NationStates Jolt Archive


Parliament of the Kingdom of Austica repeals 40hr workweek

Austica
24-05-2004, 13:17
PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF AUSTICA

***PRESS RELEASE***

The Parliament of the Kingdom of Austica has tonight voted unnanimously to repeal acts introduced by the compliance ministry which made the 40hr work week resolution law in Austica.

The Parliament voted, and the repeal legislation was immediately sent to Mawson Palace where at 10:00PM local time (16min ago) His Majesty the King signed the repeal acts, providing the royal assent.

This means that the UN resolution requiring a maximum of 40hrs work a week are not law in the Kingdom of Austica. This decision was made by the Parliament, and is in the best interests of the Kingdom of Austica

Austica will not be bullied into adopting policies which would invariably destroy our economy, and therefore lives.

Authorised by the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Rt. Hon. Sir James Hetherington MP

GOD SAVE THE KING!!!
East Hackney
24-05-2004, 13:21
Well, like it or not, it is law in Austica and you can't repeal it. Now, if you're willing to RP defying UN law... fine, take this to the General forum and we'll find some lefties willing to RP trying to make you comply. If not... then you're godmoding. IGNORE cannons... FIRE!
Seocc
24-05-2004, 14:30
actually, you can repeal the law, once you leave the UN, but not a moment before.
Catholic Europe
24-05-2004, 15:13
Catholic Europe agrees with Austica.

Many people may wish to work over 40hrs a week because they want to. Why should we stop them? Also, some industries/services/jobs may need their people to work more than 40hrs i.e: the emergency industries. Why should we stop them and thus put our people into harms way? That is why Catholic Europe voted against.
Sophista
24-05-2004, 16:17
Since when is it policy that you can't role play in the United Nations forum? Because, if I'm still in the know on this one, aren't we all just role playing our little hearts out as we argue about issues? Seriously. Knock off that "Gasp! You can't do that here!" crap and let people have a little fun.


The nation of Sophista stands resolved that it shall not interfere, either independently or on behalf of the United Nations, with the decision of the
Kingdom of Austica. International law requires international justification, a burden that we feel was never fufilled by the author of the legislation. We congratulate the Austican people on their decision, and celebrate their desire for autonomy in domestic decisions.

Regards,
M. Aaron Hammonds
President of the Pedantic Paradise of Sophista
East Hackney
24-05-2004, 16:58
Since when is it policy that you can't role play in the United Nations forum? Because, if I'm still in the know on this one, aren't we all just role playing our little hearts out as we argue about issues? Seriously. Knock off that "Gasp! You can't do that here!" crap and let people have a little fun.

[OOC]: I wasn't telling them they can't do that here. Yep, these forums are for RPing.

Thing is, I'm fully expecting a rash of nations saying "no, we're repealing this law", then ignoring anyone who tries to RP international pressure to make them comply.

So I was simply drawing their attention to the fact that, if they want to RP ignoring this resolution, they should be prepared to RP the consequences - which, in fairness, they may be prepared to do.
imported_United Morgan
24-05-2004, 17:05
The Resolution can be ignored through RP but the effects are still there if you're a UN member. Simple game mechanics
RPing an ignoring of a UN Resolution is Godmoding.

United Morgan

Proud sponser of UN Proposal Election Languages Act
Myrth
24-05-2004, 17:11
You cannot disobey any UN resolution. As long as you're in the UN, your country is forced to comply.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator
imported_United Morgan
24-05-2004, 17:11
Proud sponser of UN Proposal Election Languages Act

Our very first UN Proposal!
Yes United Morgan is proud!
:lol:
imported_United Morgan
24-05-2004, 17:13
You cannot disobey any UN resolution. As long as you're in the UN, your country is forced to comply.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Captain Proton to the rescue! 8)
imported_United Morgan
24-05-2004, 17:14
* That was either a double post or the work of the Attendant again... *
Free Soviets
24-05-2004, 18:07
The nation of Sophista stands resolved that it shall not interfere, either independently or on behalf of the United Nations, with the decision of the Kingdom of Austica. International law requires international justification, a burden that we feel was never fufilled by the author of the legislation.

We could have sworn that both ourselves and other defenders of this resolution explained our reasoning. Briefly, without international standards nations stuck in an economic race to the bottom are heading for a bottom set by insane dictatorships who essentially enslave their workforces into working long hours in shitty conditions for little or no pay. The oppression by those dictators adversely affects not only the people who live there, but also the people in every country that is part of a globalized economy.

Defending and advancing the cause of working people is always an international issue, and our federation will always be there to aid them.
AFoFS UN Council
Jonothana
24-05-2004, 23:18
You cannot just accept the resoulutions you like and ignore the ones you dislike. As others have said, it's against international law, so you cannot do it. If you really feel strongly about this, then go ahead, leave the UN. Or, if you want, you could try a repeal proposal to delay the above process.
Komokom
25-05-2004, 08:46
You cannot just accept the resoulutions you like and ignore the ones you dislike.

Correct, 100% .

Well, mostly ...

There is the entire skip out of U.N. before it passes to avoid stats change thing, but really by rejoining your practically agree-ing to follow past passed Int. law so really its just cutting off the nose to spite the face I guess ...

As others have said, it's against international law, so you cannot do it.

Yes again. :)

If you really feel strongly about this, then go ahead, leave the UN.

Exactly. Due to Moderation ruling, game mechanics and lack of changes to that effect, "like it or lump it" is the choice of the day.

:wink:

Or, if you want, you could try a repeal proposal to delay the above process.

Can't do that though, Moderation rules a repeal as a game mechanics request violation. Pitty in a way, but a blessing in many more.

...

Over all, your bloody right. :D

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am, Stuck In The Middle With You ...
Romanum Imperium
25-05-2004, 09:00
Salvete!
We, Earendilyon, Caesar etc of Romanum Imperium, would like to congratulate the people of Austica on their decission to not comply with this ruling and regulating of the busybody council of socialists. As we have indicated in our formal reaction in the thread of Free Soviets, we're greatly disturbed by the implementation of this law and are considering leaving the UN.

Aveto,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.


OOC: it's a shame there's no "ignore UN laws feature" in this game :( It would make the game more real. All the time, in RL nations are ignoring Resolutions passed by the UN (like Israel and Iraq-pre-Dubyah's-adventure).
Catholic Europe
25-05-2004, 11:08
You cannot disobey any UN resolution. As long as you're in the UN, your country is forced to comply.

That doesn't necessarily have to be true. Especially if there is an issue which directly counters the resolution. For example, Catholic Europe is openly against the Euthanasia proposal and when the issue comes up we always choose to ban the proposal.

People in RL do disobey and not follow the resolution, the same can be said for NS.
Grand Mitae
25-05-2004, 12:13
Austica
25-05-2004, 14:05
Regardless of the statements made by other nations, Austica has no intention of reversing the processes which we put in place.

We are legally justified in doing what we have done. The Austican Constitution allows the legislature to repeal, any legislation.

Should the UN force us to comply, then it is simply showing itself up as an undemocratic and autoritarian organisation, controlled by socialist like nations such as the Free Soviets.

We shall continue to boycot this resolution. The 40hr workweek resolution is not law in Austica, and never will be

By His Majesty's Command

Sir John Grey
Prime Minister
Myrth
25-05-2004, 14:20
Regardless of the statements made by other nations, Austica has no intention of reversing the processes which we put in place.

We are legally justified in doing what we have done. The Austican Constitution allows the legislature to repeal, any legislation.

Should the UN force us to comply, then it is simply showing itself up as an undemocratic and autoritarian organisation, controlled by socialist like nations such as the Free Soviets.

We shall continue to boycot this resolution. The 40hr workweek resolution is not law in Austica, and never will be

By His Majesty's Command

Sir John Grey
Prime Minister

The only way it will 'never be law' is if you leave the UN. The game automatically enforces all resolutions...
Kelssek
25-05-2004, 15:04
We are legally justified in doing what we have done. The Austican Constitution allows the legislature to repeal, any legislation.


Of course you can repeal the legislation. It just doesn't make a difference because the game immediately puts it right back.


Should the UN force us to comply, then it is simply showing itself up as an undemocratic and autoritarian organisation, controlled by socialist like nations such as the Free Soviets.


You're not being forced to comply at all. You can leave the UN and then you're free to make your workers work as much as you want. But if you want to be in the UN, you've got to obey the resolutions, even if you don't agree with them. Neither can you ignore them like in real life, because this isn't real life.

The resolution passed in a democractic vote. So it's truly ironic that you're claiming that you're doing a democratic action by defying it. And calling the UN authoritarian for enforcing the rules would be just like if Saddam Hussein had refused to allow in UN weapons inspectors and then called the UN corrupt, or something like that, for enforcing its resolutions. Of course he didn't actually do that, but you get the idea.

So either get in line or get out.
Ecopoeia
25-05-2004, 16:11
So, about those sanctions... how are we going to punish Austica for its intransigence?
Boughton-under-Blean
25-05-2004, 16:23
Having discussed the matter with his advisors the Grand Duke of Boughton-under-Blean recommends Sanctions against Austica.

We would like to open the debate here before putting a formal resolution to the UN regarding sanctions available.

We believe trade sanctions would be inappropriate at this stage as they would lead to inappropriate suffering of the people of Austica whilst having little effect on their deluded and criminal parliament.

Therefore I propose we put forward a resolution for diplomatic sanctions on Austica and if unable to expel it from the UN to shun its presence and effectively send it to Coventry

The Grand Duke of Boughton-under-Blean is open to further suggestions from the assembled nations
Boughton-under-Blean
25-05-2004, 16:23
sorry - double posted
East Hackney
25-05-2004, 16:33
Therefore I propose we put forward a resolution for diplomatic sanctions on Austica and in unable to expel it from the UN to shun its presence and effectively send it to Coventry

While Austica's offence is grave, this seems an excessively harsh punishment for a first offence. Could we not begin with something milder, like Stoke-on-Trent or Margate?
The Weegies
25-05-2004, 17:19
Nah, they deserve worse.

Send 'em to Hull.
Ecopoeia
25-05-2004, 18:01
Hmm, Hull vs Coventry. Maybe we could persuade the two city councils to prepare pamphlets extoling their lack of virtues and hold a competition, a bit like the Olympic bidding process?
The Okanogan
25-05-2004, 22:46
If any opposed to the 40 hour work week want to do something to change it, endorse the new FREEDOM TO WORK resolution. It not only repeals the 40 hour work week but also elliminates minimum wage laws. Employees and employers should be free to enter into whatever contract they desire and should not be forced into terms that the UN wants them to do. Right not the freedom to work resolution is on page 16 of the proposed resolutions.
Kybernetia
25-05-2004, 23:55
WE FULLY SUPPORT Austica.

It is a sovereign state and due to the economic harm this resolution those we think that ANY NATION has the RIGHT to SUSPEND THIS RESOLUTION as long as it sees that as necessary.
The UN has NO RIGHT to impose any sanctions or restrictions against Austica.
Such sanctions WOULD REQUIRE A RESOLUTION, being passed by the General Assembly of the UN. Since that is not the case, the UN has no right to impose any sanctions towards Austica.

WE ARE CURSING all nations who voted for this resolution: our economy had a serious blow, from thriving to strong. We are not willing to accept that.
Our average worktime is 48-60 hours. We are not accepting that those hours are considered overtime and should be paid more. Therefore we have SUSPENDED the clause calling for a payment of 150% for an indefinate period.

We have also are interpreting the resolution which is poorly written: Example: "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." - we don´t understand that. There is at least one point missing and there are several writting mistakes. Therefore we come to the conclusion that the last parth needs to be considered invalid.
We believe therefore and inforced laws that the general working time for military personal, civil defence personal, all state workers (in the administration, e.g.) shall be considered civil defence workers because EVERY employee of the state has an obligation to defend the state and civilian emergency response ARE OBLIGED TO WORK 60 HOURS.
a ) military personnel b ) civil defense forces c ) civilian emergency response.

We are aplauding any nations which refuses this resolution and is rejecting it. We are aplauding the courageous actions of Austica.

We are cursing the socialist countries of the UN and those who misread the basis of the UN: that is to encourage cooperation between its member, to preserve word peace. It is to protect the national souvereignity and dignity of the nations and not to infringe and to violate it. The UN is doing a poor job by passing its resolution. It would make itself even poorer if it tries to inforece it on member states.
We are demanding the UN not to imforce this resolution. Otherwise we and other would take counter-actions to counteract it through our national laws.
I hope the UN is wise enough to know what it should not do. Either the UN respects the national souvereignity or it is going to loose the support of its capitalists members.
I hope the UN understands this and is not deepening the divisions (which the resolution those) but trying to bridge them. The UN must act to keep its relevance and must stop socialism and communist instrumentalisation of its organisation. Otherwise the UN is going to be irrelevant.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia.
Free Soviets
26-05-2004, 04:08
We have also are interpreting the resolution which is poorly written: Example: "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." - we don´t understand that. There is at least one point missing and there are several writting mistakes. Therefore we come to the conclusion that the last parth needs to be considered invalid.

huh?

maybe you aren't understanding it because the formatting was lost.

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.

so what exactly is missing, and what writing mistakes do you think you see again?
Komokom
26-05-2004, 05:49
Are people completely ignorant of the fact this is a game with rules, and that the very manner of the game means that the rules must through player action and more certainly game programming be obeyed ?

Ack, I need a stiff drink, the carbon based life-forms here are frightening me ...
- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
Flibbleites
26-05-2004, 07:21
Are people completely ignorant of the fact this is a game with rules, and that the very manner of the game means that the rules must through player action and more certainly game programming be obeyed?

Yes, yes they are.
3rd Armored Division
26-05-2004, 07:29
My economy's been on the bullet train to hell ever since this resolution passed. Just three days and a quickly growing, stable and very strong economy has been reduced to something along the lines of "slightly above average" and dropping fast. I have a good deal of ready, willing and able workers but sure as hell they aren't going to keep 3rd Armored Division afloat if they can't work long enough to earn a living!

Something has to be done to offset the effects of this terrible resolution before it kills the world's economy!
Komokom
26-05-2004, 07:47
Hmmm, yet oddly enough mines not moved an inch, I am still on "all-consuming" at time of writing, as I was before the proposal passed. Maybe we should be looking at how we handle our issues, yes ?

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
Dictatorial dyansty
26-05-2004, 10:19
hmm..i am thinking 40 hrs....its 8 hrs every dae for 5 days a week....productivity will bound to fall and the salary still command the same price??? this is unreasonable
Kybernetia
26-05-2004, 19:02
We are admiring the courage of the honourable Kingdom of Austica to stand for what it believes in against an ignorant, intolerant, cruel group of countries who are misusing the UN as an instrument to force their socialist policies among others.
We are not going to allow any resolution to be passed against the honourable Kingdom of Austica. We would like to ask Austica to remain in the UN although of the vicious and cruel attitude of many socialist countries.

We, the republic of Kybernetia, have decised although of the create damage done by this UN resolution (40-hour-week) which crippled our economy from thriving to strong to remain in the UN because we believe in its real principals: preservation of world peace, recognition of different cultures, defending agressions of one country by another and by doing so preserving national sovereignity.
The UN gets its authority NOT FROM ITSELF BUT BY ITS MEMBERS. The UN therefore ought to recognize the NATIONAL SOUVEREIGNITY. If the UN takes away this national sovereignity it is violating its own principals. We are going to work and fight for changes in the UN. We want free-trade between all of its members, and illimination or at least reduction of tariffs between them. Through economic cooperation and free-trade the cooperation between the nations is going to increase, common interests are created and therefore conflicts can be avoided.

We concede that our decision remaining in the UN means that we have to comply with its rules. We are therefore implementing the resolution, however using the longest time frames and periods possible and all exceptions it grants. Furthernmore we have taken steps to minimize the damage it does: abolishing minimum wage laws and cut taxes.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia


P.S. We are again stating our greatest protest against those socialist policies which we forced upon us. We are outwaying them through our national policies. YOU ARE FAILING IMPOSING YOUR SOCIALIST VIEWS ON US. STOP PROMOTTING SUCH RESOLUTIONS.
Wiee
27-05-2004, 23:21
Are people completely ignorant of the fact this is a game with rules, and that the very manner of the game means that the rules must through player action and more certainly game programming be obeyed ?


And you and others with you are completely ignorant to the fact that these people are ic-reacting to a very interesting issue, regardless of ”game rules”.
They are protesting UNs right to rule their countries in detail, and no programmed rules can make that question irrelevant. Au contrair.

You might think protesting is pointless, since rules are rules. I say these kind of statements are the whole point of the game.
Ecopoeia
28-05-2004, 11:35
So, do we send Austica to Coventry or Hull?
Komokom
28-05-2004, 13:35
And you and others with you are completely ignorant to the fact that these people are ic-reacting to a very interesting issue, regardless of ”game rules”.

Yet, oddly enough, most of the arguments they use fly in the very face of how the game actually works. While there is usually nothing wrong with making up new rules to a game, this is hardly the environment where every-one gets a free hotel on the street of their choice ...

:wink:

They are protesting UNs right to rule their countries in detail, and no programmed rules can make that question irrelevant. Au contrair.

Yes, I know, what gets me is people claiming the rules don't apply to them because they say so, and thus influencing new players to the game and forum, into thinking the same thing. Which is hardly fair in my mind to the new players, who then get confused when a whole bunch of other older players inform them in a polite and helpful fashion as to the actual rules.

...

Au contrair ... ? :roll:

You might think protesting is pointless, since rules are rules. I say these kind of statements are the whole point of the game.

No, I say a very important point of the game is healthy debate, but jamming your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and sticking your head in the sand because you don't like how the game works is pointless and confusing for new players who like to play by the rules.

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
Austica
30-05-2004, 09:06
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTICA

You're not being forced to comply at all. You can leave the UN and then you're free to make your workers work as much as you want

As usual you have missed the entire point. The fact of the matter is that we do not want to force any of our citizens to work. We want to allow our citizens to decide for themselves how much time they want to work. As I have made abundantly clear throughout our nations campaign on this issue, many workers in Austica normally work around 45 hours a week. This is not excessive, and those who do not want to work these hours are free to work less.

The resolution passed in a democratic vote. So it's truly ironic that you're claiming that you're doing a democratic action by defying it. And calling the UN authoritarian for enforcing the rules would be just like if Saddam Hussein had refused to allow in UN weapons inspectors and then called the UN corrupt, or something like that, for enforcing its resolutions. Of course he didn't actually do that, but you get the idea.

The resolution passed in a democratic vote of nations, yes, but the mere fact that once 50+1% of nations say they want a resolution, all nations are forced to comply is authoritarian. This is unless the UN wants to be one large nation. Your example of Saddam Hussein is ridiculous, as we are arguing for our right to govern ourselves and decide the laws of our nation. The mere fact that the UN is forcing nations to comply with these resolutions is plain and simple evidence that the UN is an imperialistic regime, clearly led around by socialists.

In polls conducted by an independent pollster in Austica, it was confirmed that around 89% of Austicans reject the resolution. This means that our repealing the resolution from law in Austica was quite democratic. If you cannot understand that, then you clearly do not understand democracy.

We would like to open the debate here before putting a formal resolution to the UN regarding sanctions available.

You can try this, but it won’t work.

Austica once tried to introduce sanctions through a resolution, against a nation, which it was widely believed, was committing human rights abuses. Our proposal was never made a resolution and our government received a telegram telling us not to use the UN to censure or pressure other nations. (Interestingly a certain large communist nation, who shall remain nameless, was dead set against the revealing of human rights abuses and was prepared to use military force to stop us…funny how the socialists seem to have so much control over the UN.

If the UN did accept such a proposal for a resolution, it would only show us that the UN is a socialist/imperialistic regime – especially when it refused our proposal for the betterment of human rights, whilst accepting one, imposing sanctions against a nation for fighting for its sovereignty!

Are people completely ignorant of the fact this is a game with rules

Everything has rules. The fact is your so called rules defy the basic principles of democracy and indeed the United Nations.

Austica signed onto the United Nations because we believed in the betterment of world peace, of having a voice in the international community during crisis, of protecting the environment, of committing to our national security, and finally yet most importantly, it’s supposed ‘commitment’ to democracy. We did not join so that nations such as the Free Soviets could tell us how many hours our people can work, under the pretext of a human rights proposal.

We fully intend to remain in the UN, and continue our fight.

By His Majesty’s Command

Sir John Grey MP
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Austica

GOD SAVE THE KING!
Kelssek
30-05-2004, 10:10
Kelssek
30-05-2004, 10:11
Kelssek
30-05-2004, 10:19
As usual you have missed the entire point. The fact of the matter is that we do not want to force any of our citizens to work. We want to allow our citizens to decide for themselves how much time they want to work.


I'm not missing the point at all, it's just that you're not taking it. If you want total freedom of working hours, LEAVE THE UN. THEY GO TOGETHER. If you want to be in the UN you MUST comply with ALL resolutions, full stop. You can't have your cake and eat it here. You either leave or comply.


As I have made abundantly clear throughout our nations campaign on this issue, many workers in Austica normally work around 45 hours a week. This is not excessive, and those who do not want to work these hours are free to work less.


THEY CAN WORK 45 HOURS. THE LIMIT IS 80 HOURS.


Your example of Saddam Hussein is ridiculous, as we are arguing for our right to govern ourselves and decide the laws of our nation.


And Saddam Hussein would also have been perfectly justified in saying that he is arguing for the right to decide what kind of weaponry he wants to keep around. I don't think the example is ridiculous at all. Saddam didn't defy the UN (this time around), but you are doing just that.


...the UN is an imperialistic regime, clearly led around by socialists.


Your disagreement with the prevailing, majority opinion is purely your problem, isn't it?


...repealing the resolution from law in Austica was quite democratic. If you cannot understand that, then you clearly do not understand democracy.
Everything has rules. The fact is your so called rules defy the basic principles of democracy and indeed the United Nations.


Firstly, I can't imagine that a majority of people don't want to be "forced" as you put it, to work less for the same pay or get a raise if they want to stick to 45 hours. I suspect some doctoring of poll results here.

The rules don't defy the principles of the UN, because the rules govern the UN. Again, that's your problem. And it seems that your people are democratically calling for you to leave the UN here, cause that's the only way you can repeal the law.


Austica signed onto the United Nations because we believed in the betterment of world peace, of having a voice in the international community during crisis, of protecting the environment, of committing to our national security, and finally yet most importantly, it?s supposed ?commitment? to democracy. We did not join so that nations such as the Free Soviets could tell us how many hours our people can work, under the pretext of a human rights proposal.


You mention "democracy", which the UN cannot rule on because it would be game mechanics, but not human rights, which is most definitely a purpose of the UN. I believe the proposal was under social justice, though I really don't remember, but in any case, I don't think you can say that a limit on working hours was detrimental to human rights in any way.


We fully intend to remain in the UN, and continue our fight.


The resolution cannot be repealed, so, I repeat, it's either get out or comply. There's no fight here, because it can't be won. And since you're still in the UN, the 40-hour work week is still law in your country, despite any claims that you've repealed it.
Austica
30-05-2004, 11:32
Austica does not accept this. The Kingdom has a Parliament and the parliament has voted unanimously to repeal the 40hr work week resolution - therefore it does not comply. Your game mechanics can apply all you like, but the fact remains we will not enforce the resolution, BECAUSE A LEGITAMATELY FORMED PARLIAMENT - that is the representatives of the people of Austica, have voted to overturn such a resolution.

It is rediculous to suggest that no UN law can be repealled - this is just plain wrong.

We repeat that we will not leave the UN, and we will not comply with the 40hr work week resolution
Kybernetia
30-05-2004, 11:41
We are applauding the statement of Austica

@Kelssek
"Your example of Saddam Hussein is ridiculous, as we are arguing for our right to govern ourselves and decide the laws of our nation.
And Saddam Hussein would also have been perfectly justified in saying that he is arguing for the right to decide what kind of weaponry he wants to keep around."
Well: Nation states is not RL. But it was not the UN which took action against Hussein and his DEFIANCE of UN RESOLUTIONS. The Un Security council failed to act and to inforce its resolutions against Iraq. It was the US and the UK which took action and imposed the SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES resolution 1441 stated in case of Iraqi defiance. And Iraq was and remainend in defiance of 1441 and all previous resolutions all time up until the regime was overthrown.
By the way: in principal any nation has the right to posses all weapons of its chosing. But due to the AGRESSION of Iraq against its neighbour Kuwait the UN imposes restrictions on Iraq as a condition for the armistice in 1991 with Iraq. Due to the fact that Iraq was and remained in defiance of those regulations, taking action was completly justified.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia




P.S. We are again stating our greatest protest against those socialist policies which we forced upon us. We are outwaying them through our national policies. YOU ARE FAILING IMPOSING YOUR SOCIALIST VIEWS ON US. STOP PROMOTTING SUCH RESOLUTIONS.
Kelssek
30-05-2004, 15:29
It is rediculous to suggest that no UN law can be repealled - this is just plain wrong.


Well... that's exactly right. You cannot repeal a UN law without leaving.


We repeat that we will not leave the UN, and we will not comply with the 40hr work week resolution

How many times does everyone have to tell you. You can't have your cake and eat it, you can only have UN membership or the 40-hour law.

And we aren't here to debate RL politics, but Saddam Hussein HAD NO BANNED WEAPONS AT THE TIME OF THE MOST RECENT INVASION. He was actually in perfect compliance with 1441 as of March 2003, although obviously he was gassing people like crazy after the Gulf War. But he had no banned weapons in 2003, and the weapons inspectors found nothing, which was why the UN refused to take action. In fact most of his biochem stuff which he used against Iran was bought from the United States. Okay, we're going a bit off track here...

All your bluster doesn't hurt the validity of the analogy - How is Austica's defiance of the NationStates UN any different from Saddam's defiance of the real-life UN?

I could also say stop proposing free trade and "let's drop all trade barriers" proposals, which are far more likely to destroy a nation's economy than increased wage equity. You are failing imposing capitalist views on us. But if one does somehow pass, I won't be here whingeing like a baby, I'll just leave.
Kelssek
30-05-2004, 15:33
Just to add on. Kybernetia says that the resolution hurt his economy. Well, since the resolution passed, my economy has gone from Reasonable to Good. Why? Because it's not the resolution that's done it, it's your daily issues, which presumably you have complete control over.

So your mess is not the fault of anyone but yourself.
Salvarus
30-05-2004, 15:33
Though I agree with Austica , he can't do anything about it unless he leaves the UN. I'm tempted to do so myself untill some system of repeal is set up.
Myrth
30-05-2004, 15:37
Austica does not accept this. The Kingdom has a Parliament and the parliament has voted unanimously to repeal the 40hr work week resolution - therefore it does not comply. Your game mechanics can apply all you like, but the fact remains we will not enforce the resolution, BECAUSE A LEGITAMATELY FORMED PARLIAMENT - that is the representatives of the people of Austica, have voted to overturn such a resolution.

It is rediculous to suggest that no UN law can be repealled - this is just plain wrong.

We repeat that we will not leave the UN, and we will not comply with the 40hr work week resolution

You can say that all you like, the UN still enforces it.
CharlotteMaria
30-05-2004, 18:24
There are no labour laws, there are no trade unions, and there is no red tape in CharlotteMaria. We are a very enterprise friendly nation. :)
CharlotteMaria
30-05-2004, 20:31
ALL UN NATIONS SHOULD SEE THIS THREAD

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149314
Kybernetia
30-05-2004, 20:58
@Kelssek,

"Just to add on. Kybernetia says that the resolution hurt his economy. Well, since the resolution passed, my economy has gone from Reasonable to Good. Why? Because it's not the resolution that's done it, it's your daily issues, which presumably you have complete control over.

So your mess is not the fault of anyone but yourself"
This is NOT TRUE. Imediatly after the resolution was passed and implemented our economy went down from thriving to strong even before we were presented with new issues.
Our good economic policy has PREVENTED FURTHER DECLINE. Many nations have reported EVEN MORE HARM TO THEIR ECONOMIES.
THIS RESOLUTION IS OUTRAGEOUS AND HAS HARMED THE ECONOMY OF MANY NATION.

IF THE UN CONTINUES IN THAT WAY WE AND MANY OTHER ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE UN.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia
Flibbleites
30-05-2004, 21:07
Apparently You don't understand the way the way the UN works, if a resoluition passes ALL members have to implement the resolution, regardless of whether they like the resolution or not. For example if the UN says that all members have to allow gay marriage, that means all members have to allow gay marriage. If the UN says that you have to allow euthanasia than you have to allow euthanasia. If the UN says that you have to allow prostitution than you have to allow prostitution. and if the UN says that if your people must be paid overtime if they work more than 40 a week, then their paid overtime if they work over 40 hours a week. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it without leaving.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites
Free Soviets
30-05-2004, 22:12
There are no labour laws, there are no trade unions, and there is no red tape in CharlotteMaria. We are a very enterprise friendly nation. :)

I suspect that members of the IWW will be making their way to CharlotteMaria to aid its oppressed workers in organizing to stand up for their rights.
Polish Warriors
31-05-2004, 04:58
For those of you who are repeal freaks and are U.N. members; we think you might just be missing one little detail and that is...IF YOU ARE IN THE U.N. ALL PASSED RESOLUTIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY APPLIED TO YOUR NATION! IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT..JUST R..E..S..I..G..N.. M'KAY?
Kelssek
31-05-2004, 05:21
Many nations have reported EVEN MORE HARM TO THEIR ECONOMIES.
[/quotw]

No, the resolution took everyone's economy down equally. Any further damage to your economy is your own fault.

[quote=Kybernetia]
THIS RESOLUTION IS OUTRAGEOUS AND HAS HARMED THE ECONOMY OF MANY NATION.


It's not outrageous at all. Most RL countries have 40 hour work weeks with similar overtime legislation. And it had little effect on us because we already had the legislation in place. Yes, the game programming means that upon passing the resolution all the UN nations' economies go down and all UN nations' "social equality" rating goes up. But to blame the resolution for any economic problems is ridiculous.

I'm really getting sick of this. You KNOW that you can't win here but you just want to protest for the sake of it.
Kybernetia
31-05-2004, 10:12
@Kelssek

"It's not outrageous at all. Most RL countries have 40 hour work weeks with similar overtime legislation."
It is outrageous and what you say is simply UNTRUE. Even the overregulated EU has only a limitation to 48 hours and it is NOT defining what work should be determined as overtime. By the way: this is the UN: It consist of developed countries as well as developing countries. You can not force such rules on developing countries. By doing so you take away the only advantage they have: cheap labour.
Such resolution in the real world would harm developing countries even more. Therefore such a resolution would never be passed in the real world.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia
Kelssek
31-05-2004, 11:04
1. This isn't the real world.

2. The EU regulates things because they're smart enough to know that capitalists can't be trusted to do the right thing by themselves when there's no incentive to. In fact, not just capitalists, everyone.
Kybernetia
31-05-2004, 11:11
@Kelssek


"1. This isn't the real world." - you have started with this real world argument, not I.

"2. The EU regulates things because they're smart enough to know that capitalists can't be trusted to do the right thing by themselves when there's no incentive to. In fact, not just capitalists, everyone."
WE STRONGLY DISAGREE. Look to the EU countries who are overregulated and look to those who have got a far more liberal and less regulated econmy. What do you see??? Stagnation and economic slowdown in overregulated France and Germany (Germanys economy is virtually at a standstill since 2001: growth rate near 0, last year - 0,1% - last place in Europe)while in Britain and Ireland and other more liberal countries the economy is still growing although of the difficult geopolitical and world economic situation.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia
Austica
31-05-2004, 12:33
The Kingdom of Austica will effective this post, remove its endorsement for its UN delegate and resign from the United Nations in protest of its arrogant and authoritarian enforcement of policies.

The United Nations has today proven that it is just like regimes like Saddam Hussien. No longer are we alowed to choose what is best for our country. Rather it is being enforced by a pro-socialist organisation.

We support the principles on which the UN was founded, but we cannot allow you to dictate to us what you want us to do.

Our nation did repeal the laws, and whether you like it or not, this has occured and you will not change it.

We shall continue to fight for the rights of those who remain in the UN.

Austica urges all like minded nations to resign from the UN in protest.

Sir John Grey MP
Prime Minister,

Signed by the King on the 31st May 2004, at the Court of St. James

Robert R.I.

King of Austica and the realms beyond the seas.
Kelssek
31-05-2004, 12:41
You're not answering my point. I'm not talking about economic growth here. I'm saying that without regulation, things rapidly go mad. Ask any Californian about how utility deregulation has worked to keep their electricity reliable and the price low. You're likely to get a punch in the mouth.

In Britain, too, utility deregulation hasn't worked. Prices have risen out of the profiteers squeezing the captive market, and many delivery systems are badly needing maintenance and repair.

And economic growth is no way to compare different economies, because economic growth disproportionately rewards the rich. And Britain has the world's second-highest child poverty rate as of March 2004, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3509886.stm 8th paragraph. Also, note the socialist-minded solution to the problem) so whatever economic growth is going on isn't benefiting the people.

And I'll stop bringing in RL stuff if you stop. I was just trying to make a point with an example, and besides you were the one who brought up France, Germany and the UK. The fact remains. Quality of life and social equality are more important than economic growth. Economic growth should be a means to achieving this, not an end. Many economic indicators are also somewhat misleading, which is how you can have a good economy with huge income gaps and widespread poverty. For example, me and Bill Gates have an average annual income of several million dollars, but it doesn't mean I have a mansion and a business empire.
Kelssek
31-05-2004, 12:47
The Kingdom of Austica will effective this post, remove its endorsement for its UN delegate and resign from the United Nations in protest of its arrogant and authoritarian enforcement of policies.


Finally, intelligence prevails.
Kybernetia
31-05-2004, 20:04
Kybernetia
31-05-2004, 20:15
@Kelssek,

"And I'll stop bringing in RL stuff if you stop. I was just trying to make a point with an example, and besides you were the one who brought up France, Germany and the UK."
You claimed that many nations in the RL have laws restricting the 40 hour week. I answered on concrete examples that this is simply untrue. Then you, who started to refer to RL accused me that I did it in response of your first comment.

"The fact remains. Quality of life and social equality are more important than economic growth."
We disagree: Only strong economies can provide conditions under which people have a good life. Even if there are big social differences: if the growth is big enough all are going to benefit (That´s the so called tripple-down effect).
We at least prefer a prosperous and rich society (with social differences) rather then a poor society, where all are equally poor (like in socialist countries - a real life example which i don´t want to make would be North Corea).
Without growth the situation of the people, especially the poor people is never going to improve.
However: we may have a different view on poverty. Under our view a person is poor if it has a income on the national poverty level.
Others measure RELATIVE POVERTY: meaning: everybody who has got less than half of the average income is considered poor. WE REJECT THIS MEASUREMENT: It only measures social differences but not poverty. EVEN IF THE INCOME OF ALL WOULD DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF POOR WOULDN`T CHANGE ACCORDING TO THIS MEASUREMENT. THEREFORE WE ARE REJECTING IT: IT IS NONSENSE.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia
Kybernetia
31-05-2004, 20:20
@Austica

"The Kingdom of Austica will effective this post, remove its endorsement for its UN delegate and resign from the United Nations in protest of its arrogant and authoritarian enforcement of policies."
We regret seeing you leaving the UN. We respect your decision. However we are sad since it increases even more the dominance of socialist nations in the UN.
We pay our respect to your nation and we wish you the best for your further development without anymore obstacles by the UN.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia
Kelssek
01-06-2004, 05:54
Even if there are big social differences: if the growth is big enough all are going to benefit (That´s the so called tripple-down effect).


The trickle-down effect, which I'm sure you're referring to, is yet another fiction dreamed up in the idealistic fantasyland of right-wing economists. This trickle-down never materialises. Since the real-world provides the only good examples everyone can relate to, I apologise for bringing them up again.

In the 1980s, the United States had good economic growth, yet the lower classes had their real incomes decrease. In South America, poverty still remains high and has even increased with recovery.

In the booming "Asian Tiger" economies of the 90s, everyone benefited from economic growth, yes. But why? Because the governments of these countries took steps to make sure that wage inequalities were kept reasonable, expanded welfare and pensions, and used tax money to fund education, so everyone had an opportunity. Oh dear, isn't that a little... socialist?

Yes, you need a good economy for poverty reduction and overall increase in standard of living, but only if you combine it with socialism to ensure everyone gets a share and opportunity. Otherwise, the money goes to the top and stays there.


(like in socialist countries - a real life example which i don´t want to make would be North Corea).


That's North Korea. And it's not true that all in North Korea are equally poor. North Korea is in fact an extreme case of social inequality. The very few wealthy people (in this case, the government higher-ups) have all the money, everyone else has almost nothing.

And North Korea is not socialist, it's communist. You seem blind to the difference.
Kybernetia
01-06-2004, 08:45
@Kelssek,

the discussion goes a bit off topic, since this thread is about the 40-hour-week. We believe in the trickle-down effect. If you are refering to real life numbers it would be crucial to know what source the numbers are coming from. After all: as I previously mentioned: how do you measure poverty? Do you take the "national poverty level", which is defined for every nation seperatly or do you just measure "relative" poverty, meaning all who earn less than half of the average are considered poor. As we previously mentioned we REJECT THE LATTER definition. That is not about poverty but such about social differences.
And by the way: it is also important not to mix relative numbers with absolute numbers. For example: the world population is now more than 6 billion. The annual growth rate is ONLY approximatly 1,35% (compared to more than 2% in the 70s and 80s). Population growth went down significantly. As well as the percentage of poor people. Not the absolute numbers but the RELATIVE numbers.
Countries who are suffering severe poverty are not capitalist countries. That are countries who are not participating in globalisation, countries that are trapped in civil wars and ethnic conflicts.
Countries who have opened up are benefiting from it: China, South-East Asia, India, also parts of Latin America and today also Russia.
This process of opening up went hand in hand with deregulating the markets, or in other word: LESS and not more socialism.
Compared to the wage inequalities in China and the rest of Asia the wage inqualities in the U.S. or the UK are ridiculous (the are very very small in comparison).
We see wage equalities as justified since the market is the only effective instrument to determine the price of a good or service (or labour).
Government has no right to interfere in the free market.
We are just providing three thing, as Adam Smith the liberal economist of the 19th century recommended: internal and external security, infrastructure (streets, trains), and schools and universities.

Everything else we leave completly to the private sector.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia
Kelssek
01-06-2004, 12:42
Countries who are suffering severe poverty are not capitalist countries. That are countries who are not participating in globalisation, countries that are trapped in civil wars and ethnic conflicts.

Countries who have opened up are benefiting from it: China, South-East Asia, India, also parts of Latin America and today also Russia.


You've got to be kidding. China still runs on communist ideals and got to where it was by doing almost the OPPOSITE of what the IMF told the countries it bailed out to do. China keeps its economy under tight control and is now trying to slow down economic growth so that inflation doesn't skyrocket.

India, despite economic growth, is still a country where 300 million, which is 30% of their population and more than the total population of the United States, live below the poverty line (an income of less that US$1 a day). If that's not severe poverty, I don't know what is.

And all the others you named are basket cases, directly as a result of free-market reforms. Latin America is still reeling, their cities full of slums. Before the complete implosion of Argentina's economy recently, they were the IMF's star pupil, the only success in their string of failures from Russia to Indonesia. Right-wing economics didn't work for any of them.

South-east Asia is still recovering from the IMF's imposition of free trade policies which just made things worse. Bits of Indonesia are seceding and rioting, and the entire country is ready to explode. Thailand is only just recovering, due to... you guessed it, social reforms, which were certainly helped by the voting in of a rich businessman as Prime Minister, after which he put part of his personal fortune into welfare programs and national investments. Malaysia weathered the storm by taking its currency off the free market and pegging it to the US dollar, the opposite of what the IMF wanted, which was to lift capital controls.

The worst poverty, however, is in sub-Saharan Africa. There's a lot more on their minds, like not starving to death or dying of water-borne disease, to be worrying about capitalism or making money. And as a result of famine and environmental degradation, not civil wars or ethnic conflicts.

Free markets don't work. Capitalism certainly works, but only when it's kept under government regulation to make sure that the environment and social order isn't destroyed by the mad rush for profit. Can I tell you a country that has done that? Sure. The United States of America, home of capitalism.


Government has no right to interfere in the free market.


On the contrary, we believe that the government has the duty to interfere to ensure product safety standards are met, that workers are treated fairly and work in a safe environment, and to ensure social equality, which in turn prevents civil unrest, which, believe me, is a lot worse for business than regulation is.
Ecopoeia
01-06-2004, 15:00
Ecopoeia
01-06-2004, 15:01
"The government has no right to interfere in the market"

Here is the perfect example of ideology allowed to run wild. The market is not a tangible entity with rights of its own (in this case the right of inviolability), it is - if anything - a tool, a means of making lives better. If it fails to do this, it is not worth a thing.