NationStates Jolt Archive

Calling all UN delegates: if you believe that employees and employers should be able to negotiate their own employment agreements please add your support my proposal to repeal 40 hour work week.


The UN,

OBSERVING that capping the number of hours in the work week leads to a shortage of labour in many industries,

OBSERVING ALSO that business is faced with significant and unjustified increases in costs due to the cap causing unemployment and a reduction in competitiveness,

RECOGNIZING that employers and employees (either individually or collectively) should have the right to bargain and negotiate their own terms for employment,

REPEALS Resolution 59 "The 40 Hour Work Week", originally implemented on May 23, 2004.

*wonders how there is a relevant increase in cost of operations by capping hours......

Many businesses have the same fixed costs regardless of the hours worked. A capped working week is economically damaging, since it either forces them to spread these fixed costs less efficiently across a smaller output, or in order to retain their output they would need to increase their workforce and so labour costs. There are also increased costs and paperwork associated with complying with cap eg more payroll staff..

A fixed maximum also reduces business flexibility. Even if employers do not habitually use their workers for overly long periods, it can be beneficial for them to retain the capacity to do so when needed, e.g. if a large customer order needs to be filled in a short time. To preserve this kind of flexibility with a work week cap, business may be forced to hold a bloated payroll.. this in turn will only raise prices for consumers..

Great Betterton']A fixed maximum also reduces business flexibility. Even if employers do not habitually use their workers for overly long periods, it can be beneficial for them to retain the capacity to do so when needed, e.g. if a large customer order needs to be filled in a short time.

That's what overtime is for. The other practice I've noticed businesses take is they have blackout periods for vacation, etc. They could specify times of the year when they have a large workload as times where they will not accept requests for time off unless there is an extreme reason (my surgery is booked that day, there's a 6 month waiting list). Unless a business has too sporadic of an environment for that (in which case, I'd say you don't have enough people personally), I think everything else can be dealt with by the overtime note.

Regardless - I disagree that there's an issue in your first post. After a certain time-length (initial investment is a different matter, but this resolution has been in place for over a year iirc), the training is complete so that is irrelevant. The increased cost from payroll etc is too minimal for concern.

Regardless - I disagree that there's an issue in your first post. After a certain time-length (initial investment is a different matter, but this resolution has been in place for over a year iirc), the training is complete so that is irrelevant. The increased cost from payroll etc is too minimal for concern.


I tend to agree.

Great Betterton']Calling all UN delegates: if you believe that employees and employers should be able to negotiate their own employment agreements please add your support my proposal to repeal 40 hour work week.

Translation from propaganda to English: If you believe that employees should be slaves and employers their owners, please support my repeal.

The UN,

OBSERVING that capping the number of hours in the work week leads to a shortage of labour in many industries,

This is why the idea of "shifts" was invented. One shift goes off, the next comes on. Simple.

OBSERVING ALSO that business is faced with significant and unjustified increases in costs due to the cap causing unemployment and a reduction in competitiveness,

The amount of cost increase has proven insignificant in DLE, the amount of profit has gone up, and the costs remain about the same. The cap itself actually causes an increase in jobs, as a corporation needs more employees. If you have a problem with unemployment, it's not the UN's fault.

RECOGNIZING that employers and employees (either individually or collectively) should have the right to bargain and negotiate their own terms for employment,

Does the resolution expressedly forbid it? No? Didn't think so.

Speaking as the delegate of the region in which the author of Resolution 56 resides, I can say with some confidence that I shall not be supporting this repeal. Furthermore, I believe your argument to be fallacious. The only viable cause for complaint with regards to the resolution that I see (aside from the national sovereignty standpoint) is the 80-hr cap, which is an unnecessary though understandable) restriction on personal freedom that adds nothing of value to the legislation. This is not sufficient, in my eyes, for repeal.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

for a real world example consider france: which introduced a 35hr cap in 2001 and has since abolished it after failed to have any long term benefit for unemployment, and had negative impact on workforce flexibility and productivity.

employers and employees should be able to negotiate their own terms of employment without any interference or regulation whatsoever from govt or the UN. if employees feel overworked by their employers, they can tell them to shove the job and take their skills and labour elsewhere - but employers value good employees and a good employer will compromise with their employees and cut a deal... also, employees may wish to work over 40 hrs to make extra money, say their business cannot afford penalty rates - so they may offer their labour without overtime but at normal rates - and it should be their right to do so..

leave the labour market alone.

Does the resolution expressedly forbid it? No? Didn't think so.Nonsense, it most certainly forbids it.

By capping "on call" hours, and limiting maximum overtime, the UN has stripped employers and employees the right to control how much they work. Many people in the security or law enforcement field are technically on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because they need to be able to come in in the event of an emergency. This proposal eliminates that.

Furthermore, many people would willingly work more than 80 hours a week. Many more people have to work more than 80 hours a week. You think the small business run by a family can stay open only working 80 hours a week?

This Resolution is just another nail in the coffin for UN capitalism. Indeed, this is one of the few times I'd agree with the National Sovereignty crowd. Beside, the UN already mandates Labor Unions. Let them hash this nonsense out.

~Chancellor Birdstuff

Great Betterton']for a real world example consider france: which introduced a 35hr cap in 2001 and has since abolished it after failed to have any long term benefit for unemployment, and had negative impact on workforce flexibility and productivity.

Another real-world example is the U.S., which has maintained its cap.

employers and employees should be able to negotiate their own terms of employment without any interference or regulation whatsoever from govt or the UN. if employees feel overworked by their employers, they can tell them to shove the job and take their skills and labour elsewhere - but employers value good employees and a good employer will compromise with their employees and cut a deal... also, employees may wish to work over 40 hrs to make extra money, say their business cannot afford penalty rates - so they may offer their labour without overtime but at normal rates - and it should be their right to do so..

And employers have the right to tell them to "Fuck off" and hire someone who is willing to work to their terms. Employers tend to have the upper hand simply because they can always try to find someone else. And with employers, the contest is to get people who will do the most work for the least amount of money. That's part of why the U.S. started to use laws to control the labor force, including establishing a minimum wage.

Nonsense, it most certainly forbids it.

Let's see if you have an arguement that backs that, takes into consideration the statement I was replying to, and manages to come across as having a point.

By capping "on call" hours, and limiting maximum overtime, the UN has stripped employers and employees the right to control how much they work. Many people in the security or law enforcement field are technically on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because they need to be able to come in in the event of an emergency. This proposal eliminates that.

Nope. Managed to fail the first two requirements in the first paragraph. Let's take a look at the statement in question.

RECOGNIZING that employers and employees (either individually or collectively) should have the right to bargain and negotiate their own terms for employment,

By wording, that quote implies that the resolution the repeal attempt is for outright bans all attempts at negotiation between employer and employee. That means time the employee works, how much the employer pays for the work, any insuranced given, any safety gear provided, etc. This is, in effect, saying that the employee is basically a slave to the whims of the employer.

However, let's check what the resolution really does when compared to that statement. What it does is set time limitations on workload, but says nothing about any of the other aspects of employee-employer negotiation. Considering the hours are fixed, the two sides must now focus on pay, insurances, safety equipment, transportation, etc. Plus, the two sides can always negotiate how the 40 hours are divided, when each day work starts and when it ends, and whether or not all of the hours for a day are worked as a single block or split up into multiple blocks.

So, really, the statement put down fails the logic test, as the statement itself is false due to the fact the statement was one that encompassed all aspects of the activity instead of focusing on the single aspect that the resolution actually affects. Keep in mind there is more to negotiating with an employer than just how many hours you will work.

Furthermore, many people would willingly work more than 80 hours a week. Many more people have to work more than 80 hours a week. You think the small business run by a family can stay open only working 80 hours a week?

The resolution covers employee working hours, not employer working hours. Nor does anything say the employer has to be a single person.

This Resolution is just another nail in the coffin for UN capitalism. Indeed, this is one of the few times I'd agree with the National Sovereignty crowd. Beside, the UN already mandates Labor Unions. Let them hash this nonsense out.

Why bother? All an employer has to do is arrest them on trumped-up charges to end the negotiation. You'd be surprised how easy it is to deal with an annoying group by paying the media to pay no attention and then sticking them in the legal system for a few months. Most are left too poor afterwards to do anything about it, and the media itself has already profitted from the story and thus is disinterested.

Great Betterton']for a real world example consider france: which introduced a 35hr cap in 2001 and has since abolished it after failed to have any long term benefit for unemployment, and had negative impact on workforce flexibility and productivity.

employers and employees should be able to negotiate their own terms of employment without any interference or regulation whatsoever from govt or the UN. if employees feel overworked by their employers, they can tell them to shove the job and take their skills and labour elsewhere - but employers value good employees and a good employer will compromise with their employees and cut a deal... also, employees may wish to work over 40 hrs to make extra money, say their business cannot afford penalty rates - so they may offer their labour without overtime but at normal rates - and it should be their right to do so..

leave the labour market alone.


Let's see my post.....

Ah yes - KEY WORD: INITIAL INVESTMENT

Regardless, France has MANY other problems with its economy - iirc, it's got something like a one month holiday as the norm as opposed to two weeks.

Want examples of when they didn't exist. Go and check your historical facts regarding the industrial revolution - when people were FORCED to work upwards of 60 hours a week and were practically OWNED by their employers.

One of my friends used to live in the Canadian Maritimes where the economy is crap (there is very little interest in the region for various reasons). The problem became that if you did anything they could legally fire you over, you were gone right then and there and someone else would be brought in. The pool of candidates was MASSIVE. If you gave these employers the right to force every single person to work 80 hours a week (which would just about cover every single minute they're open for), they would.

Darkumbria supports this repeal. Not that it matters in my benevolent dictatorship, where the government controls the money and the workers. THank you and have a nice day.

Darkumbria supports this repeal. Not that it matters in my benevolent dictatorship, where the government controls the money and the workers. THank you and have a nice day.
Well, it does matter, since workers still have the rights granted them by this resolution.

I look forward to seeing the repeal fail miserably.