NationStates Jolt Archive

For the reasons listed below I urge regional delegates to approve my Un Resolution to Repeal the 40 hour work week
Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
*


Category: Repeal

Resolution: #59

Proposed by: Poppuli


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 Work Week limits capitalism and also drives working families into poverty.
1.) By allowing only 5.7 hours all industries (especially manufacturing) suffer detrimental efforts needed to become competitive in the global marketplace because of a lack of productivity. Which leads to companies not making enough revenue to keep the workplace; safe for workers, environmentally friendly, state-of-the-art, and a pleasant place.

2.) By only allowing 5.7 hours of work a day all UN nations economy growth is stunted until efficiency is increased dramatically.

3.) A 5.7 hour workday is a plea for companies to ban the privilege of eating meals and having coffee breaks (or teatime) at workplaces. It also encourages companies not to allow or honor national, religious, and international, holidays

4.) 5.7 hours will not be enough time to pay for insurance for the workforce in almost every country causing massive lay-offs.

5.) Health insurance for workers will never be able to be paid by companies again.

6.) A limit on workday hours will limit productivity, profitability, and safety at work, basic human wellbeing, by destroying capitalist nation's economies.

For the reasons listed below I urge regional delegates to approve my Un Resolution to Repeal the 40 hour work week

Unlikely to get anywhere, but let's look

Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
*


Category: Repeal

Resolution: #59

Proposed by: Poppuli


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 Work Week limits capitalism and also drives working families into poverty.

No - if the family is in poverty because of this, I'd blame the state for not dealing with minimum wage laws appropriately - though we are trying to remedy that.

1.) By allowing only 5.7 hours all industries (especially manufacturing) suffer detrimental efforts needed to become competitive in the global marketplace because of a lack of productivity. Which leads to companies not making enough revenue to keep the workplace; safe for workers, environmentally friendly, state-of-the-art, and a pleasant place.

*blinks*

Whiskey
Tango
Foxtrot

I hope you don't live in an industrialized country because that is one of the most illogical arguments I've ever seen. You're making a huge list of assumptions that just plain aren't true:
1) You're getting those hours split across all days of the week. Most countries operate with a 5/2 workweek - or they might have varied hours that result in working 5 days a week with 2 days off - or sometimes they split shifts up so that they're working 6 or 7 days a week with some odd hours.
2) You're paying more (admittedly, there are some minor insiginificant costs - such as cost to print off the extra cheque and the 1kB of HD space for the extra entry in your database) for two people to split 80 hours than you are making one person work 80 hours straight. Actually, several studies argue that you're two workers will make more than the one worker on his own - reason: they actually have a life outside of work to relax in
3) Companies aren't going to comprimise safety because they have less money to throw around. The only thing corporations care about is the bottom line. If it's not dealt with in law, it will be abused by some company or another (Enron anyone?). If they didn't put in the safety features when they were barely running the surplus, they aren't going to put it in when they have a $100 million surplus. If it can be legally sacrificed, there is no reason to instate it. Same goes for the environment. Same normally goes for "pleasantness" (in fact, most sweat shops don't give a damn about pleasantness). So basically, we just shrunk that list to State of the Art

2.) By only allowing 5.7 hours of work a day all UN nations economy growth is stunted until efficiency is increased dramatically.

Again - you are forgetting completely about shifts.

3.) A 5.7 hour workday is a plea for companies to ban the privilege of eating meals and having coffee breaks (or teatime) at workplaces.

If it's legislated, they'll put it in. Otherwise, they won't care one way or the other. Also, again, you are forgetting about shifts

It also encourages companies not to allow or honor national, religious, and international, holidays

WTF?

4.) 5.7 hours will not be enough time to pay for insurance for the workforce in almost every country causing massive lay-offs.

...........What?

5.) Health insurance for workers will never be able to be paid by companies again.

I have never had my health insurance paid for. Your point?

6.) A limit on workday hours will limit productivity, profitability, and safety at work, basic human wellbeing, by destroying capitalist nation's economies.

Actually - it increases productivity/hr (and again, you completely ignore shifts), increases safety (you're more aware of the dangers of your environment when you are more aware - which you get from more rest), increases basic human wellbeing (you are better off with more rest) and it does NOT DESTROY THE ECONOMY

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I will not support it, and I encourage other delegates to dismiss it entirely.

The resolution in question also allows for workers to take jobs of up to 80 hours a week, which seems to have been overlooked by the drafter of this repeal.

The resolution in question also allows for workers to take jobs of up to 80 hours a week, which seems to have been overlooked by the drafter of this repeal.
I get the impression that most of the opposition to this resolution comes from people who have no idea of RL labor laws. That, or they have never held an hourly job or are vehemently anti-labor. This is not a radical piece of legislation. It echoes labor laws in the RL United States and similar language can be found in all collective bargaining agreements.

The resolution in question also allows for workers to take jobs of up to 80 hours a week, which seems to have been overlooked by the drafter of this repeal.
I think everybody who's tried to repeal this resolution has overlooked that little fact.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I support the repeal of the law because it seems to insinuate that if Acme co. contractually obligates its employees to work "41" hours a week, the company is violently oppressing them with wet noodles. It's just too inflexible and arbitrary (though it certainly could be a lot worse).

Basically, I support its repeal for the same reason I support many repeals: I dislike its lack of pragmatics.

I'm in favor of a repeal because the resolution is anti-sovereignty, plain and simple.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

the reason i would not repeal this is beacause it cracks down on sweat shops. If anything i would amend it to allow that to be the _average_ work week*. for employees beacuse:

1.) Many families have more than 2.3 children (or whatever the danged average is) and places large families in danger of poverty causinging a strain on the resources of nations in extending welfare to those being thus impoverished.

2.) Given 1 above international debt would increase exponentially.

3.) There ought not be any legislation which has the implication of requiring Married couples to have fewer Children (Consider what happned in China when they outright made one child per familiy a law (re mudering female children etc.)

Otherwise the original legislation is quite humane and encourages the well being of all affected.


*this average should be calculated for each employee sector (manual labor, management etc.) as not to shift the load of hours to the manual laborers thus creating anew the problem of sweat shops.

I'm in favor of a repeal because the resolution is anti-sovereignty, plain and simple.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Hear, hear! ideally, individuals should be able to determine their ideal work week. Failing that, local governments should be able to legislate regarding it. We sincerely doubt that it's necessary to use international law to force people to work less than 40 hours, whether they like it or not.

Unfortunately, we also cannot support the amendment as written, due to problems previously addressed by the ambassador from the Forgottenlands.

Hear, hear! ideally, individuals should be able to determine their ideal work week. Failing that, local governments should be able to legislate regarding it. We sincerely doubt that it's necessary to use international law to force people to work less than 40 hours, whether they like it or not.

Well, let's be clear about what exactly the resolution does. I believe it does the following (the Readers' Digest version) Disallows workers from being contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours a week(including on-call time). States that workers may work voluntarily over 40 hours a week, but must receive overtime during that time. States that no worker may work, voluntarily, over 80 hours a week.

First, I disagree with an international cap on voluntary work, period. If it's voluntary work, it should be absolutely permissible--81 hours a week or fewer. It is not the international body's job to make certain citizens in individual countries do not work beyond their means. I believe in liberty, which means I have the freedom to choose what to do with my time. I mean if I want to work for freekin' 81 hours between This Tuesday and next, gosh-darn-it, I should be allowed. It's not the government's right to decide how I spend my time, or my life. Besides This will hurt the poor person, and the ambitious most. It is the poor or those wishing to increase their financial status who will likely volunteer for 80+ hour weeks. Also, consider entrepreneurs. For a local business a friend of mine owns, he puts more than 80 hours a week in the fledgling operation. Why are we stopping him from pursuing happiness? Why are we so self-righteous as to think that we can possibly define happiness for him, or that we should make his time-related choices for him?

Similarly, and second, the contractual limitation to 40 hours is contrived and based solely on convenience. And the restriction of on-call hours is just generally ridiculous. There is not some drastic decrease in life quality if Acme inc. tells me I have to work 41 hours, instead of just one fewer hours. And since all work over 40 hours is now "voluntary", my work there can be excepted from certain constraints of my contract (workers comp, insurance, whatever). Also, just because there is no written contract for me to work 10 extra hours, doesn't mean that a company doesn't encourage an atmosphere which induces it, and can fire me for not fitting in with its atmosphere. There's still need for workers to work over 40 hours a week. If the companies have to go off the books to get those hours, it's the worker who suffers most.

Third, the international limitations of United Nations' hiring, and wage, and "hours" practices only hurts the United Nations' economic standing. consider the real-life example of France and Ireland. The French government had, in the name of workers' rights, made it very hard to fire an employee. And, even under justified circumstances, there are very large pensions and such which the company is forced to pay out. Hiring an employee in France is a very large investment, very costly. As an effect, there are, generally, fewer new jobs in France. It's simple economics: increase the price, decrease the volume.

In Ireland (and the UK), in contrast, there is more liberty for companies to fire workers and deny them certain compensations. Hiring workers there is not as large of an investment. Thus, there are many more new jobs there, and the economy generally moves with greater pull. There are more people getting fired, but there are almost always other jobs for them to go to. The unemployment rate in France tends to be higher than those in Ireland and the UK.

Anyway, if a nation makes it harder for companies to invest there (by making employment more expensive, for instance) it will only decrease the number of companies willing to invest in it, and the dollars/lira/franks/euros that each of those will invest. There is still the demand for the product, and there is still need for workers, it will go on with or without my nation. Yup, the jobs will go to non-UN nations. non-UN nations which can allow a company to contractually obligate its workers to 41 hour weeks. A non-UN nation which is flexible in its labor laws. My economy will suffer, and the rest of the world's will pass on by.

My nation needs the flexibility to craft its labor laws to compete in its own local markets. If my neighbors make the workweek x length, I need to be able to compete on that level. If my neighbors set the rate at y hours, I must be able to keep up, or my people will be out of jobs, and my country will be facing hard times. It doesn't matter if x and y are 35 hours a week, or 45, simply setting the line at 40 across the board is ignoring the situation, not fixing it. Simply put, the UN is not the venue to dictate such specifics as maximum hours in a week. As Texan Hotrodders sometimes says: One size does not fit all.

OOC:

Regarding employment rights in the UK, what we're now getting is an enormous growth in temporary workers with virtually no job security, no pension contributions, etc, etc. In addition, our working culture is one of too many hours and too little productivity. Worker conditions in the UK are hardly ideal.

There's also the suspicion in some quarters that the unemployment figures have been 'massaged' to look better, though I'm not certain how valid this argument is (it comes from the Tories, usually).

As far as the resolution is concerned, I fully support it (I kind of have to as it was written by my region), despite reservations over the 80 hr requirement.

Unfortunately, I look at the Programming industry (that I'm trying to get into) as one of the worst sufferers from poor contract regulations. It is actually part of the reason why the jobs are moving to India fairly quickly.

Overall, the programming industry is chalk full of horror stories of massive workloads, gigantic expectations of overtime, and insane hours - not to mention that many companies end up not paying for overtime (a lot of them push governments to remove the overtime requirements for programmers). Some of these horror stories have it as employees working as many as 100 (!!!!!) hours a week - and failure to do so will will result in a cancellation of contract for not cooperating. There are no benefits for working the extra time, no extra money, nothing. As far as I'm concerned, that's a severe failure of protecting workers. They say that most people burn out after a few years in the industry

Thankfully I'm in the same city as one developer that is recognized for providing a much nicer atmosphere and treating employees with respect

As far as the resolution is concerned, I fully support it (I kind of have to as it was written by my region), despite reservations over the 80 hr requirement.
OOC: I agree with you on this point. It's too bad we can't do amendments. It should be pointed out that the resolution doesn't seem to apply to the self-employed. So independent contractors, consultants, etc. can still work until they drop dead from exhaustion if they choose to do so. Having said that...
IC: We will Never support a repeal of this resolution unless a suitable replacement is brought forth which offers the same protections as the original while changing the 80 hour maximum.

I am strongly against this repeal as the resolution protects the worker from unscrupulous employers and conglomerates. We have no requirement for tired and overworked employees as they are more a liability to themselves and others. Also we are forgetting the familys at home! Some children would grow up Hardly ever getting to know and cherish their breadwinning parent or Parents! I am pro Business! but not at any cost.

Esheram Byron.

OOC: I agree with you on this point. It's too bad we can't do amendments. It should be pointed out that the resolution doesn't seem to apply to the self-employed. So independent contractors, consultants, etc. can still work until they drop dead from exhaustion if they choose to do so. Having said that...
IC: We will Never support a repeal of this resolution unless a suitable replacement is brought forth which offers the same protections as the original while changing the 80 hour maximum.
Yes, you can't do so-called "volentary" work over 80 hours for your home based buisiness. That is another issue I decided against including in my repeal, but never the less an argument I should have.

I am strongly against this repeal as the resolution protects the worker from unscrupulous employers and conglomerates. We have no requirement for tired and overworked employees as they are more a liability to themselves and others. Also we are forgetting the familys at home! Some children would grow up Hardly ever getting to know and cherish their breadwinning parent or Parents! I am pro Business! but not at any cost.

Esheram Byron.
That doesn't sound like a libritarian view on this issue to me. Honestly, I think I should have the right to establish my own labor laws that best suit my country. I am not at all saying a limit on work is a bad thing, but it may be a little over-zealous to include a limit on volentary work.

Employers can work as many hours as they want. Employees are capped at 80hrs

I am not at all saying a limit on work is a bad thing, but it may be a little over-zealous to include a limit on volentary work.
Just imaging: 80 hours of voluntary work! It would mean that you work non-stop from 8 AM to 12 PM, 16 hours a day, 5 times a week! And a happy weekend of sleep to follow! Personnally, I'm glad someone thought of protecting me from a level of selfexploitation superior to that! Just by thinking of it, I'm already exhausted. Oh my God! I just fainted ...

Just imaging: 80 hours of voluntary work! It would mean that you work non-stop from 8 AM to 12 PM, 16 hours a day, 5 times a week! And a happy weekend of sleep to follow! Personnally, I'm glad someone thought of protecting me from a level of selfexploitation superior to that! Just by thinking of it, I'm already exhausted. Oh my God! I just fainted ...

Nah - 6 days of 12hrs, and a day of 8hrs to cap it off

Nah - 6 days of 12hrs, and a day of 8hrs to cap it off
Sounds lovely.