NationStates Jolt Archive

I say let's repeal the 40 hour workweek. This proposal is already at the UN. Please approve it if you agree with it:

"REPEAL THE 40 HOUR WORKWEEK"

Description: UN Resolution #59: The 40 Hour Workweek (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: THE 40 HOUR WORKWEEK puts too much government regulation over businesses.

WHILE OUR ECONOMIES COULD BE ACCELERATING, they are in many cases LAGGING BEHIND because of this UN resolution.

The goal of the United Nations is to preserve freedoms, and protect its member states.

How is it doing that by throwing sandbags in our economy?

So, please, do the right thing, and

VOTE TO REPEAL "THE 40 HOUR WORKWEEK!"

Hello,

I'd like to first state that my government is in favour of the 40-hour workweek, and will not be recommending to our delegate that your repeal be endorsed. (Meaning I just won't say anything, which is slighly different than advocating against something ... we just don't support this.)

In any event, your government may be aware of the fact that a previous attempt to repeal this resolution failed. The text of the repeal and links to the UN debates of the repeal can be found at:

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/SJ.pdf

Use the bookmarks in the PDF and search for "Repeal 'The 40 Hour Workweek'".

That said, I'd like to point out that the original resolution allows for employees to work multiple jobs or limited overtime. Frankly, my capitalist nation has had no problems with the provisions in this resolution, as its name is slightly misleading and makes it seem like it is very restrictive, but the resolution itself was designed with a number of loopholes for workers and businesses in mind.

Good Luck!

I'd like to first state that my government is in favour of the 40-hour workweek, and will not be recommending to our delegate that your repeal be endorsed. (Meaning I just won't say anything, which is slighly different than advocating against something ... we just don't support this.)

That's fine and dandy, your government certainly has the right to do what it pleases. But, please consider this:

1. Not all jobs are the same. This resolution makes way too many generalizations.
-It makes assumptions that it is bad for all jobs to work over 40 hours a week
-For jobs that would normally require more than 40 hours a week (perhaps doctors or other professionals), it requires employers to cater to their employees' beneficence to get necessary work done.

2. We all agree that there should be labor laws. But is it for the United Nations to decide the small specifications of those laws, especially when those specifications are based on broad generalizations?
-What point is there in the United Nations legislating that it is illegal to expect more than 40 hours of work a week?
-What point is there for this resolution to exist in the first place?

3. Fair work enviroments could be maintained without strict regulations.
-Fair work hours, conditions, etc., could be achieved by establishing broad guidelines that can be molded to fit the economy of the individual country.
-Too much UN generalizations put many nations' economies in jeopardy.

4. While labor laws are good, we must make sure we don't inflict punitive damage upon the member state at the same time.
-For all of the reasons above, the '40 Hour Workweek' is an unnecessary, burdensome regulation.

Why should we throw sandbags in our economy by imposing massive regulations, when simple, broad ones could accomplish the same thing?

Should UN nations really allow themselves to become compelled into following unnecessary, burdensome regulations like this one?

"The 40 Hour Workweek" has no point, is a waste of time, is unnecessary, and should be immediately removed from the records.

~The Caliph casually checks the latest statistics on Vastivan economic standards~

"Yes, we're still at Frightening. And we have a 40 hour work week. So, how does this limit your economy? Haven't you heard of computers?"

I am considering submitting this resolution to the UN. Please tell me what you think. It is to repeal the UN Resolution '40 Hour Workweek':

We should repeal 'The 40 Hour Workweek'. There are plenty of good reasons for this action, and they are as follows:

1. Not all jobs are the same. This resolution makes way too many generalizations.
-It makes assumptions that it is bad for all jobs to work over 40 hours a week
-For jobs that would normally require more than 40 hours a week (perhaps doctors or other professionals), it requires employers to cater to their employees' beneficence to get necessary work done.

2. We all agree that there should be labor laws. But is it for the United Nations to decide the small specifications of those laws, especially when those specifications are based on broad generalizations?
-What point is there in the United Nations legislating that it is illegal to expect more than 40 hours of work a week?
-What point is there for this resolution to exist in the first place?

3. Fair work enviroments could be maintained without strict regulations.
-Fair work hours, conditions, etc., could be achieved by establishing broad guidelines that can be molded to fit the economy of the individual country.
-Too much UN generalizations put many nations' economies in jeopardy.

4. While labor laws are good, we must make sure we don't inflict punitive damage upon the member state at the same time.
-For all of the reasons above, the '40 Hour Workweek' is an unnecessary, burdensome regulation.

Why should we throw sandbags in our economy by imposing massive regulations, when simple, broad ones could accomplish the same thing?

Should UN nations really allow themselves to become compelled into following unnecessary, burdensome regulations like this one?

"The 40 Hour Workweek" has no point, is a waste of time, is unnecessary, and should be immediately removed from the records.

I am considering submitting this resolution to the UN. Please tell me what you think. It is to repeal the UN Resolution '40 Hour Workweek':

The title alone will lose you a majority vote. But you can't do anything about that.

We should repeal 'The 40 Hour Workweek'. There are plenty of good reasons for this action, and they are as follows:

1. Not all jobs are the same. This resolution makes way too many generalizations.
-It makes assumptions that it is bad for all jobs to work over 40 hours a week
-For jobs that would normally require more than 40 hours a week (perhaps doctors or other professionals), it requires employers to cater to their employees' beneficence to get necessary work done.

From the list oc exceptions in the proposal:

c ) civilian emergency response personnel

Note it's only for emergencies that such happens.

2. We all agree that there should be labor laws. But is it for the United Nations to decide the small specifications of those laws, especially when those specifications are based on broad generalizations?
-What point is there in the United Nations legislating that it is illegal to expect more than 40 hours of work a week?
-What point is there for this resolution to exist in the first place?

It's for the UN to decide what it wants to. And limiting the hours worked like that is to prevent employee burnout, which can result in massive amounts of violence and extreme productivity losses.

3. Fair work enviroments could be maintained without strict regulations.
-Fair work hours, conditions, etc., could be achieved by establishing broad guidelines that can be molded to fit the economy of the individual country.
-Too much UN generalizations put many nations' economies in jeopardy.

This is broad enough to fit into any economy.

4. While labor laws are good, we must make sure we don't inflict punitive damage upon the member state at the same time.
-For all of the reasons above, the '40 Hour Workweek' is an unnecessary, burdensome regulation.

In what way is this punitive? I use it and have one of the most powerful economies in NS.

Why should we throw sandbags in our economy by imposing massive regulations, when simple, broad ones could accomplish the same thing?

Gee, those sandbags don't seem to affect my economy.

Should UN nations really allow themselves to become compelled into following unnecessary, burdensome regulations like this one?

Yes.

"The 40 Hour Workweek" has no point, is a waste of time, is unnecessary, and should be immediately removed from the records.

The point is already stated.

Though I still support the 40 Hour Workweek resolution, if you submit a repeal, I think the bulleted justifications you've provided should be included. Though I am likely asking too much hear, I'd personally like to see them written in a more standard UN format, but I think just having the bulleted items as you have them now will make your argument more clear.

Finally, I'd suggest you drop the sandbag reference. While it is fine for "debate" or in a speech, it just doesn't feel appropriate in the text where you are justifying the repeal, because a repeal is still a formal motion.

I do wish you the best of luck ... though should your proposal reach the floor, I'll likely politely speak out against this a few times. ;)

From the list oc exceptions in the proposal:


Quote:
c ) civilian emergency response personnel

That's true, that it says 'civilian emergency response personnel'. But the line after it makes no sense, and renders the exemption pointless:

Excepting military personnel, these exemptions shall only apply during emergency situations.

So, what happens now? Are doctors only allowed to work overtime in a national crisis? The truth is, I don't know, because the way the resolution is written, it does not make a whole lot of sense.

It's for the UN to decide what it wants to.

The UN can decide what it wants to do. I'm suggesting it should change its mind.

And limiting the hours worked like that is to prevent employee burnout, which can result in massive amounts of violence and extreme productivity losses.

Although this isn't 'real world', I doubt there would be any evidence to support your "massive amounts of violence" claim here in our computerized world.
Once again, I'm not suggesting an elimination of labor laws. That is very clear in my resolution.
As far as I'm concerned, there already is productivity loss. Most people, in our 'real world', work more than forty hours weekly, and you don't see them going around stirring up massive violence. Why would it be different in our 'computerized world'?

This is broad enough to fit into any economy.

So, it's 'one size fits all'? Our nations here are vastly different, especially when it comes to fiscal policy and money markets. Why assume that the '40 Hour Work Week' would automatically work for everyone? Using my alliteration to 'the real world': it doesn't work there, why would it work here?

In what way is this punitive? I use it and have one of the most powerful economies in NS.

That's good for you: I mean it, it is good. But because it works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone; it's not 'one size fits all'. It's punitive because it imposes a very strict law using very broad, generalized reasoning. The only reasoning really boils down to "people need to chill".

Gee, those sandbags don't seem to affect my economy.

Once again, that's good for you. The law doesn't affect some, but it affects others.

Quote:
Should UN nations really allow themselves to become compelled into following unnecessary, burdensome regulations like this one?



Yes.

You would support an unnecessary, burdensome resolution, simply because it appeared on the UN floor?

This resolution hardly made it. These are the final vote counts:
Votes For: 8,637
Votes Against: 8,526

It's clear that many people sympathize with me here.

I am considering submitting this resolution to the UN. Please tell me what you think. It is to repeal the UN Resolution '40 Hour Workweek':

We should repeal 'The 40 Hour Workweek'. There are plenty of good reasons for this action, and they are as follows:

1. Not all jobs are the same. This resolution makes way too many generalizations.
-It makes assumptions that it is bad for all jobs to work over 40 hours a week
-For jobs that would normally require more than 40 hours a week (perhaps doctors or other professionals), it requires employers to cater to their employees' beneficence to get necessary work done.

i do believe there is a part in there that states that people that want to work more than 40 hours can. also, we dont assume that working over 40 hours is bad. we believe that not being garenteed 40 hours is bad, for it means less income for people.

2. We all agree that there should be labor laws. But is it for the United Nations to decide the small specifications of those laws, especially when those specifications are based on broad generalizations?
-What point is there in the United Nations legislating that it is illegal to expect more than 40 hours of work a week?
-What point is there for this resolution to exist in the first place?

they are broad generalisations because they are guidelines, not laws.

3. Fair work enviroments could be maintained without strict regulations.
-Fair work hours, conditions, etc., could be achieved by establishing broad guidelines that can be molded to fit the economy of the individual country.
-Too much UN generalizations put many nations' economies in jeopardy.

that would make laws, not guidelines, which we would oppose. also, i dont see how generalisation could put nations economies in jeopardy. as i have stated, they are guidelines, then you enact them how you see fit.

4. While labor laws are good, we must make sure we don't inflict punitive damage upon the member state at the same time.
-For all of the reasons above, the '40 Hour Workweek' is an unnecessary, burdensome regulation.

in what way are they inficting punitive damage? i would rather see my population secure in full time jobs, than struggle in part time or casual jobs where they are geting very little hours. not to mention out dislike of nations using the fact that they are technically working to make their unemployment level look good.

Why should we throw sandbags in our economy by imposing massive regulations, when simple, broad ones could accomplish the same thing?

:confused: doesnt this statement contradict most of yout argument?

Should UN nations really allow themselves to become compelled into following unnecessary, burdensome regulations like this one?

thats the joys of being in the UN :)

"The 40 Hour Workweek" has no point, is a waste of time, is unnecessary, and should be immediately removed from the records.
it has a point, to secure a decent income for the people of the nations of the UN. as for immediatly removed from the records, it wont. it will still be there in grey writting with the statement 'repealed by resolution #XX'

in summary: we will not support this. economies wont grow if people dont have money to spend, there is nothing saying that you cant work more than 40 hours in the resolution you are repealing, and we have found one statement that contradicts your argument. also, it is based on assumptions.

OOC: this thread should be closed, or merged with the other one. The Empire of Cuba: if you modify your draft/proposal, leave it in here, dont start another thread. i am pretty sure the mods would back me up on this one

i am pretty sure the mods would back me up on this one
Yep.

also, we dont assume that working over 40 hours is bad.

Then why is it outlawed?

they are broad generalisations because they are guidelines, not laws.

The 'broad generalizaton' is that working over 40 hours is inherently bad. It works just fine hear in the 'real world'; why not in the 'computerized world'?

that would make laws, not guidelines, which we would oppose. also, i dont see how generalisation could put nations economies in jeopardy. as i have stated, they are guidelines, then you enact them how you see fit.

Once again, the generalization is that by making people work over 40 hours, it's inherently bad. There was hardly any proof offered for this in the resolution, and I think a fair number of people saw through it.

it has a point, to secure a decent income for the people of the nations of the UN.

Why should we throw sandbags in our economy by imposing massive regulations, when simple, broad ones could accomplish the same thing?
doesnt this statement contradict most of yout argument?

Not that I see.

If anything, it would lower their incomes, because their jobs can't constitute them working longer!

in summary: we will not support this.

That was a given from your first sentence.

economies wont grow if people dont have money to spend, there is nothing saying that you cant work more than 40 hours in the resolution you are repealing

But how does saying 'people can only work 40 hours' equate into saying 'that means you get more money'? Let me ask you this: if people don't have to work more than 40 hours, why would they? Many nations' economies requires more labor force. Employees shouldn't be allowed to say "I just don't want to work", especially if the job is one that would usually constitute more work.

It was a sham resolution in the first place, and deserves to be repealed.

also, we dont assume that working over 40 hours is bad.

Then why is it outlawed?
IC: It's not illegal. I refer you to the actual resolution in question.

5. Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu. Nations shall remain free to set their allowable overtime hours lower and their overtime pay rates higher than specified in this proposal.
80 hours a week not enough? Consider that one week has 168 hours in it. If you sleep 8 hours a night (as we are told to) you now only have 112 hours left. Take off 80 hours of work, and you are left with 32 hours. Divide that by seven days and you have just over 4 and a half hours a day to cover relaxation, meals, washing, or doing anything not work-related.

OOC: I don't see what your problem is. Particularly considering that the 40 hour work week was put inplace in most western nations about one hundred years ago.

also, we dont assume that working over 40 hours is bad.

Then why is it outlawed?

they are broad generalisations because they are guidelines, not laws.

The 'broad generalizaton' is that working over 40 hours is inherently bad. It works just fine hear in the 'real world'; why not in the 'computerized world'?

that would make laws, not guidelines, which we would oppose. also, i dont see how generalisation could put nations economies in jeopardy. as i have stated, they are guidelines, then you enact them how you see fit.

Once again, the generalization is that by making people work over 40 hours, it's inherently bad. There was hardly any proof offered for this in the resolution, and I think a fair number of people saw through it.

it has a point, to secure a decent income for the people of the nations of the UN.

Why should we throw sandbags in our economy by imposing massive regulations, when simple, broad ones could accomplish the same thing?
doesnt this statement contradict most of yout argument?

Not that I see.

If anything, it would lower their incomes, because their jobs can't constitute them working longer!
in summary: we will not support this.

That was a given from your first sentence.

economies wont grow if people dont have money to spend, there is nothing saying that you cant work more than 40 hours in the resolution you are repealing

But how does saying 'people can only work 40 hours' equate into saying 'that means you get more money'? Let me ask you this: if people don't have to work more than 40 hours, why would they? Many nations' economies requires more labor force. Employees shouldn't be allowed to say "I just don't want to work", especially if the job is one that would usually constitute more work.

It was a sham resolution in the first place, and deserves to be repealed.
from what we can see, your argument is based on a very bad assumption: that the resolution means workers can only work 40 per week. this is quite the opposite, in that it guarentees a minimum of 40 hours, not sets the amount at 40 hours. go back and read the resolution, as it says that people can work over 40 hours, up to a maximum of 80 hours, and get paid duly for it. the only way someones income is lowered is if they work under 40 hours.

Why should we throw sandbags in our economy by imposing massive regulations, when simple, broad ones could accomplish the same thing?

doesnt this statement contradict most of yout argument?

Not that I see.
it does contradict your argument. you stated that one of the problems was that the broad guidelines were a problem, and here you are going for the use of broad guidelines, thus blowing a big hole in your argument.

It is the official view of the Roman government that the previous situation in the working world saw far too much abuse that needed to be curtailed. We were hearing stories of people working 24-hour shifts and receiving no vacation and decided this had to be stopped. Therefore, we will not be supporting your proposal.

Excuse the lateness of the reply. I managed to miss this one.

That's true, that it says 'civilian emergency response personnel'. But the line after it makes no sense, and renders the exemption pointless:

Excepting military personnel, these exemptions shall only apply during emergency situations.

So, what happens now? Are doctors only allowed to work overtime in a national crisis? The truth is, I don't know, because the way the resolution is written, it does not make a whole lot of sense.

Doctors are only allowed to work more than 80 hours a week during a crisis. Overtime is allowed, but only an additional 40 hours (for a total max of 80 hours). To get an idea, that's 16 hours a day.

The UN can decide what it wants to do. I'm suggesting it should change its mind.

Okay. I took what you said wrong.

Although this isn't 'real world', I doubt there would be any evidence to support your "massive amounts of violence" claim here in our computerized world.

I'm saying it's a possibility, not a certainty. That's all.

Once again, I'm not suggesting an elimination of labor laws. That is very clear in my resolution.
As far as I'm concerned, there already is productivity loss. Most people, in our 'real world', work more than forty hours weekly, and you don't see them going around stirring up massive violence. Why would it be different in our 'computerized world'?

Actually, a small minority of the people work more than 40 hours a week. While your statement is true of the United States a few others, most nations don't have those laws and have a more relaxed populous. Hell, the US is the leader in the categories of lowest amount of vacation time and highest amount of stress disorders for the population.

So, it's 'one size fits all'? Our nations here are vastly different, especially when it comes to fiscal policy and money markets. Why assume that the '40 Hour Work Week' would automatically work for everyone? Using my alliteration to 'the real world': it doesn't work there, why would it work here?

It works perfectly well in the real world simply because you are limiting your comments to only a portion of it. And in this case, it is broad enough to cover all economies simply because it doesn't discriminate.

That's good for you: I mean it, it is good. But because it works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone; it's not 'one size fits all'. It's punitive because it imposes a very strict law using very broad, generalized reasoning. The only reasoning really boils down to "people need to chill".

People who only work 8 hours a day are more relaxed, and more relaxed people spend more money. If you're having economy problems because of it, restructure your economy. Hell, I force my corporations to compete with the military to balance them out. When you lose employees because they can do the same job in the military and get paid better, you tend to sit up and take notice. I'm not saying that is for you, but I can probably recommend a few economies to check out for examples of ideas to help. Sometimes you simply need to rework a part of your nation. If you are worried about what your citizens think, tell the corporations that this way they are less likely to have to pay overtime and your citizens that you are looking out for their health.

Once again, that's good for you. The law doesn't affect some, but it affects others.

See above.

You would support an unnecessary, burdensome resolution, simply because it appeared on the UN floor?

It depends on the resolution.

This resolution hardly made it. These are the final vote counts:
Votes For: 8,637
Votes Against: 8,526

It's clear that many people sympathize with me here.

Actually, that arguement has never been that valid. For one thing, most of the people who voted on this are probably gone by now. For another, most repeals fail because of the herd mentality. People start accusing those who want to vote in favor of a repeal as being oppressive, the bandwagon follows, and next thing you know the peer pressure effect has forced votes away from it. If not that, then something else. To be honest, you need one hell of a repeal arguement and a massive campaign.

Now, try reworking it with some of the arguements you used against me inside the repeal. The whole reason I do this is to provide my opponent with ideas of how to tighten it against the arguements of others and what areas they need to clean up (or dump the entire thing, if it is bad enough).