NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal is edited from the previous one. UN delegates, please approve this proposal if you think the UN should vote for this. Thank you. (Please make sure it is the latter proposal and not the previous one before approving)

The 5 Weekdays Work-week
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Developing Malaysia

Description:
1. The maximum standard full-time work-week shall be set at 5 weekdays. Nations shall remain free to set their work-weeks lower than this.

2. No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 5 weekdays per week, except for the following exemptions,
a ) military personnel
b ) civil defense forces
c ) civilian emergency response personnel
d ) workers running essential public services
Excepting military personnel and workers running essential public services, these exemptions shall only apply during emergency situations.

3. No one may be contractually obligated to remain on the work-site without pay.

4. EVERY weekends will be the World Family Days and also for religion activities worship and festivals. If a nation day of of worship and festivals falls outside the weekend they are free to set their own days for these.

5. REMINDING UN of The 40 Hours Work-week (UN Resolution #59 implemented on May 23 2004)

6. This resolution is to let the workers get more rest so they will be concentrate and work better during the weekdays. The overall work quality will increase and will eventually help the World economy. Beside increasing the basic welfare, it also let the workers share their weekends with family. Gradually, this will create a better and harmony World for all.

7. The 5 Weekday Work-week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers. Nations shall enact the laws needed to comply with the 5 Weekday Work-week within 1 year of the passing of this resolution and they may phase in the changes over the course of up to 4 years. The necessary changes must be fully implemented within 5 years of the passing of this resolution.

8. In time of declared emergencies the national government may suspend this directive to any sector of the work force it deems essential to the effective running of the country for the duration of that emergency.

I think that exemptions are also needed for sailors (because voyages may not fit neatly into the five-day week), including deep-sea fishermen, and maybe for politicians... Oh, and as we have some 'Future-Tech' nations around, for spaceships' crews as well...

you could ask the mods to delete the old one to avoid confusion.

You are still going to bankrupt the leisure industry

Bad idea. I'm all for restricting the total amount of work time, but dictating how that time is to be spread out is excessive micromanagement of our citizens' lives.

There are undoubtedly people out there who benefit more from working a schedule where they work 6 days a week, and they only work 7 hrs a day + 5 hrs on the 6th day. There are some who find the easiest schedule to be 4 days. The claim that everyone should only work 5 days a week, especially considering the massive influx of the service industry in most industrialized nations, is ludicrous. There certainly should be a limit to the number of hours they are required to work, but no limits beyond that. Some people need more flexibility in their schedules.

first of all: put the new draft in the original thread! dont start a new one! it is hard to tell what has changed, and a lot of the discussions get lost that way.
secondly: still call 2 rule violations. first one is the reference to Res #59, which is still not allowed, even as a reminder. the second is that it violates Res #59 because that one allows people to volentarily work over the 40 hours with just payment for their work. the way this is set out, it blocks this, with the exception of certain personel, which is illegal. as it stands, you actually have to repeal #59 in order to allow this one.

first of all: put the new draft in the original thread! dont start a new one! it is hard to tell what has changed, and a lot of the discussions get lost that way.
You could have said that without the yelling and the holier-than-thou attitude. The meaning would not have been lost.
secondly: still call 2 rule violations. first one is the reference to Res #59, which is still not allowed, even as a reminder. the second is that it violates Res #59 because that one allows people to volentarily work over the 40 hours with just payment for their work. the way this is set out, it blocks this, with the exception of certain personel, which is illegal. as it stands, you actually have to repeal #59 in order to allow this one.
This is debatable at best. You would still be able to work over forty hours if you could only work five days. The phrase you are looking for is 'This may conflict with…'

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

first of all: put the new draft in the original thread! dont start a new one! it is hard to tell what has changed, and a lot of the discussions get lost that way.
secondly: still call 2 rule violations. first one is the reference to Res #59, which is still not allowed, even as a reminder. the second is that it violates Res #59 because that one allows people to volentarily work over the 40 hours with just payment for their work. the way this is set out, it blocks this, with the exception of certain personel, which is illegal. as it stands, you actually have to repeal #59 in order to allow this one.

Check your facts:

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

If this resolution can stand on its own without resolution 59, then there is no House of Cards violation.

Second, the wording of this and resolution 59 are close enough that there is no contradiction. Both make a limit on CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, but this one makes no upper limit beyond the contract (while 40hr says you can't volunteer more than an additional 40hrs). As such, no contradiction.

That said, re-reading it, I realized I shouldn't have stopped after two points.

You could have said that without the yelling and the holier-than-thou attitude. The meaning would not have been lost.

i apologise, it is early in the moring, i am tired, and this is the umpteenth time this had happend.... something had to give.
Second, the wording of this and resolution 59 are close enough that there is no contradiction. Both make a limit on CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, but this one makes no upper limit beyond the contract (while 40hr says you can't volunteer more than an additional 40hrs). As such, no contradiction.

the common misconception with Res #59 is that you are limited to working 40 hrs a week, which is the reason it is up for repeal so much. but it allows people to work beyond that, if they wish, to a limit of 80. two problems arise here: even working 12 hr days, you will not get 80 hrs in 5 days. secondly, if you are an industrial worker (miner, labourer, process tech), and you are working in the middle of dingo whoop-whoop, you are not going to want to stay there for your days off, and if you wanted to fly/drive back home, it would serverly cut into your well deserved time off. and if you were there for the money, you wouldnt be able to work the full 80 hrs that you are entitled to without taking into account safety of a 10 hr break between knocking off and starting. now you take it that a lot of industries, both in the middle of nowhere and in built up areas, work like that, then you would have a lot of economic trouble with this resolution. whilst the sentiments are noble, in all practicality Res #59 covers things perfectly atm

The 5 Weekdays Work-week
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Developing Malaysia

Description:
1. The maximum standard full-time work-week shall be set at 5 weekdays. Nations shall remain free to set their work-weeks lower than this.

Commented on above

2. No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 5 weekdays per week, except for the following exemptions,
a ) military personnel
b ) civil defense forces
c ) civilian emergency response personnel
d ) workers running essential public services
Excepting military personnel and workers running essential public services, these exemptions shall only apply during emergency situations.

Considering that essential public services could include...say....teachers but generally does not include, say, public transit, etc.

3. No one may be contractually obligated to remain on the work-site without pay.

Um....fine.

4. EVERY weekends will be the World Family Days and also for religion activities worship and festivals. If a nation day of of worship and festivals falls outside the weekend they are free to set their own days for these.

What if you don't have a "weekend"? How are people supposed to rearrange their workweek to find the day for worship if they aren't allowed to work on the weekend? Are they, therefore, not able to work the full 5 days? What about those who run these "World Family Days"? What about those who are supposed to clean up the mess afterwards? If there's no public transportation available, how are those without a vehicle supposed to get to these events? What if a car breaks down? Are no tow trucks allowed to go and fetch it? What if there's a power outage? Are no electricians allowed to fix the power lines? Are we not allowed to gas up our cars because the gas stations must be closed? What about those who can't buy their groceries during the 9-5 time slot during the week because they also are working at that time? Or any other kind of shopping? What about all sorts of entertainment other that religious festivals? What if you don't follow a religion? Etc, etc, etc.

5. REMINDING UN of The 40 Hours Work-week (UN Resolution #59 implemented on May 23 2004)

Put this first.

6. This resolution is to let the workers get more rest so they will be concentrate and work better during the weekdays. The overall work quality will increase and will eventually help the World economy. Beside increasing the basic welfare, it also let the workers share their weekends with family. Gradually, this will create a better and harmony World for all.

This is an argument, not a proposed law. Put this near the top. Add on that this shows a belief that all must run along the same set of shifts for best efficiency. Add on that this shows a blatant failure to consider those who work more than one job. Etc, etc, etc

7. The 5 Weekday Work-week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers. Nations shall enact the laws needed to comply with the 5 Weekday Work-week within 1 year of the passing of this resolution and they may phase in the changes over the course of up to 4 years. The necessary changes must be fully implemented within 5 years of the passing of this resolution.

By simple logic, the standard of living of the workers will drop. All my arguments have already been presented to prove this

8. In time of declared emergencies the national government may suspend this directive to any sector of the work force it deems essential to the effective running of the country for the duration of that emergency.

Fine.

i apologise, it is early in the moring, i am tired, and this is the umpteenth time this had happend.... something had to give.

Not that it counts for shit but:
http://img75.echo.cx/img75/7615/senioritycard7pd.jpg
There is no excuse for your constant holier-than-thou attitude.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

the common misconception with Res #59 is that you are limited to working 40 hrs a week, which is the reason it is up for repeal so much. but it allows people to work beyond that, if they wish, to a limit of 80.

Exactly what I said. Thank you for telling me what I already know

two problems arise here: even working 12 hr days, you will not get 80 hrs in 5 days.

1) 7am to 11pm shifts for 5 days straight will suffice to make 80 hrs. No contradiction
2) The extra 40 hours are beyond contract, just as the 6th and 7th day of work would be beyond contract, DEFINATELY NO CONTRADICTION

secondly, if you are an industrial worker (miner, labourer, process tech), and you are working in the middle of dingo whoop-whoop, you are not going to want to stay there for your days off, and if you wanted to fly/drive back home, it would serverly cut into your well deserved time off. and if you were there for the money, you wouldnt be able to work the full 80 hrs that you are entitled to without taking into account safety of a 10 hr break between knocking off and starting. now you take it that a lot of industries, both in the middle of nowhere and in built up areas, work like that, then you would have a lot of economic trouble with this resolution. whilst the sentiments are noble, in all practicality Res #59 covers things perfectly atm

I am not claiming that this proposal is a good one, but to call it illegal is simply false. It does not contradict resolution 59 in any way, shape or form and it sure as heck isn't a HoC violation. Get your head out of your ass. Those numbers you've presented are not listed in resolution 59, they were given by you. You can be expected to work 40hrs straight by resolution 59, and you still wouldn't be out of violation. These are not practical things to do, but they are legal things to do.

Exactly what I said. Thank you for telling me what I already know



1) 7am to 11pm shifts for 5 days straight will suffice to make 80 hrs. No contradiction
2) The extra 40 hours are beyond contract, just as the 6th and 7th day of work would be beyond contract, DEFINATELY NO CONTRADICTION



I am not claiming that this proposal is a good one, but to call it illegal is simply false. It does not contradict resolution 59 in any way, shape or form and it sure as heck isn't a HoC violation. Get your head out of your ass. Those numbers you've presented are not listed in resolution 59, they were given by you. You can be expected to work 40hrs straight by resolution 59, and you still wouldn't be out of violation. These are not practical things to do, but they are legal things to do.
first of all, i aknowledge after you pointing it out the first time that it isnt a HoC violation. if i didnt, i would have kept up the argument. also, after re-reading, i do realise that they had added the 'not contractually obligated' part, and i apologise for that.

OOC: with the way you suggested, 7am to 11pm, that would be illegal here in australia. due to OH&S laws here, there has to be a minimum 10 hr break between stopping and starting.

to The Black New World: i dont care. i appologised, gave my reasons. deal with it

to The Black New World: i dont care. i appologised, gave my reasons. deal with it
Maybe now you get were we are coming from. We don't care. We don't care about that authority you seem to believe you have. That 'oh my god not again', 'stfu noob' attitude.

And you didn't apologise. You said 'I apologise' and then let yourself off.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

first of all, i aknowledge after you pointing it out the first time that it isnt a HoC violation. if i didnt, i would have kept up the argument. also, after re-reading, i do realise that they had added the 'not contractually obligated' part, and i apologise for that.

OOC: with the way you suggested, 7am to 11pm, that would be illegal here in australia. due to OH&S laws here, there has to be a minimum 10 hr break between stopping and starting.

to The Black New World: i dont care. i appologised, gave my reasons. deal with it

You don't get it, do you? If the UN said that there should be no required downtime between any two shifts, and Australia as you know it was part of the UN, its laws would be overruled by the UN. It would be a non-issue. If national laws contradict with UN laws, the national laws is either revised or deleted. That's how the UN works. Thus your point is IRRELEVANT. UN law bows to only two laws: UN law and mod law. Everything else is irrelevant as far as legality is concerned.

Now, regarding YOU. You come on claiming you were here before (though evidence is starting to come out that this is true) with a writing style that is far from promoting any level of respect for you (and a vocabulary and grammar level indicative of someone who is fully fluent in English), with a holier-than-thou attitude bitching about the lack of quality proposals, complaining about how the days when "quality assurance" people were rigorously going through proposals and tearing them apart, criticize just about every major member of this forum at some point or another for some reason or another feeling that they have failed at some point or another, and a total failure to make correctly researched arguments. I have news for you - WE DON'T CARE. You disappeared for a long period of time, and the average age of the major members is low enough that they didn't meet you last time. As such, your record on these forums is clean, you have NO authority on these matters. Add on that the things you have said, the treatment you have given both active members of these forums and newbies that are just popping in means that you deserve LESS respect or consideration than they do. I am sick of your attitude and I'm CERTAIN I'm not the only one. So, like I said earlier, get your head out of your ass.

Sorry for causing argument in this post...

First, I apologizer for making another thread. This may not be a reason, but because I afraid if I put in the previous post, people will only read the first page and got bored with it.

Now, thank you for those who help me defend that this is a resolution that can stand alone. Yes, I repeat again, THIS RESOLUTION IS DEFINITELY ABLE TO STAND ALONE. Hope UN Delegates who think this should be put at vote approve before the deadline. Thank you once again.

Alright, simply put: If this resolution passes, workers are still able to work less or more than 40 hours as stated in Resolution #59. If the Resolution #59 anyhow being repealed in the future, this resolution is able to stand alone.

Anymore questions? :headbang:

Without making any comment on the proposal, which I have't read ...

Chill out, you old-timers and nouveau old-timers. Everybody back away from the table and go grab a fresh grapefruit juice or coffee or something.

the delegate from The Lynx Alliance walks away to cool down and take another look at this proposal and resolution #59

first of all, with this, we call national sovereignty, in that we already have the 40 Hour Work Week, and this seems more constrictive than that passed resolution. also, this fails to take into account shift work, which can be a contractual obligation. for some industries they have rosters ranging from four days on, four off, to four weeks on, one week off. it isnt cost effective to shut down plants for 2 days, and then restart them. also, as there is a multitude of nations, there is a multitude of different religious rest days. we have at least a dozen here, and not all of them fall on the same day.

on a different note, looking at the proposal, and resolution #59, side by side, this seems like a carbon copy of Res #59 with some alterations to make it 5 Weekdays Work-Week, the removal of 2 sections and the addition of 2 new ones.

I know I keep asking this, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been an answer yet.......

What about the leisure industry? That is not an essential public service, and it's not part of the emergency services, but if all these people from offices and so forth are going to have a long weekend, then they are going to want to do do something, like go to a theme park or go to The Palladium Tower, and there are going to have to be staff there for thsee places to be open.

I know I keep asking this, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been an answer yet.......

What about the leisure industry? That is not an essential public service, and it's not part of the emergency services, but if all these people from offices and so forth are going to have a long weekend, then they are going to want to do do something, like go to a theme park or go to The Palladium Tower, and there are going to have to be staff there for thsee places to be open.
the leisure industry isnt the only one that would be affected by this. a large section of nation's industries will be affected by this

Some industrial processes normally run on a continuous basis rather than a ‘batch’ one, and in some cases stopping & re-starting these for every weekend would not only take up significant parts of the preceding & following days but place significant stress on the systems involved…

Weekend work: Don’t forget the clergy… and farmers, zookeepers, & anybody else who has to look after animals… and what about the news media?

What about a possible exemption, in wartime, for workers who are in munitions factories, and those whose jobs involve producing or repairing military vehicles?

Oh, and what about any cultures that have calendars featuring weeks with lengths other than 7 days or that (like the Ancient Romans) don’t actually use the concept of ‘weeks’ at all?

We would appreciate some clarification from the honorable delegate from Developing Malaysia. We think we understand what the proposal is aiming at, but we're not sure.

As we read it, the proposal would set the standard contractual work week at 40 hours, with the work to be done on weekdays. Weekend days could not be included. An example: In a given nation, the traditional weekend is Saturday and Sunday. The 40 hours of "standard contractual" work would have to be performed Monday-Friday.

Please let us know if we're correct in this interpretation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The 40 hours of "standard contractual" work would have to be performed Monday-Friday.

Please let us know if we're correct in this interpretation.
Yes, you're absolutely right. The 40 hours is because of the resolution #59 though.

one peice of advice, Developing Malaysia: go through and re-write the proposal. at this point, all it looks like is, almost word for word, res #59 with with 40 hours work week replaced with 5 week-days work week, 2 sections removed, and 2 added. i actually went through and checked it side by side with res #59 and could paste here if anyone else wanted the proof. though i am unsure of legalities (ask a mod on that), it does look unprofessional to copy and alter someone elses work

We thank the honorable representative from Developing Malaysia for the prompt answer to our question. Unfortunately, we cannot support the proposal.

As has been accurately pointed out by the honorable representatives from Pallatium, St Edmund, and The Lynx Alliance, the proposal would have a detrimental effect on many types of businesses and their customers, both in manufacturing and service industries. Also, as the honorable representative from Forgottenlands noted, it would place unacceptable limits on full-time (40-hour) employees who wanted to work "flexi-time" type schedules, with shorter hours on more than five days.

We would point out two further concerns.... As written, the proposal would preclude scheduling "civilian emergency response personnel", which would include firefighters, emergency medical service workers, and law enforcement personnel, for weekend work:

2. No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 5 weekdays per week, except for the following exemptions,
a ) military personnel
b ) civil defense forces
c ) civilian emergency response personnel
d ) workers running essential public services
Excepting military personnel and workers running essential public services, these exemptions shall only apply during emergency situations.

Finally, the proposal would preclude part-time workers from scheduling hours on weekends. This could be a blow to people who, because of family situations or medical problems, can only work for shorter periods than a normal work day, but need to put in as many hours as they can.

The intent of the proposal is commendable, but we believe its ill effects would outweigh the good.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I don't see the need for this when we already have the forty hour workweek; it just seems an unnecessary intrusion to say when they have to work those forty hours also.
There are also plenty of jobs that could hardly be called essential public services that will need to work on weekends, for example fishermen, priests, rabbis, printers, reporters, librarians, tour guides, shop assistants and many more.
Thirdly, what about Moslems? There Holy day is on a Friday, yet with this they would not be able to take Friday off and work on Sunday instead.

two problems arise here: even working 12 hr days, you will not get 80 hrs in 5 days.



5 X 24 = 120 - 80 = 40 - 10 (at 2 hour a day for sleep) - 10 (a 1 hour break every hour) = 10 hours they have nothing to do in the 5 days... Oops forgot lunch so figure 2 hours... leaves 8 they have nothing to do... and if they don't work they can't afford to use that 8 hours the way they might want to use it... let alone the so called weekend 48 they will get by this.... If anything all rules that keep a person from working should be ended now. How else is anyone going to get anything... with nobody working...