NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #59
Proposed by: Sinman

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

Argument:
Fact 1: Productivity in developed countries have been increasing exponentially for more than a century. An average worker in a developed country now needs to work a mere 22 hours per week to produce as much as one working 80 hours per week only five decades ago. Consequently, this has led some nations to limit the number of working hours to a maximum and thus decrease overall employment rate and increase consumption.

Fact 2: However, this argument does not hold true for newly established nations which already have a low population to begin with and agriculture based industries which are utilising low-technology and are highly labor intensive. The small and poor countries are being unjustly penalized even further by increasing their labour costs with this article.

Conclusion: The march of productivity is such that its increase in even as short a time span as a decade could be used to dramatically reduce working hours while living standards remained constant. However, this should be dictated by free market dynamics rather than a force majeure.

Postscript: How long can the productivity growth continue? Even if the supposedly high rate of increase in recent times were continued, productivity is not likely to improve by as much in the next five decades as technological breakthroughs are nearing an end.

I have personally submitted a proposal to repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution which I believe limits the productivity and hinders the growth prospects of newly established nations whose economy relies on the labour intenstive agriculture and fishing business, such as, incidentally, the Colony of Sinman. I would appreciate like-minded leaders to support this proposal. Unfortunately, we can only reciprocate when our economy grows, therefore your participation is highly encouraged from the beginning, not the end.

On Behalf of the People of the Colony of Sinman
The Mostly-Benevolent Dictator Sinman

I have personally submitted a proposal to repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution which I believe limits the productivity and hinders the growth prospects of newly established nations whose economy relies on the labour intenstive agriculture and fishing business, such as, incidentally, the Colony of Sinman. I would appreciate like-minded leaders to support this proposal. Unfortunately, we can only reciprocate when our economy grows, therefore your participation is highly encouraged from the beginning, not the end.

On Behalf of the People of the Colony of Sinman
The Mostly-Benevolent Dictator Sinman

No

No repeal will ever get my support for this resolution.

It is a wonderfully written resolution and adaquetely addresses an important issue.

It is a wonderfully written resolution and adaquetely[sic] addresses an important issue.

It's a resolution that addresses an important issue in all the wrong ways - by enforcing a 'one size fits all' 'solution' to a complex problem and ignoring the radically different employment structures of many nations. It's an imposition on some pretty fundamental human rights.

That doesn't I'd support this Repeal Proposal - just the idea of one.

technological breakthroughs are nearing an end.

I hate this "end of history" claptrap - the sheer arrogance of the inability to imagine that we might not be the pinnacle of human development. What are you basing this claim on? Biotech, for instance, looks like it's going to advance in leaps and bounds this century, with massive implications for the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries.

Anyway - to the main point. The 80 weekly hours allowed by this resolution are sufficient for anything, and to drive anyone to work longer than this (which is what the market could well force in some industries were the matter unregulated) is oppressive. It doesn't matter if you feel your national interest requires your workers to put in unhealthy and oppressive hours - it doesn't justify removing their human rights.

Anyway - to the main point. The 80 weekly hours allowed by this resolution are sufficient for anything, and to drive anyone to work longer than this (which is what the market could well force in some industries were the matter unregulated) is oppressive. It doesn't matter if you feel your national interest requires your workers to put in unhealthy and oppressive hours - it doesn't justify removing their human rights.

What about those among us who are not human? In Texan Hotrodders, some of our citizens are robotic, energy-based, or have a physiology such that they do not require nearly the same amount of time to recuperate from labor. Why should their productivity be restricted simply because humans are so fragile?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Furthermore, given that some nations have genetically engineered species capable of working without respite, and that such workers are afforded the same rights as 'normal' humans in UN law, this seems an unfair infringement on rights.

I'm still scratching my head over the poll:

"Should work contracts be determined by free market dynamics or force majeure?: Yes; No; Abstain"

Huh?

In many nations, these beings work alongside humans and others similarly restricted. If it were possible to employ a sentient robot for 150 hours a week, this would massively disadvantage humans through no fault of their own due to their unavoidable characteristics, as employers would only hire those capable of working 150 hours a week.

Anyway, even if a sentient being is capable of working for more than half of the hours in a week, it is unfair to allow the market to create an expectation that workers should devote more than half of their lives to their jobs, which to the majority are in large part merely means to the end of living a better life.

In many nations, these beings work alongside humans and others similarly restricted. If it were possible to employ a sentient robot for 150 hours a week, this would massively disadvantage humans through no fault of their own due to their unavoidable characteristics, as employers would only hire those capable of working 150 hours a week.

No, employers are specifically prohibited from discriminating against genetically-engineered humans, who have the same the rights as their lazy human counterparts.

I'm sorry, I don't understand how giving engineered and non-engineered humans the same entitlements and rights can be regarded as discrimination?

In many nations, these beings work alongside humans and others similarly restricted. If it were possible to employ a sentient robot for 150 hours a week, this would massively disadvantage humans through no fault of their own due to their unavoidable characteristics, as employers would only hire those capable of working 150 hours a week.

Anyway, even if a sentient being is capable of working for more than half of the hours in a week, it is unfair to allow the market to create an expectation that workers should devote more than half of their lives to their jobs, which to the majority are in large part merely means to the end of living a better life.

It is even more unfair to place such restrictions on the liberties of certain individuals simply because their physiology allows for greater productivity than that of baseline humans.

Let us say, hypothetically speaking, that there are two workers. One of these workers is capable of working 40 hours every week. The other is capable of working 41 hours every week. To me, it seems silly to suggest that we should begrudge the second worker one extra hour with which he can earn more wages so he can improve his life even further. So what happens if the second worker is capable of working 45 hours? 50? 60? 100? Should we make an arbitrary restriction upon the ability of workers to be productive and earn greater wages to increase their quality of life? Is not personal liberty highly valued in _Myopia_? Do your people truly find it desirable to erode liberty for all species in the interests of creating an artificial equality for their own species?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Chip,

I actually realized that the poll was flawed the moment I posted it. Couldn't find a way to edit it, any ideas? Really sorry about that, I meant:

"Should work contracts be determined by free market dynamics rather than force majeure?: Yes; No; Abstain"

Sinman

I am not going to go into the 40 vs 41 hours a week crap. Let the person volunteer his extra hour if he so feels like it every week.

I don't care what they were genetically designed or capable for. As far as I'm concerned, the human body is CAPABLE of taking 80 hours a week (or more in some cases) of work, but I will still stand firm at 40 hours with optionality of overtime. It's not about what you are capable of, it's about the belief that you have the right to choose how to live the other 128 hours of the week. If you want to blow 40 of them on overtime, so be it. However, I don't believe it should be made as part of the schedule. If the person wants to do it, let that person approach the boss, not the other way around.

Ok. I concede that a good point is made about the differences between species - and if someone can write a proposal which adequately replaces the 40 hour workweek original whilst providing for nations with substantial numbers of citizens of different species/lifeforms, then I will support a repeal with a view to replacement.

However, the basic principle is a sound one. Yes, restricting work-weeks is a loss of liberty, but an unregulated market will likely also result in workers being coerced into accepting poor working conditions by the threat of unemployment - and this, to us, appears a greater loss of liberty.

Freedom from government control, whilst important, is not the only kind of freedom that needs to be considered when trying to maximise liberty for all individuals. An individual might be totally free from any demands and rules placed by governments, and thus has total de jure freedom, but is in fact likely to suffer de facto lack of freedom because he is at the mercy of those with physical or economic power, who are also free from the constraints of government.

Ok. I concede that a good point is made about the differences between species - and if someone can write a proposal which adequately replaces the 40 hour workweek original whilst providing for nations with substantial numbers of citizens of different species/lifeforms, then I will support a repeal with a view to replacement.

However, the basic principle is a sound one. Yes, restricting work-weeks is a loss of liberty, but an unregulated market will likely also result in workers being coerced into accepting poor working conditions by the threat of unemployment - and this, to us, appears a greater loss of liberty.

Freedom from government control, whilst important, is not the only kind of freedom that needs to be considered when trying to maximise liberty for all individuals. An individual might be totally free from any demands and rules placed by governments, and thus has total de jure freedom, but is in fact likely to suffer de facto lack of freedom because he is at the mercy of those with physical or economic power, who are also free from the constraints of government.

OOC: Since I don't really feel like getting further into the philosophical distinctions between postive and negative liberty, muddying the entire concept of liberty, and generally causing everyone to suffer from information overload, I'll leave off here... :D

Chip,

I actually realized that the poll was flawed the moment I posted it. Couldn't find a way to edit it, any ideas? Really sorry about that, I meant:

"Should work contracts be determined by free market dynamics rather than force majeure?: Yes; No; Abstain"

Sinman
Heh, it's okay, nothing to be sorry about. It's good to know what you meant though :)

OOC: Since I don't really feel like getting further into the philosophical distinctions between postive and negative liberty, muddying the entire concept of liberty, and generally causing everyone to suffer from information overload, I'll leave off here... :D

Yeah, probably best not to hijack the topic rehashing the same arguments that have been made a thousand times about this resolution. At least, I know I don't have much to say that I haven't said before.

Anyway, I would be interested to hear a response to my objection to the proposal's claim that technological advancement is nearing an end.

Yes, I'm very much in accord with you on that front. I don't understand how he can be suggesting that we've pretty much run out of inventions.

I can't remember where I read it, but it said as a preamble that as we approached the end of the nineteenth century, scientist believed that we had discovered all the major discoveries we were going to make. There might be some minor inventions or discoveries, but nothing that was major.

In the 20th century, we invented the airplane, the tank, space exploration, computers, the microchip, the nuke, the missile, etc. Out of all of those, I think only the tank could have been theorized by the average scientist - and I doubt the nuke could have even kindof been imagined

And yet, somehow, we found things to invent and created some of the most useful tools and greatest horrors man has ever seen. And now, we're coming to the end of the 20th century with the same mentality. Honestly:
"He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it"

no.

Even though several of my fellow sovereigntists have spoken out in favor of the repeal, I'm opposed to repealing this resolution. (Of course, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites had 40 hour work week laws before the resolution was passed anyway and will continue to have them even if it's repealed so it's kind of a moot point for us anyway)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative