NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: This resolution is part of the
‘A pro-business resolution’ (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352950) scheme. As such, this will be a ‘free trade’ resolution.

This resolution has not yet been submitted. There will be a period where you can comment on this resolution and suggest improvements. For discussion on the fundamental need for a pro-business resolution or: go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352950)

Below you will find the draft text of the resolution. Thank you for your time.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman, new Knootian UN representative


Promoting Part-time work.
Part-time work is work for less than the standard number of hours; often only for one or a few days of the week. Part-time work enables people who are unable to take a full-time job (because they have to take care of children or older people) to participate on the labour market. Not only does part-time work empower the individual, it will also increase the labour pool, reduce unemployment and make the labour market as a whole more flexible.

Therefore, the United Nations will set up a promotional campaign in all its member nations. The objectives of this campaign will be:
-To promote the creation of of new part-time work by employers and the government.
-To promote part-time work, especially for women, as an alternative to not working at all.
-To promote options for combining care with part-time work and facilitating this by supporting institutions such as day-care.

The objective of this campaign shall not be the replacement of full-time jobs by part-time jobs.

The UN will
1 Lobby national legislatures and employers, and work actively with member governments to provide advice on how they can support part-time work
2) Coordinate national promotional campaigns designed to convince both potential employers and employees of the benefits of part-time work.
3) Set up a knowledge centre for the implementation of day-care and provide UN member states with information on how best to implement it in their nation.
4) Set up a committee responsible for benchmarking and reviewing the progress of member nations in the implementation of this resolution.

Thread split.

Okay. Good to start again with a clean sheet. Some people have replied to the old, split-off thread and I will reply to them later on.

Well, actually, part time work means more total employees, which means more paperwork. This increases bureacracy, and doesn't encourage more business.

It has also been proven that Full Time employees are more productive overall, use less training dollars per unit of work and output, are more loyal...

Nix on this one, it will not help business growth.

Well, actually, part time work means more total employees, which means more paperwork. This increases bureacracy, and doesn't encourage more business]

It has also been proven that Full Time employees are more productive overall, use less training dollars per unit of work and output, are more loyal...

Again, this proposal is not about replacing all full time jobs with part time jobs. Some jobs can be done better in part-time then full-time simply because the need for a full-time job is not there. (Especially in small businesses and in services!) For example, as a student I have a job right now where I tutor a bit and help children do their homework and such after school in a studycentre at peak hours. Yes, it is true that someone who works there full-time is probably more productive. However another full-time employee would be unaffordable so instead I get to help when it is busy. I make some money, the children are happy. It is win-win for both my employer and for me. This principle can apply equally to people who are housewives for example.

Also, I would not say that it is always true that part-time workers are less productive. A part-time employee can specialise more, or just account for 'surplus' need above that of full-time workers in flexible economies where the lives of human. I think you are putting away a group of people there who can contribute very usefully to society but does not do this at this point. Or would you rather say to all women "Well... your men do the full-time work because we have decided that part-time working is not as productive. You should simply keep to having babies and cleaning the house?" I think not. Still, many women (also some men, of course) do not want to work full time.

There is no forced cutting jobs in two in this proposal. This proposal attempts to remove barriers for commerce caused by traditions and ideas about the role of females in society as well as old nineteenth century ideas about there only being standardised full-time jobs. That was in the time of the assembly line. A new, postmodern, globalising and service-oriented 24-hour economy needs new ways of working. Standardised workweeks are not some eternal principle of human history.

Key points:
-Businesses will only hire part-time workers if it is profitable for them. They will not be forced.
-People can choose to work part-time for all sorts of reasons. Their job will not be cut in two. New people will become availiable to do more work where they could not do it before. Other people might choose to 'ease out' and work a bit less if they feel so inclined. (Time that can be spent to consume.)

Pending further discussion with my government, my initial inclination is to support this proposal.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Just one problem. Although this proposal is aimed at improving the economy, I'm not sure that it's really "free trade", because it has little to do with increasing economic freedoms.

Just one problem. Although this proposal is aimed at improving the economy, I'm not sure that it's really "free trade", because it has little to do with increasing economic freedoms.

OOC: My smart-ass persona just can't help it...

IC: Ah, yes. That's right. Having the freedom to have a job hardly constitutes an economic freedom. I mean, there's obviously no connection between jobs and the economy. ;)

I always saw free trade proposals as lifting government-imposed restrictions on trade and businesses. This lifts no such restrictions, therefore isn't technically free trade.

I always saw free trade proposals as lifting government-imposed restrictions on trade and businesses. This lifts no such restrictions, therefore isn't technically free trade.

That's how I always saw free trade too, but there are no other categories for pro-business resolutions that I know of, so we're pretty much stuck with that category. If it makes you happy, you can report your concerns to the Mods when it gets proposed and maybe they'll delete it for you.

Yeah. Deleting proposals will surely make a lot of people happy. :mad:

Let me explain why I think this is a free trade proposal:

The description of the issue:
Free Trade proposals lift barriers for commerce [and trade].

I am saying that this proposal lifts barriers for commerce.

My assumption is that free trade is good for commerce. (You can disagree, but this is my assumption and it is the basis for this resolution. It links the issue to commerce.)
The 'barriers' this programme seeks to lower (probably not eliminate) are not tariffs, but a system of rules and regulations preventing part-time work. Other barriers are cultural: women may be very used to it being their role not to work. Part-time work may simply be a relatively unknown phenomenon. Employers (especially small businesses) may not have enough information about part-time work. A nation might barely have daycare.

The barriers to the economically profitable (again, my assumption) practice of part-time work, in this case, are informational, cultural, governmental and practical. The proposal seeks to reduce these barriers.

However, if you look at the effects of the resolution it clearly belongs in the ‘Free Trade’ category.

Free trade proposals raise economic freedoms
Free trade proposals are good for the economy


This proposal raises economic freedoms: more available choices and possibilities for both employers and employees.
Free trade proposals are good for the economy: I believe this proposal would be good for the economy.


Classifying it as a social justice proposal (for example) would not make sense since the measure is not designed to reduce (economic) inequality. It *might* reduce economic inequality but this is totally dependent on flanking policies (such as free daycare or combining it with uberprogressive taxes and free insurance or whatever) and I wish to leave these flanking policies up to member states to avoid ballooning this resolution to a Total Reform Package that would seriously infringe upon national sovereignty. Again, its an informational and promotional campaign. Very much unlike “40 hour workweek” which seriously infringed upon national sovereignty. Social justice resolutions also increase taxes whereas this resolution will not. Social justice resolutions are bad for the economy whereas this resolution is not. Therefore, making this a social justice resolution is ridiculous.

Classifying it as a ‘human rights’ proposal is also inappropriate, since the freedoms that are promoted are economic freedoms rather then social Rights.

I agree that it takes some explaining to make it fit, but ‘Free Trade’ certainly fits this resolution proposal better then any other NS category.

Whilst I understand the distinction the honourable member from Knootoss is trying to convey, I must unfortunately admit I remain unconvinced. Yes the proposal does focus on an economic area, but by your own argument aims to change a cultural prejudice. This means that this proposal focuses on changing cultural attitudes towards women in the workplace and as far as I can see makes this either a ‘Social Justice’ or at best a ‘Human Rights’ proposal. The fact that it focuses on an economic area in my humble opinion is therefore purely incidental. I do however remain open to be convinced otherwise.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia

The Democratic States of Anthronesia can see how this proposal could be viewed as in the interests of free trade, however we wish to make the following observations.

Firstly, lobbying for a particular practice of trade is not a matter of the general assembly, which passes matters of law. Effectively, this proposal asks the UN to engage in moderately forceful coercive action of domestic governments. Such could be considered to be an improper act on the part of the United Nations (beyond the normal regulatory role that the UN is intended to have in this situation) and as such could be considered a breach of sovereignty.

If the UN wishes to increase the number of part-time positions, perhaps there should be a proposal introducing industry subsidies for increases in part-time positions in certain areas (with an accompanying private funding proposal).

Secondly, we reccomend that the role of women in the workplace be worked as a part of a separate proposal. By linking the role of women with part-time work only in the resolutions of the General Assembly, there is the distinct possibility of extending any existing cultural attitudes toward working women to all part-time workers. Also, it is the position of Anthronesia that women in the workplace should feel equally free to enter into full or part-time positions. Mentioning women in the workplace only in reference to part-time positions does not represent this attitude, which Anthronesia also believes to be held by many of the other member nations of the General Assembly.

Thirdly, the proposed resolution does not call for any definitive action on the part of member nations. Promotion does not necessarily equal action. Anthronesia holds that business is already patently aware of the part-time/full-time distinction and current arrangements are a response to market demands and incentives. To promote part-time work these demands and incentives need to be addressed, rather than running the risk of promoting part-time work to no end with business.

Finally, the promotion of part-time work may cause adverse effects for the economy of Anthronesia. The dissolution of full-time positions, which is a potential outcome of the successfuly promotion of part-time positions, will cause serious financial disadvantage to a significant proporition of the citizens of Anthronesia.

As a result, Anthronesia could not support the proposed resolution in its current form.

Yes the proposal does focus on an economic area, but by your own argument aims to change a cultural prejudice. This means that this proposal focuses on changing cultural attitudes towards women in the workplace and as far as I can see makes this either a ‘Social Justice’ or at best a ‘Human Rights’ proposal. The fact that it focuses on an economic area in my humble opinion is therefore purely incidental. I do however remain open to be convinced otherwise.

Reducing cultural barriers = a (not "the") MEANS
Increasing economic freedom and reducing barriers for commerce = the GOAL
If you look at what this resolution would do, you see that it does not fit into 'social justice'. Why do you think 'at best' btw? Is there a preference for your nation involved here?


Firstly, lobbying for a particular practice of trade is not a matter of the general assembly, which passes matters of law. Effectively, this proposal asks the UN to engage in moderately forceful coercive action of domestic governments. Such could be considered to be an improper act on the part of the United Nations (beyond the normal regulatory role that the UN is intended to have in this situation) and as such could be considered a breach of sovereignty.

If the UN wishes to increase the number of part-time positions, perhaps there should be a proposal introducing industry subsidies for increases in part-time positions in certain areas (with an accompanying private funding proposal).
Information is a tool to make policy. Every single government uses information as a tool. This proposal authorises the setting up of a campaign.

I would tend to think that introducing industry subsidies would be way more coercive then just spreading information. But from the rest of your post I an tell that you are not in favour of this proposal anyway, no?


Secondly, we reccomend that the role of women in the workplace be worked as a part of a separate proposal. By linking the role of women with part-time work only in the resolutions of the General Assembly, there is the distinct possibility of extending any existing cultural attitudes toward working women to all part-time workers. Also, it is the position of Anthronesia that women in the workplace should feel equally free to enter into full or part-time positions. Mentioning women in the workplace only in reference to part-time positions does not represent this attitude, which Anthronesia also believes to be held by many of the other member nations of the General Assembly.

If you want to make a resolution on women in the workplace, be my guest. I agree completely that women and men should both feel equally free to enter part-time positions. This is also the case here in this DDR.

You'll note part time work is promoted as an alternative to not working at all.
However women are more likely not to work at all, and this proposal does mention them to highlight this problem. This will, in my belief, provide better understanding to the nature of the resolution.

I will add a line about this proposal not meaning to replace full-time jobs.


Thirdly, the proposed resolution does not call for any definitive action on the part of member nations. Promotion does not necessarily equal action. Anthronesia holds that business is already patently aware of the part-time/full-time distinction and current arrangements are a response to market demands and incentives. To promote part-time work these demands and incentives need to be addressed, rather than running the risk of promoting part-time work to no end with business.
Astute observation. I submit, however, that businesses are not completely rational economic actors but that they function in a cultural environment.

Also, you'll note that this resolutiuon does call for an integral approach, working with employers, employed and the government to provide an environment that is conductive to the creation of new part-time jobs.


Finally, the promotion of part-time work may cause adverse effects for the economy of Anthronesia. The dissolution of full-time positions, which is a potential outcome of the successfuly promotion of part-time positions, will cause serious financial disadvantage to a significant proporition of the citizens of Anthronesia.
Full time jobs will not be "dissoluted". How many more times will I have to say this?

Added:

"The objective of this campaign shall not be the replacement of full-time jobs by part-time jobs."

While you're correct that the proposed resolution doesn't dictate that full-time positions must or should be replaced with part-time positions, this is a logical forseeable effect of the legislation.

One question I have is will the United Nations by subsidising the creation of these new positions, or will business be expected to carry the burden of employment of positions that they may not necessarily need. If we're not talking about converting current full-time positions to part-time positions (which can be cheaper, and can give a negotiating advantage to employers given a larger pool of potential employees and a possibly lack of union activity), then why would stable businesses create part-time positions above and beyond their current business activities?

I realise that business are becoming less and less the rational actors of bare economic theory, but they still have to respond to market pressures to a significant degree.

Anthronesia is not in support of this proposal, but is sensitive to the spirit of free trade and economic freedoms, as well as the right of its citizens to have ample opportunity to live off their earnings. Our secondary concern is whether this proposal will adversal affect the lives of those of our citizens currently in full-time employment (second to whether this legislation will achieve the desired aim by mere promotion and lobbying).

Our main concern with mentioning women here, is that this would be the only place that we're aware of (other than in the Bill of Rights by extension) that women are mentioned explicitly with relatoin to a certain role. Perhaps community education would be an appropriate consideration for this proposal, rather than business education, thus potentially adjusting the demand for part-time positions.