NationStates Jolt Archive

First Draft:

The Universal Workers Rights Act

Type: Social Justice Strength: (not sure)

ALARMED BY the wide disparity in wages and working conditions between member states.

CONCERNED that these discrepancies are exploited by unscrupulous individuals.

OBSERVING that these discrepancies negatively affect those in the poorest of each member nation the most.

CONFIRMS that all workers have a set of basic inviolable rights

NOTES that these Rights include:
The right to fair wages.
The right to fair compensation for injuries sustained on the job.
The right to a safe and sanitary workplace.
The right of sick leave.
The right to quit a job with no notice, unless contractually obligated.
The right for maternity leave for women.
The right to demand a reason for severance.

TAKES NOTE THAT not every workplace can be completely safe.

CALLS FOR the enforcement of these rights by all member nations.

DECLARES ACCORDINGLY the formation of the United Nations Labor Rights Organization (UNLRO) who purpose is to insure enforcement of these rights.

NOTES that creation of the UNLRO will take time and recourses.

REGRETS the negative economic impact on developing nations

AND NOTES that this bill will not override more comprehensive rights already enacted by member nations.

Technical comments would be appriciated. Any rights you think I should Add/Remove.

I'm not sure what strength to make this.

Any constructive comments would be appriciated.

I would really apreaciate a review or a comment. do you feel I should rewrite this or something. Any comments are welcome.

i agree with this fully, although the maternaty right should be able to encompass the woman during and after pregnacy, but also be allowed for fathers/spouces after pregnancy, if the woman wants to return to work.

"The right for maternity leave for women" is sexist, and as such makes the proposal illegal as it is sexually discriminatory.

"The right for maternity leave for women" is sexist, and as such makes the proposal illegal as it is sexually discriminatory.
:confused:
Should we give maternity leave to men too?

:confused:
Should we give maternity leave to men too?
No, they get paternity leave.:D

No, they get paternity leave.:D
that is what i was meaning when i suggested the alteration. some women want to have the baby, then return to work, and some fathers want to raise them for the first few years.

also, please remember Vestiva, this is a draft, not an actuall submitted proposal. the draftee is asking for any alterations or additions, so to decide firmly on it either way now is stupid.

that is what i was meaning when i suggested the alteration. some women want to have the baby, then return to work, and some fathers want to raise them for the first few years.

also, please remember Vestiva, this is a draft, not an actuall submitted proposal. the draftee is asking for any alterations or additions, so to decide firmly on it either way now is stupid.
I've had teachers take paternity leave before. The maternity leave for the mother is up, so they take a break to help raise the kid during the first year or so. Definitely seems more fair, in my eyes. Yes, females obviously need a break to do the whole birthing and recovery thing, but the idea that fathers can't "mother" a child is so 20th century ...

My only other comment would be to offer some sort of definition of fair. Obviously don't give specific numbers, but perhaps make a reference at some point about how "fair" is to be measured as being in line with other similar positions within the nation and/or in accordance with specific national guidelines? It's late, so I'm not thinking clearly, but that could use a bit more clarification, in my mind.

We have not decided, "firmly" or otherwise - we pointed out a problem.

You must give maternity AND paternity leave, otherwise it is sexist and discriminatory.

Considering our usual response to proposals, pointing a single difficulty was rather lax. We apologize.


CALLS FOR the enforcement of these rights by all member nations.

How about "HEREBY REQUIRES the rigorous enforcement of these rights within all member nations"


DECLARES ACCORDINGLY the formation of the United Nations Labor Rights Organization (UNLRO) who purpose is to insure enforcement of these rights.

NOTES that creation of the UNLRO will take time and recourses.

REGRETS the negative economic impact on developing nations

Not necessary - all three can be cut out.

In point of fact, not including yet another committee (and thereby reducing or removing the tax obligation, as it will be internally enforced) will probably increase the votes for when (and if) it hits quorum.

First Draft:



Technical comments would be appriciated. Any rights you think I should Add/Remove.

I'm not sure what strength to make this.

Any constructive comments would be appriciated.

It's not often I come out on the side of management in these discussions - this might be the only time infact! - but there is a lot of vague wording in the proposal that could lead to horrible things happening.

Specifically :-

The right to sick leave - you don't indicate what amount of sick leave and so on. So it's not beyond reason that someone could claim sick leave for six months of the year, making the position of the management almost untennable. You also don't indicate whether or not proof is require for sick leave, so someone could sit at home just phoning in sick every day without ever having to show that they are sick.

The right to a safe and sanitary work place. Does this apply to the armed forces? Cause it would mean sending someone out on to a battlefield would become iimpossible, as that will never be safe and almost certainly never be sanitary. Further more those who work in the sewers are never going to get a sanitary work place. Steps can be taken to make sure they don't catch anything, but that does not necessarily relate to a sanitary work place.

Compensation - does there have to be any legal finding in this? Or can someone go in to work, drop a monitor on their foot and then sue the company? If it is the fault of the company the person got injured, then yeah - I am all for compensation. But if the person is clumsy or just stupid (for want of a better phrase) and decides to jump down the stairs, why should the company be required to give him recompense for this?

Just to add balance - problems from the perspective of the workers...

The right for maternity leave - without the right for paternity leave this is in violation of the resolution "Rights of Minorities and Women" and thus illegal.

The right to demand a reason for severence - this is more or less pointless, because it does not say the reason has to be good, or even legal. All it means is you can ask your employer "why did you fire me?" and he can say "cause I dislike you" and that will have fulfilled the obligations of this right.


I am a firm believer in workers' rights - the 40 Hour Work Week and Labour Unions for example - but while it is important that the rights of the workers' to fair treament must be upheld, it must not go so far that the workers can hold the company to ransom for the smallest things, because in the end not only does it screw over the management, but it also screws over the company and all the other workers suffer.

I am a firm believer in workers' rights - the 40 Hour Work Week and Labour Unions for example - but while it is important that the rights of the workers' to fair treament must be upheld, it must not go so far that the workers can hold the company to ransom for the smallest things, because in the end not only does it screw over the management, but it also screws over the company and all the other workers suffer.

I agree with you. This was just my rough draft for this proposal. Thats the reason I included the formation of the UNLRO to set standards such as fair wages, reasonable sick leave, etc. I don't know what every countries average wages are, and how their court system works. Also I think the acts of Mass stupitity is covered under the Common Sence Act II its one of the earlier resolutions. Thank you all for your comments. I'm off to write a second draft. Awayyyyyyy!!!!!!

First Draft:



Technical comments would be appriciated. Any rights you think I should Add/Remove.

I'm not sure what strength to make this.

Any constructive comments would be appriciated.
well, you askid for it!


The Universal Workers Rights Act

Type: Social Justice Strength: (not sure)

ALARMED BY the wide disparity in wages and working conditions between member states.

CONCERNED that these discrepancies are exploited by unscrupulous individuals.

OBSERVING that these discrepancies negatively affect those in the poorest of each member nation the most.

CONFIRMS that all workers have a set of basic inviolable rights
Well, not so much inviolable. And the use of the word "confirms" is a non-sequiter" - you're not confirming anything previously said.


NOTES that these Rights include:
The right to fair wages.
Is there an economic system that doesn't provide this? I mean, even feudalism? See, in feudalism, the guys with weapons and training agree not to chop your head off if you give them 1/5 of your harvest. That's pretty fair. Slavery is outlawed by the UN, so I dare you to come up with an example of unfair wages in some economic system. Then the fisking will really begin!


The right to fair compensation for injuries sustained on the job.
Oh wait, I've already done the "fair" thing, haven't I?


The right to a safe and sanitary workplace.
Wrong. Soldiers don't have a right to a safe workplace. Neither do Firefighters. Neither do drug dealers.
Sanitation workers don't have a right to a sanitary landfill. Prostitutes do, but doctors don't.

The right of sick leave.
You're sick, you leave - you're fired! How's that for compliance?
You need to understand that many players here will twist wording just because it's a game. This "right" is totally inoperative as worded.


The right to quit a job with no notice, unless contractually obligated.
Talk about an inoperative "right"!


The right for maternity leave for women.
Of course, we don't want them delivering babies in the office and messing up the floor.


The right to demand a reason for severance.
No such right exists, nor should one.


TAKES NOTE THAT not every workplace can be completely safe.
How about, "no workplace can be completely safe"? How about either striking that clause about a right to a safe workplace, or changing it to say something about reasonable precautions?


CALLS FOR the enforcement of these rights by all member nations.
I should nuke you just for that line.


DECLARES ACCORDINGLY the formation of the United Nations Labor Rights Organization (UNLRO) who purpose is to insure enforcement of these rights.

NOTES that creation of the UNLRO will take time and recourses.

REGRETS the negative economic impact on developing nations
Whoa! Whoa! This is going to cost me money? This is going to degrade my economic performance?

Whoa! I think you better put some numbers in here.



AND NOTES that this bill will not override more comprehensive rights already enacted by member nations.
Notes? Which ones? and why is AND capitalized?
How is a right enacted? Laws are enacted.
How does this bill not override previous legislation?

Is there an economic system that doesn't provide this? I mean, even feudalism? See, in feudalism, the guys with weapons and training agree not to chop your head off if you give them 1/5 of your harvest. That's pretty fair. Slavery is outlawed by the UN, so I dare you to come up with an example of unfair wages in some economic system. Then the fisking will really begin!

How about replacing it with the right to a 'living wage' as set by UNLO? That gives you plenty to work with - and if you really wanted you could put in a clause about the invalidity of contracts obtained by coercion, and then feudalism is ruled out too.

Wrong. Soldiers don't have a right to a safe workplace. Neither do Firefighters. Neither do drug dealers.
Sanitation workers don't have a right to a sanitary landfill. Prostitutes do, but doctors don't.

No, but soldiers do get danger money - in jobs where there is an unavoidable danger, there is some reflection of that, financial or otherwise, in the contract. On the other hand, a clause about criminal negligence or corporate killing would clear this up - something like...'Workers have the right to a) Be informed about any risks they incur in the course of their employment, b) Workers have the right to financial renumeration if they sustain harm at work which makes them unable to work further, c) Workers have the right to seek compensation should they sustian harm at the workplace through their employer's negligence'

Or something like that. You could even put in something about harrassment in the workplace.

No such right exists, nor should one.

It does exist - just rephrase it as 'right to fair dismissal' and you have a very real right.


Whoa! Whoa! This is going to cost me money? This is going to degrade my economic performance?

I don' think you need to make any mention of economic performance - this is a bill about rights, surely?

Not sure though - if you really wanted you could say it wouldn't necessarily cost money, as healthy, well-paid workers tend to work more, more productively, and retire later - cf. retirement ages in Scandanavia.

No, but soldiers do get danger money - in jobs where there is an unavoidable danger, there is some reflection of that, financial or otherwise, in the contract. On the other hand, a clause about criminal negligence or corporate killing would clear this up - something like...'Workers have the right to a) Be informed about any risks they incur in the course of their employment, b) Workers have the right to financial renumeration if they sustain harm at work which makes them unable to work further, c) Workers have the right to seek compensation should they sustian harm at the workplace through their employer's negligence'


I am not convinced that soldiers should be compensated for being shot during war time.


Or something like that. You could even put in something about harrassment in the workplace.


That should be dealt with :}


It does exist - just rephrase it as 'right to fair dismissal' and you have a very real right.


Ah - that is not the same thing. Demanding a reason from someone is not the same as ensuring that reason is fair.

You could even put in something about harrassment[sic] in the workplace.

Are we talking about sexual harassment, ethnic harassment, or performance harassment?

Some would argue that it is the job of management to harass underlings to better productivity. Not a view that the ambassador from Asshelmetta hold with respect to his underlings, but certainly the view of some of the ambassador's superiors.

With respect to sexual harassment, the ambassador from Asshelmetta encourages it on all levels.

All female subordinates are strongly advised to sexually harass the ambassador, and the ambassador's manager is likewise encouraged.

The right to sick leave - you don't indicate what amount of sick leave and so on. So it's not beyond reason that someone could claim sick leave for six months of the year, making the position of the management almost untennable. You also don't indicate whether or not proof is require for sick leave, so someone could sit at home just phoning in sick every day without ever having to show that they are sick.

You can't limit sickness to x days or months, really. However, the wording is suitably vague for nations to be able to do so, as well as require proof. But perhaps it could be limited as in "the right to a reasonable time of sick leave".

The right to a safe and sanitary work place. Does this apply to the armed forces? Cause it would mean sending someone out on to a battlefield would become iimpossible, as that will never be safe and almost certainly never be sanitary. Further more those who work in the sewers are never going to get a sanitary work place. Steps can be taken to make sure they don't catch anything, but that does not necessarily relate to a sanitary work place.

Again, "reasonably safe" might be better. You can't cover all possible situations, but this resolution could be better used as a basis. A safe workplace meaning you send your soldiers out with good battlegear for example, and sending workers with protective worksuits into the sewers.

Compensation - does there have to be any legal finding in this? Or can someone go in to work, drop a monitor on their foot and then sue the company? If it is the fault of the company the person got injured, then yeah - I am all for compensation. But if the person is clumsy or just stupid (for want of a better phrase) and decides to jump down the stairs, why should the company be required to give him recompense for this?

It does say fair compensation. A national government can consider it unfair if proven that someone got injured on purpose, or by ignoring safety guidelines.

I am a firm believer in workers' rights - the 40 Hour Work Week and Labour Unions for example - but while it is important that the rights of the workers' to fair treament must be upheld, it must not go so far that the workers can hold the company to ransom for the smallest things, because in the end not only does it screw over the management, but it also screws over the company and all the other workers suffer.

That's true, as well as that you don't want the opposite (firing workers at will, bad conditions, etc). It's difficult to find the balance between the two, leaving some room for nations to implement this within their own system while at the same time providing enough protection for the workers to still be an adequate resolution. I think that this does pretty well in that respect, not going into too much detail while still putting down a few basic rules.

I disagree with this 100 percent.

The market will pay people what there labor is worth, the governement getting into the economy can only screw it up and in the end actually REDUCE their wages.

Also, it is so very, very vague.

I disagree with this 100 percent.

The market will pay people what there labor is worth, the governement getting into the economy can only screw it up and in the end actually REDUCE their wages.

Also, it is so very, very vague.

Don't complain about the vagueness. It's our only hope. :(