travel time is certainly not leisure time, so it would count against the work week.

As an example, let's say this particular VP makes $150k/year. That comes to $2884/week, or about $72/hour based on the model you provided. Now let's say in a particular week he has to make a visit to a 3-day conference, then meet with a vendor in Japan. Total time from leaving to the conference to coming home from Japan is 128 hours. Under your proposal, for that week he will make $12388... over four times what he made under salary.

That same professional would have no problem being away from home for a little over 5 days, then coming home and spending the time with his family, and still making a great wage under his present salary.

These are the kinds of people who will benefit from this proposal. WHY are we helping the rich? The poor guy who works three full-time jobs will not be affected, since he'll still be working 40 hours or less at each one. But the doctors, lawyers, scientists of all disciplines field and lab, politicians, corporate officers, and their ilk will all benefit hugely from this measure... except that then nobody will be able to afford them anymore.

Another silly consequence that hasn't been brought up yet is the ridiculous idea that oncall hours would count against the 40 hours. IT professionals typically share oncall responsibilities, and are compensated at a rate determined by the employer and accepted by the employees. Many information systems require 24/7 support by level 2 support personnel, consisting of people like systems administrators, communications engineers, and application developers. These people perform their primary jobs during normal working hours, but are needed after hours only in emergencies. Your proposal would force employers to spread out these experts into 3 shifts to ensure 24/7 availability. Oncall benefits would disappear from these employees, and they would work hours they would not prefer to work. Communications and cross-training among these professionals would become severe problems, and infrastructure support in general would degrade. The customer is unhappy, the employer is unhappy, and the employee is unhappy.

Until they outsource to Cabinia, anyway.
We note your point on the above statement and perhaps our previous comments did not exactly convey our meaning. Of course we agree, all work is done voluntarily, you cannot force employees to work for you. However, what I believe this proposal is trying to achieve is that employees can only be contracted to work up to 40 hours per week. If for some reason their employer then requests from them to work longer, then they can do so providing they are remunerated according to the proposal and do not work in excess of 80 hours.

I do not believe however, that for example if I myself choose to take work home with me, which my employer has not requested, they would have to pay. That was my personal choice and I would not expect to be paid for it. If conversely I did feel that it should be met within my normal working week, I do after all have the right to discuss the matter, where upon my employer will either have to look at their resource planning and see if the work is being spread equally or whether additional resources are required.

It is because of this that the VP in your example would not have an inflated salary, one because anyone who runs/owns a business inherently accept that a great deal of personal time will be lost for which they will not be paid. They balance this with the ultimate rewards they perceive they will receive, sometimes remuneration, other times, more free time etc. There is an underlined expectation from shareholders to individuals in senior corporate positions, it is expected and accepted by these individuals that personal time will be forfeit in some areas, which is why their remunerations are large to begin with and in line with their responsibilities.

The argument that salaried agreements are only for highly skilled employees we cannot agree with. Companies and businesses choose the time frames they will pay their employees in. It is often cheaper to pay monthly because there are less periodic payments to be made. Traditionally hourly paid workers were paid weekly, but we have noted that this has been declining. As a whole businesses/corporations find it easier to budget on a month by month basis. Especially listed corporations, who are required to produce quarterly projections so that the market can value and project share prices. Thereby if employees are salaried for specific contracted hours corporations/businesses can predict their profitability much more accurately, and as demand grow, resources can be planned and projected for.

Finally, lenders have slowly been encouraging employers to pay monthly also, by providing payment methods, which is charged by the unit. It is more cost effective therefore to have less frequency of payment to both vendors and employees alike and as such, monthly payments have been adopted to provide a practical and coherent accounting process.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

I don't believe that setting the standard for the work week is a UN responsibility. The UN is about interaction BETWEEN nations, not details within them. Next the UN is going to be passing an international speed limit or some nonesense.

I don't mean this to be offensive, but as a management major, it's obvious that the people who wrote that proposal don't understand how things work. A 40 hour standard may be fine for some employees, but the exempt people, the ones who are paid on a monthly basis, are generally paid more because they work more hours.

Lastly and most importantly, do you people realise what all these silly UN resolutions are doing? I'm fighting to keep my tax rate low, and can't, because twice a week you knuckleheads are passing resolutions that add tax burden to my nation. I'm about to the point where I'm going to have to leave the UN because of it.

"Occasionally" isn't the word, in fact the US labour market is very regulated. Recently, it's become less so as the labour unions lose power, and working conditions have deteriorated and literally thousands of blue-collar jobs are running away to Mexico and beyond forever, leaving the American workers in the lurch, partly thanks to NAFTA.

Hmm. NAFTA is actually rather interesting, just showing what a true "free trade" area can really do to workers. Before the agreement was signed, the US government promised that the NAFTA would create 200,000 new American jobs would be created, all through the wonders of free trade. Four years later, the US government conceded that only 1,500 new jobs have been generated by the agreement, while 204,000 had been lost as a direct result of its implementation.

But this is not because the jobs were just moved down to Mexico. Between 1993 and 1997, unemployment rose by 2 million in Mexico, and wages fell by around 29%. NAFTA enabled big business to expand the scale of its operations. Companies were taken over by US firms, plants were merged and shut down, and any workforce which refused to accept the harsher terms the expanding corporations offered were told that the corporation would just take its business elsewhere. In Mexico alone, the agreement resulted in the destruction of 28,000 small firms within four years of the treaty's execution.

To run a successful capitalist economy like the States, you NEED regulation, and lots of it, because the government is the only power that can be trusted to take care of the people, because the people vote in the government.


Yes and no. Regulation I agree with you on. It's all too easy to call regulation "red tape", but regulation is all that stops companies from dumping their costs onto society. If car manufacturers are not prevented from attaching bull bars to the front of their vehicles, more children hit by cars will die. If pollution control measures are abandoned, the environment will be destroyed. Deregulation can become a subsidy for careless or greedy companies. Take this example: In 1996 the British government's Health and Safety Executive, charged with enforcing health and safety laws in workspaces and prosecuting those employers who neglect health and safety legislation, instructed its inspectors to reduce their prosecutions of companies putting workers at risk. The Conservatives had repeatedly slashed the HSE's budget, and this new advice resulted in a 25% decline in enforcement notices in 1997. Unsuprisingly, this cut in regulation was accompanied with a 20% rise in deaths and serious injuries in the workplace - the first time it had risen in decades. It seems, therefore, that there is a direct relationship between the vigour with which companies are prosecuted for endangering their workforce and the number of workers killed or maimed. If companies are treated gently, workers are treated harshly.

But due to the massive power of multinational corporations nowadays, what governments do nowadays may not be in the best interests of the people. It should, of course, seek to address the fears of the people who elected them against the machinations of these powerful multinationals, but alas, it is not the case. Big business people have the ear of government, with their wealth and power, and the electorate are hard pressed to find a party in many western nations that would stand up for the workers rather than the businesses. Capitalist nations can no longer make these laws on their own; the multinationals with their vast power can threaten to go elsewhere, and hold a government to ransom. Some people would call what many corporations are doing blackmail. A worldwide limit needs to be set, to prevent this happening and to stop worker's hours from tumbling ever upwards, as seems to be the trend in the neo-liberal economies.

Delegates!

This proposal is fatally flawed!

Whilst I agree with the need to protect workers from exploitation this goes no way towards that goal at the expense of restricting trade in certain areas.

Sea Trade is important to our nation; can a sailor lay off work after 40 hours at sea? Of course not. His only option is to "voluntarily" work as much as is needed or find another trade. Likewise an employer will only take on those who "volunteer" to work whatever hours are needed and no-one else.

Its purpose is thwarted as the resolution is too weak!
Its only effect will be another layer of bureaucracy and restriction of trade!


I urge you all to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Boughton-under-Blean

Delegates!

This proposal is fatally flawed!

Whilst I agree with the need to protect workers from exploitation this goes no way towards that goal at the expense of restricting trade in certain areas.

Sea Trade is important to our nation; can a sailor lay off work after 40 hours at sea? Of course not. His only option is to "voluntarily" work as much as is needed or find another trade. Likewise an employer will only take on those who "volunteer" to work whatever hours are needed and no-one else.

Its purpose is thwarted as the resolution is too weak!
Its only effect will be another layer of bureaucracy and restriction of trade!


I urge you all to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Boughton-under-Blean

Can anyone spot the irony?

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: Free Soviets is ranked 124th in the region and 18,221st in the world for Most Income Equality.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

This proposal WILL NOT WORK. AT ALL. IT does NOT include any stipulations regarding pay equity. Pay can be as low as one propaganda card per hour, and yet one would still be in compliance with this treaty.

bob iv

Damn DPs

A) What has Free Soviets ranking got to do with anything?

B) I believe we already have a minimum wage law.

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

Given that there are 119,589 nations in NS, a ranking of 18,000 is pretty damn good. (The reason that FS is low compared to the region is because it's a big region which does extremely well on income equality generally).

The United Nations has no business trying to impose anything of this sort on any nation. This is clearly a matter that should be left to the individual nation. The United Nations should stick to matters of World importance rather than trying to write laws for individual nations. What are we headed toward here? A world where there are no more national governments. A world where there is one individual that is running the entire globe. It sounds too much like the One World Order to me. If the UN tries to impose things like this on the World then each nation might as well say goodbye to their own sovereignity.

Actually it does work in the real world. Ever hear of the United States. Yes, it does occasionally require some regulation as I mentioned above, but that regulation must come from that nation itself, not a world body.

"Occasionally" isn't the word, in fact the US labour market is very regulated. Recently, it's become less so as the labour unions lose power, and working conditions have deteriorated and literally thousands of blue-collar jobs are running away to Mexico and beyond forever, leaving the American workers in the lurch, partly thanks to NAFTA.

To run a successful capitalist economy like the States, you NEED regulation, and lots of it, because the government is the only power that can be trusted to take care of the people, because the people vote in the government.

Socialism doesn't mean complete government control of the economy, that's communism. Socialism is in between, where the government plans and takes an active hand in the economy, but not complete control. DO seems to think that this resolution is going to impose communism on everyone. That's not what's going to happen.

As for all the complaints about how the UN shouldn't be taking a hand in this, well, like it or not it got through the endorsements process. I know from pushing my own proposals that it's not an easy task, and the fact it got this far means the UN is taking a hand in this issue and that enough delegates feel the UN should be taking a hand. So like it or not, it's a UN issue, and whether it should or should not be voted on is moot.

Actually, I do not think this resolution is going to impose Communism on anyone. The introduction of the discussion of Socialism/Communism vs. Capitalism was brought about by the assertion that a capitalist system could never create such a rational system like the one argued for in this proposal. I wholeheartedly disagree, offering up the example of the U.S., which obviously fits the mold of this resolution.

Truthfully, I do not fear this resolution at all. My opposition is completely based on the belief that the UN is overstepping it's authority. Yes, it got through. Yes, it's an issue that enough people feel worthy of imposing upon the rest of us. I do not argue whether it should be voted on (obviously moot), but it should be voted against because of its intrusive scope.

The merits and good intentions of this proposal are outweighed by the fact that the UN shouldn't have this much authority over individual nations.

France is having such a good time with their 35 hour work week. We ought to shoot ourselves in the foot too!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-france18.html

so you're saying that the right-wing, extreme free-marketeer, finance minister who is in bed with the capitalists thinks that people should work longer hours for shorter pay? really?! that's the most shocking thing i've heard in minutes. in other news, unemployment in france is lower than it was when the 35 hour week was introduced

But forcing all nations to adopt a 40 hour work week that is then /mandatory/ for all businesses and workers is ridiculous. Health Care workers often work 12 hour shifts...and this rule would rule out their ability to do any overtime (that is, to do 4 or more of such shifts a week.

Western Asia maintains a very strong socialist civil policy, but it also likes to maintain a strong economy...France's unemployment rate has dropped...but it is not really clear that all of that is due to this program (and their unemployment is still high, although seasonal workers from North Africa and Spain continue to be brought in to work in menial labor positions).

Western Asia wholeheartedly opposes this resolution, which steps beyond the powers of the UN, and might leave the UN if such poor-quality resolutions are so easily passed.

For the record, WA is 11,532nd in the world for Most Income Equality.

Has anyone pointed out that this resolution provides a loophole? It doesn't allow you to implement the resolution if it will lower the (subjective) living standards of your population. Not so much a loophole as a giant gate, propped wide open and decked out with fireworks and the world's largest airhorn.

Cabinia interprets that line to apply to individual workers directly affected by the measure, and not to the entire national labor market.

Cabinia also finds that this measure cannot do anything other than reduce jobs and cripple the national labor market in member states, as those jobs move to places like Cabinia.

Cabinia interprets that line to apply to individual workers directly affected by the measure, and not to the entire national labor market.

Cabinia also finds that this measure cannot do anything other than reduce jobs and cripple the national labor market in member states, as those jobs move to places like Cabinia.

Honorable Delegates of the United Nations!

You must vote this down!
This will simply cause the flow of jobs from UN countries to non UN countries. In my country, I am all for the 40 hour work week, but NOT for a 80 hour maximum. If they wish to work, what is the problem? This is a major loophole. Protect the workers of the UN!

Also, on another note, in many places (farms, factories) people are payed by the piece/part. This is a fair system, for both worker and employer. It is also good for our economies and job markets. It will keep the people happy.

Savi Lunphi
President
New Philadelphia
Federation of Islands and Cities
Former Sovatecan Empire

This resolution is rediculous.

How can someone even propose a resolution like that? For all you who have voted for it i ask you to change your vote. Overtime may be the only way to pay for a housepayment or a mortgage payment. Not everyone gets paid the same.