NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: Aware that sometimes, all choices we face are an illusion, but nonetheless strongly believing that as humans, we are entitled to make them ourselves, Reiterating that freedom of choice is a defining element of our very humanity and the inalienable right of all humanity, Alarmed that there are those among us who seek to limit our ability to choose, including but not limited to political, educational and consumer choice, Further alarmed that individuals can be influenced and their ability to decide limited through cultural conditioning, Deeply disturbed that the practice of subliminal advertising appears to erode the fundamental human trait of free will, Noting with concern that in the wider world, the populations of entire nations repeat non sequitors issued by the State and remain in profound ignorance of the world around them, Recalling the Resolution "Universal Bill of Rights" and Articles 1, 2 and 3 in particular, Approving of past Resolutions restricting personal freedoms in the interests of moral decency, Stressing that humanity has an innate curiosity about the world, and welcoming all efforts to permit this curiosity to reach its full potential, 1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society; is a happier, more content and more productive society;

By limiting peoples workweek we took away the very choice we protected in march.

How exactly do working hours fall under 'philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world' ?

The resultion on choice did not specify what type of choices were going to be protected. But it does say as I highlighted in bold that allowing such choices allow for greater productivity. Surely allowing people the choice to work over 40 hours is something that results in greater productivity.

On a side note, I had a poll on this subject and it was removed. Anyone know why?

Travis

Or you could consider the fact that by allowing people more time away from work, you are allowing them more time to develop socially and culturally, and beocme aware of the world.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Nations,

I have been watching the latest resolution on the 40 hour work week and it seems to have cuased quite a stir. Some seem to agree that limiting the work week is good, some say it's bad:

Working more does not necessarily translate to higher productivity. I work for 80 hours and build one automobile. A human - in concert with machines/robotics - creates a car in 40 hours. The time is different, the production is not.

Working less, in the reverse, does not usually translate into higher social dividends. If I only work 40 hours a week, what do I do the rest of the time? Engaging in aesthetic pursuits/scientific pursuits is a great response, however, is this not work?

You see, work seems to be thought of as 'bad,' when in actuality it is one way a human defines who they are - by what they create. Setting an amount of time on this creativity is ridiculous - for both setting a maximum and a minimum.

Also, what is your definition or work? Is it different from career? Task? Job? Work should be defined first before we argue what limiting/expanding it can do. No one was mentioning this except in very loose examples (i.e., either working on a oil rig or work in the military.).

What should have been set was a resolution to grant individuals the time to do meaningful work and expand their creativity - as this is both good for the economy and social networks. Or - better still - you should have proposed a resolution on the living wage, thus creating some equity and some form of living for when you returned from 'work.'

One of the reasons why I hate the UN (NS) is everything is way too fast. However, this would change the mechanics and I would be in the wrong for suggesting it.

Just my gripes, ;)

Regards

Give it up. The resolution has passed. It's law.


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

Or you could consider the fact that by allowing people more time away from work, you are allowing them more time to develop socially and culturally, and beocme aware of the world.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

I belive the reason it rubbed so many nations wrong, was not that it 'allowed' people to have more time away from work, it was because it -forced- people to take time away from work. There is a big difference there, one that caused at least Ilcaris to oppose the resolution.

Wether the resolution was against previous resolutiosn or not, I cannot say, though it does depend on whom is interpreting the preveious resolutions. I doubt the admins would actually recall the previous resolution for any reason.

Give it up. The resolution has passed. It's law.

Is it? The resolution giving individuals freedom to chose for themselves was passed first and was considered law. Now it is no longer true becuase the 40 hour workweek repealed it. People no longer are free to chose to work a minute over 40 hours except when the UN permits it. Whether this makes society more productive or not is not really even that important, what is important is that some people beleive it makes them more productive and given previous UN resolutions they have a right that is supposed to be protected by the UN to be FREE TO CHOSE how many hours they work. Instead the UN has attacked their right to chose.

Give it up. The resolution has passed. It's law.

Is it? The resolution giving individuals freedom to chose for themselves was passed first and was considered law. Now it is no longer true becuase the 40 hour workweek repealed it. People no longer are free to chose to work a minute over 40 hours except when the UN permits it. Whether this makes society more productive or not is not really even that important, what is important is that some people beleive it makes them more productive and given previous UN resolutions they have a right that is supposed to be protected by the UN to be FREE TO CHOSE how many hours they work. Instead the UN has attacked their right to chose.

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others

Overworking causes stress and exhaustion, which can lead to psychological disorder.

1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society; is a happier, more content and more productive society;

It doesn't say "prevents the UN from making any decision that might potentially impede someone's freedom or productivity".

How can the UN be urging nations to recognize freedom of choice when they are REQUIRING nations to prevent people from working over 40 hours? If an entity is to urge another entity, it must not be requiring the opposite.

That is like telling a kid, "i really think you should look both ways before crossing the street", and then blindfolding the same kid and shoving him into an interstate.

In other words the UN is NOT urging anyone to promote choice by passing the latest resolution.

As for Myrths comments... Overworking may cause stress and exhaustion which could lead to a pyschological disorder however so could not letting people work over 40 hours. But in BOTH cases it is not DIRECTLY causing physical or phychological harm.

Travis

People no longer are free to chose to work a minute over 40 hours

It appears that the delegate from Okanogan is suffering from a minor reading disability as this is flatly contradicted by the text of the 40 Hour Workweek.

Seriously guys, it's time to surrender. You lost. It's ok, it happens.

How can the UN be urging nations to recognize freedom of choice when they are REQUIRING nations to prevent people from working over 40 hours? If an entity is to urge another entity, it must not be requiring the opposite.

That is like telling a kid, "i really think you should look both ways before crossing the street", and then blindfolding the same kid and shoving him into an interstate.

Actually, it's more like saying "we should spread peace and freedom throughout the world", and then declaring war and imprisoning enemy soldiers. The two are not entirely inconsistent - one can believe that generally freedom is a good thing and still oppose, say, the freedom to burn down crowded movie theaters.

The first resolution says, loosely, "UN members should recognize that freedom of choice is a good thing", whereas the second resolution says "employers shall have no freedom of choice wherein requiring longer working hours are considered".

See, I looked at this issue as one that does not control and take away freedoms, rather, it ensures more people of quality jobs. If a normal work day was 40 hours and people were given the opportunity for overtime at time and a half for say 20 hours, that's more money the company would have to pay that 1 worker when the company could hire a part-time worker and pay regular wages as opposed to time and a half. And if 2 people were cut of overtime, then that would create 1 full time job, for example. This way, more people have jobs, thereby reducing unemployment while also keeping the company's cost for workers down but not having to pay time and a half which will overall help the economy.

Plus, parents are now freed to spend more time with their children, being able to take an active role in their education, something children desperately need! Or for couples without children to spend time with each other or singles to find time to pursue relationships or other hobbies.

"Seriously guys, it's time to surrender. You lost. It's ok, it happens."


This could not better capsulate the essence of the UN: A COMPLETE lack of UNITY, as it is clear it's based on winners and losers when it comes to who benefits from resolutions.

Where in hell is the Unity?

This could not better capsulate the essence of the UN: A COMPLETE lack of UNITY, as it is clear it's based on winners and losers when it comes to who benefits from resolutions.

Where in hell is the Unity?

there will always be clear winners and losers from resolutions. we've got fascists and anarchists, stalinists and free marketeers, and people who just like trees all mashed into one huge world governing body. the nations of the UN will never all agree on something, the things that we value are contradictory.

but it is a completely voluntary organization, so that's not actually a problem.

I am sorry I was not as precise as I should have been. You are correct that people have the right to work over 40 hours. what I should have said was that people are not free to chose to enter into contracts that require them to work more than 40 hours.

The examples you all are trying to compare this to work your way out of it being in conflict with free choice is kinda twisted if I do say so myself. The free choice resolution makes it quite clear that it does not grant people the freedom to harm others. But two people agreeing to work 41 hours is not harming anyone in any way, yet this 40 hour workweek is restricting individuals CHOICE. Attacking this choice is not at all similar to stopping the freedom to blow up a theater or killing an enemy solider to preserve peace. It is preventing an agreement between two private citizens that harms no one.

I understand that the 40 hour work week resolution is lost. I am just not sure it ever should have been voted on to begin with.

Give it up. The resolution has passed. It's law.

I'm going to restrain myself and say only :

LISTEN TO THE MAN !

Please ?

- 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 ... "

40 work hour work week does not mean lower productivity....true...its the efficiency. but wad about small nations? small nations with labour intensive industry and new nations have the technology to replace the lost human labour???

By limiting peoples workweek we took away the very choice we protected in march.

The workweek is limited anyway (to 168 hours a week), but quite apart from that, the 40hour workweek resolution allowed for people to work more voluntarily.

So the choice is still there.

Regards,

PRoGG UN Ambassador