NationStates Jolt Archive

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


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #59
Proposed by: Dablaires

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

Argument: NOTING that many people in the lower class need jobs to sustain a sutiable life.

RECOGNIZING that many professions like the law need to work over 80 hours to set up a suitable case

ENFORCING this law is unreasonable and very unlikely (see 2.A)

1.A For certain professions it is not fair to make corporations to pay 1.5 their base pay. For executives and attorneys that would mean a significat gain in money

1.B What is work. What if someone merely stays overtime and cheats their company. This is not addressed and probably will happen.

1.C What if XYZ accounting sets a deadline for some new accounts to be processed. Several people decide to stay after to finsh work but XYZ kicks them out of the building to avoid paying overtime. That's not fair to the people but nothing is stopping this from happening.

2.A Who enforces that this act is carried out. An international revenue agency would be very obselete and you are forcing the government to pay people to probably work 40 hours plus and then they'd have to regulate themselves.

2.B The money spent enforcing this bill could be better spent on welfare or education.

2.C Court dates would have to be spent to punish the inevitable cheaters. These dates could be avoided and used for more important things like imcrinating crimnals.

Right off, your XYZ hypothetical kills this proposal. The people of Cluichstan, however, would support a well-written repeal of this resolution.

We do fully endorse the repeal of this act.
As it places wholly unnecaserry [OOC no matter how hard i try can never spell that word] restriction upon the right of citizens to do as they choose with there own time.

We agree with Cluichstan. Repealing is fine, but not with that argument.

We do fully endorse the repeal of this act.
As it places wholly unnecaserry [OOC no matter how hard i try can never spell that word] restriction upon the right of citizens to do as they choose with there own time.

Yet other people would say it prevents widescale worker exploitation, it prevents companies from circumventing the anti-slavery resolution by forcing people to work 24 hours a day (assuming there are 24 hours in a day), 7 days a week (ditto) for the year, while paying them a pittence to do so.

While it does prevent people from working 120 hours a week, it prevents them from being forced to do so as well - citizens can chose what do do with their time, but what if that choice is removed because this is repealed?

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


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #59
Proposed by: Dablaires

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

Not if I can help it

Argument: NOTING that many people in the lower class need jobs to sustain a sutiable life.

Wonderful

RECOGNIZING that many professions like the law need to work over 80 hours to set up a suitable case

Interesting how you all of a sudden swing from a lower clas job to a higher class job, plus I am certain that if there's an issue of not enough time then you can hire more people to assist the lawyer in question. There are, of course, other alternatives (you'd be hard pressed to make a man truly devoted to stop working after 80 hours).

Personally, I have a hard time believing your argument - CEO's and Presidents, perhaps. But they aren't exactly "employees". Lawyers......that's harder to believe.

ENFORCING this law is unreasonable and very unlikely (see 2.A)

Bull

1.A For certain professions it is not fair to make corporations to pay 1.5 their base pay. For executives and attorneys that would mean a significat gain in money

Which makes it beneficial for the company not to force these people to work more than 40 hours and to hire other employees to fill the void. I honestly don't care.

1.B What is work. What if someone merely stays overtime and cheats their company. This is not addressed and probably will happen.

The company hasn't lost the right to refuse overtime. If they have, it's because of problems within your own nation's laws, not this resolution.

1.C What if XYZ accounting sets a deadline for some new accounts to be processed. Several people decide to stay after to finsh work but XYZ kicks them out of the building to avoid paying overtime. That's not fair to the people but nothing is stopping this from happening.

Then that is XYZ's problem. I'm not going to change the law so they can abuse their employees and pretend those extra 40+ hours are just normal hours - nor am I going to let them use the even worse case of not even clocking the extra hours.

2.A Who enforces that this act is carried out. An international revenue agency would be very obselete and you are forcing the government to pay people to probably work 40 hours plus and then they'd have to regulate themselves.

Amazing how there aren't very many governments that seem to have an issue with this...... You are just fishing for excuses - and this is a rather poor attempt.

2.B The money spent enforcing this bill could be better spent on welfare or education.

*rolls eyes*

Yes, let's spend the money protecting people from being abused and which produces more jobs because people can't work there employees for 100 hours straight and put it into welfare and education where the former is not mandated at all and outright rejected by many and the latter doesn't help the lower class already working at jobs that are forcing them to work these obscene hours. No sir, I do not buy that argument whatsoever.

2.C Court dates would have to be spent to punish the inevitable cheaters. These dates could be avoided and used for more important things like imcrinating crimnals.

*rolls eyes* Yes, people BREAKING THE LAW that are tried in court for defying resolution 59 are not CRIMINALS.

You have some good points, I'll give you credit for taking time out of your pitiful day to crituque the work of someone else. That must have been a good 45 minutes well spent.

You have some good points, I'll give you credit for taking time out of your pitiful day to crituque the work of someone else. That must have been a good 45 minutes well spent.

10 actually. And I've spent well more than 45 minutes defending my own (points to resolution at vote).

If you can't handle criticism, I do not recommend posting here. Some of us can be rather scathing in our comments. If your proposal does not come up to scratch, you can bet you will be burnt. My own work has gone through extensive debate and I've had to redraft and people are already looking to repeal it. It is the nature of this entire place. We debate, we comment, we note the flaws, we note the stupid mistakes, the errors of judgement, the failures to understand, and the reasons we believe what we believe on a certain issue. You've submitted your proposal so that means you're equal game to anyone else's. The fact that you're new gives you no leniency. If your arguments are moderately good, I'll help you improve them. If your arguments are nothing short of stupid, I will shred them to bits (and when I shred arguments, I don't do it in half lines, I do it in paragraphs and speeches much longer than this).

Welcome to the UN.

OOC: I think the original resolution is misunderstood.

"RECOGNIZING that many professions like the law need to work over 80 hours to set up a suitable case"

The original resolution doesn't regulate self employment (how can it), nor does it prohibit workers from taking multiple jobs. This doesn't directly contradict the above statement, as there are times when people do work extended work weeks (think police officers during emergency situtations), but this is easily solved by granting employees the right to decide on their own if they want more or not.

The point of the original resolution was to prevent corporations or government agencies from making long work weeks a regular condition of employment, and I think that is pretty clear in the existing resolution.

I'm going to suggest that if you want to have a debate on the merits of a repeal that it would be helpful to post the text of the resolution being repealed as well.

Right off, your XYZ hypothetical kills this proposal. The people of Cluichstan, however, would support a well-written repeal of this resolution.

The government of St Edmund agrees with the people of Cluichstan about this.

(OOC: Incidentally, how was the resolution supposed to apply in any nations that use 'weeks' of different lengths to the "standard" one or who don't use the concept of weeks at all? Would it require them to change their calendar systems?)

Meh, I just shortened the week to three days...

I think this repeal is based on misinterpretations of the original resolution. All it does is forbid companies to force their employees to work more than 40 hours a week. It doesn't mean those employees can't do overtime voluntarily.

And this:
NOTING that many people in the lower class need jobs to sustain a sutiable life.

If they can't earn a living in 40 hours a week, then the employment conditions in your nation are in desperate need of improvement.

We will not support a repeal of this resolution, certainly not on these arguments.

against. not only does this protect workers from being exploited, it garentees them a minimum of 40 hours a week. this helps people get work (especially if companies dont want to pay overtime) and keep them off the dole cue

it garentees them a minimum of 40 hours a week

Umm... no it doesn't. You can get still get a job and work 35 hours a week instead. This resolution doesn't guarantee anyone any employment for any hours. It just says that if you are lucky enough to get a job, you can't be made to kill yourself doing it.

I'm dead set against a repeal of this resolution, unless someone can draft a replacement which satisfactorily provides for species with different physical limits to those of humans.

OOC: For heaven's sake, the whole 'different time scales' argument is absurd. If we were to try to take account of every eventuality in the NSverse we'd never get anything done.

"If they can't earn a living in 40 hours a week, then the employment conditions in your nation are in desperate need of improvement.

We will not support a repeal of this resolution, certainly not on these arguments."


That is not true. Lets suppose a family with 3 kids and a widowed mother. The mother would have to work more than 1 job because she is in the lower class. She wouldn't be living in a crappy apartment if she was a buisnesswoman. She would have to work two jobs to sustain a comfortable life for her children.

"If they can't earn a living in 40 hours a week, then the employment conditions in your nation are in desperate need of improvement.

We will not support a repeal of this resolution, certainly not on these arguments."


That is not true. Lets suppose a family with 3 kids and a widowed mother. The mother would have to work more than 1 job because she is in the lower class. She wouldn't be living in a crappy apartment if she was a buisnesswoman. She would have to work two jobs to sustain a comfortable life for her children.

That would depend on the nation and how its run. In my nation she wouldn't have to work at all unless she wanted to because we have a comprahensive welfare system and make allowences for the parent in a one parent household to be home for their children.

In other nations, a decent minimum wage would ensure she wouldn't need to work two jobs to provide a decent standard of living for her family.

I don't support a repeal of this resolution because it does protect workers from exploitation by employers. The woman in your example, being lower class, is one of those who need that protection. The lower class the job, and the more the employee needs the work, the more open the workers are to being railroaded by employers and forced to work unreasonable hours.

That would depend on the nation and how its run. In my nation she wouldn't have to work at all unless she wanted to because we have a comprahensive welfare system and make allowences for the parent in a one parent household to be home for their children.

In other nations, a decent minimum wage would ensure she wouldn't need to work two jobs to provide a decent standard of living for her family.

I don't support a repeal of this resolution because it does protect workers from exploitation by employers. The woman in your example, being lower class, is one of those who need that protection. The lower class the job, and the more the employee needs the work, the more open the workers are to being railroaded by employers and forced to work unreasonable hours.


Then someone should create a proposal that stops the abuse of people by their employers. Not making a law changing how corporations have to pay their employees. A proposal banning abuse of a companies workers would be better I think.

Then someone should create a proposal that stops the abuse of people by their employers. Not making a law changing how corporations have to pay their employees. A proposal banning abuse of a companies workers would be better I think.
thats why we have the rights of labour unions resolution. they can go on strike and fight for better conditions.

Then someone should create a proposal that stops the abuse of people by their employers. Not making a law changing how corporations have to pay their employees. A proposal banning abuse of a companies workers would be better I think.

*mutters something insulting*

LISTEN:

If you think that a woman is any better off having to work two jobs where she is working 40 hr/wk at each job is going to be ANY better off by the removal of this resolution making it so she can work at the one job for 80 hrs/wk or more since no upper limit would exist, you SERIOUSLY need to be checked in the head for logic failure. Do not even PRETEND that your proposed repeal helps the employee one bit.

*mutters something insulting*

LISTEN:

If you think that a woman is any better off having to work two jobs where she is working 40 hr/wk at each job is going to be ANY better off by the removal of this resolution making it so she can work at the one job for 80 hrs/wk or more since no upper limit would exist, you SERIOUSLY need to be checked in the head for logic failure. Do not even PRETEND that your proposed repeal helps the employee one bit.
couldnt have said it any better myself. actually, mine would be way lamer

On consideration, We find that we are for the repealing of this law, as we feel it is within the jurisdiction of the labour law and should be upto individual unions and countries to decide upon.

Small note. We do not endorse this repeal on the grounds of national sovreignty, but on the grounds of flexibilty.

On consideration, We find that we are against the repealing of this law, as we feel it is within the jurisdiction of the labour law and should be upto individual unions and countries to decide upon.
ahh wha?? wouldnt you, by that argument, actually be for the repeal, on national sovereignty grounds?

OOC, poop, that is indeed what i meant.

*mutters something insulting*

LISTEN:

If you think that a woman is any better off having to work two jobs where she is working 40 hr/wk at each job is going to be ANY better off by the removal of this resolution making it so she can work at the one job for 80 hrs/wk or more since no upper limit would exist, you SERIOUSLY need to be checked in the head for logic failure. Do not even PRETEND that your proposed repeal helps the employee one bit.

You really don't get it do you. I never said that this woman will work 80 hours a week. She may work 1 full time job and 1 part time job. But what if her employer fires her because he doesn't want to pay 1.5 times her pay? The origanal resoulution doesn't say anything about this. The resoulution if it wanted to be fair should have never existed. Instead something should have been created that gives a decent minumun wage. Or the origanal resoulution should have said something to the effect of you cannot prevent a worker from working overtime.

You really don't get it do you. I never said that this woman will work 80 hours a week. She may work 1 full time job and 1 part time job. But what if her employer fires her because he doesn't want to pay 1.5 times her pay? The origanal resoulution doesn't say anything about this. The resoulution if it wanted to be fair should have never existed. Instead something should have been created that gives a decent minumun wage. Or the origanal resoulution should have said something to the effect of you cannot prevent a worker from working overtime.

If her employer is having such an issue, I doubt his shop will stay open much longer - between the cost of training to replace her and the fact that he'll never be able to get a controlled number of workers, it is the shop keeper that will ultimately suffer. If he is so tight on his money that he REFUSES outright to pay any overtime for her work, I doubt she would be any better off - in fact, I would be seriously concerned for her - with this resolution not being in the books. If he needs the extra time regularly, he can hire a second person. If he doesn't need the extra time, then he doesn't have to hire a second person.

Oh, and in case there's confusion, a woman working 2 jobs at 40 hours each a week means neither are paying her overtime - just so we're clear 'cause I'm not sure you are

Minimum wage laws have been tired multiple times - rarely does a month go by without at least one attempt. Thus far, I've seen a grand total of ONE good attempt, and even that failed to reach quarom (I can't remember if the author even submitted it due to the sheer complexity of the resolution).

I SURE as heck am not going to try to pass a law that says employee's requests for overtime cannot be refused. If a company needs the extra time - which is what overtime SHOULD be used for - due to a spurt of work that's not normally there or they are temporarily short staffed - then they will request it, else be concerned about displeasing the demands of their customers. If they don't need the extra time, they should have the full right to not give their employees the luxury of sticking around doing absolutely nothing.

From the desk of Emperor Fidel Gutierrez:

Ladies and Gentlemen;

Frankly, why is the UN passing resolutions it obviously cannot enforce? Do they intend to review the payroll and time cards for all employees in all companies in all member nations? I suggest we set about defining what the UN can actually do. Sure, its a daunting task. However, I see no point in putting so much work into something unenforceable.

Then again, I've been wrong before, and if I am let me know...we recently hired a new Minister of Law, and as you might imagine, theres quite a lot to read up on, and how can I do that if I'm busy playing golf and throwing sexy parties?


Fidel
Emperor of the Empire of Corporate Oppression
Supreme Chancellor, Weinerdogstan

If her employer is having such an issue, I doubt his shop will stay open much longer - between the cost of training to replace her and the fact that he'll never be able to get a controlled number of workers, it is the shop keeper that will ultimately suffer. If he is so tight on his money that he REFUSES outright to pay any overtime for her work, I doubt she would be any better off - in fact, I would be seriously concerned for her - with this resolution not being in the books. If he needs the extra time regularly, he can hire a second person. If he doesn't need the extra time, then he doesn't have to hire a second person.

Oh, and in case there's confusion, a woman working 2 jobs at 40 hours each a week means neither are paying her overtime - just so we're clear 'cause I'm not sure you are

Minimum wage laws have been tired multiple times - rarely does a month go by without at least one attempt. Thus far, I've seen a grand total of ONE good attempt, and even that failed to reach quarom (I can't remember if the author even submitted it due to the sheer complexity of the resolution).

I SURE as heck am not going to try to pass a law that says employee's requests for overtime cannot be refused. If a company needs the extra time - which is what overtime SHOULD be used for - due to a spurt of work that's not normally there or they are temporarily short staffed - then they will request it, else be concerned about displeasing the demands of their customers. If they don't need the extra time, they should have the full right to not give their employees the luxury of sticking around doing absolutely nothing.

What I think should happen is a different resoulution should be written. Sometimes people work overtime for the extra money too. Plus what I don't think is fair is for cops or emergency personell in emergency situations to have to work over 40 hours a week and not get any compensation. No extra pay. That is wrong. The woman I realize is in a lose-lose situation. She has to work two jobs to support her kids. Or she works one job and probably has to marry some jerk guy who beats women. Maybe Forgottenlands we can create a resoulution together that will help this women out and so that she can support her children but not have to work two jobs. What say you to this.

here is the original resolution:
The 40 Hour Workweek



A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Free Soviets

Description: 1. The maximum standard full-time workweek shall be set at 40 hours. Nations shall remain free to set their workweeks lower than this.

2. No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week, except for the following exemptions,

a ) military personnel

b ) civil defense forces

c ) civilian emergency response personnel

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

3. No one may be contractually obligated to remain on the worksite without pay.

4. On call hours shall count against the 40 hour limit.

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.

6. The 40 hour 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 40 hour 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.

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

Votes For: 8637

Votes Against: 8526

Implemented: Sun May 23 2004

Greetings! I would suggest that repeal of the 40 hour work week would allow less scrupulous governments and businesses to exploit workers. Rather, perhaps would could consider a slightly different approach that would have the benefit of providing increased employment opportunities for our citizenry. Why not have a 32 or 35 hour work week at the same pay rate as the 40 hour week. Further, since going to school is work, as well, I would suggest that not only should we pay the full associated costs of attending college but we should also pay them while they attend so that families can be reasonably well supported. I know that I'm drifting off topic here, but the proposal seems fraught with many potential pitfalls and abuses. Let's perhaps concentrate on doing what's in the best interests of our people.

OOC: For heaven's sake, the whole 'different time scales' argument is absurd. If we were to try to take account of every eventuality in the NSverse we'd never get anything done.

Oh, I'm not talking about places with different weeks. I mean if you consider sapient robots which don't need sleep, so have more free time, or some biological species which just needs much less sleep than humans.

Another edit which might be worth doing is to say that the 40 hours/week could be averaged over a longer time period - say 6 months of paid work, to allow for people like sailors.

If someone did draft a replacement which dealt with this properly, then I would support them.

Greetings! I would suggest that repeal of the 40 hour work week would allow less scrupulous governments and businesses to exploit workers. Rather, perhaps would could consider a slightly different approach that would have the benefit of providing increased employment opportunities for our citizenry. Why not have a 32 or 35 hour work week at the same pay rate as the 40 hour week. Further, since going to school is work, as well, I would suggest that not only should we pay the full associated costs of attending college but we should also pay them while they attend so that families can be reasonably well supported. I know that I'm drifting off topic here, but the proposal seems fraught with many potential pitfalls and abuses. Let's perhaps concentrate on doing what's in the best interests of our people.


I agree with you. If someone would put the time forth to repeal this resoulution and rewrite correctly then that would be much better that saying your reasons are stupid.

What I think should happen is a different resoulution should be written. Sometimes people work overtime for the extra money too.

That's wonderous. However, if the employer needs the work, he'll have the people do the work. If he doesn't need it, he shouldn't be forced to pay people for unproductive labour - no matter how badly the employee needs it. If the employee is in desperate straights, he/she can ask for an advance. There are many other options out there. If the issue is a long-term one, the employee might want to ask for a raise or look into another job or even change jobs and/or lifestyle if possible. At that point, it will be for the government to figure out a good system. You will find minimal support for anything that forces governments to hand out money to the needy.

Plus what I don't think is fair is for cops or emergency personell in emergency situations to have to work over 40 hours a week and not get any compensation. No extra pay. That is wrong.

????

The woman I realize is in a lose-lose situation. She has to work two jobs to support her kids. Or she works one job and probably has to marry some jerk guy who beats women. Maybe Forgottenlands we can create a resoulution together that will help this women out and so that she can support her children but not have to work two jobs. What say you to this.

I say the snowball in hell has much better luck on that one. At the point this United Nations is at, with possible exception to the implementation of a minimum wage law, the hardest popular topic these days, you cannot hope to have a resolution that is centralized enough to remove that lose-lose situation and decentralized enough to not be the most IntFed resolution in the history of the United Nations with possible exception to the game mechanics resolutions that were passed and deleted nearly 3 years ago.

Greetings! I would suggest that repeal of the 40 hour work week would allow less scrupulous governments and businesses to exploit workers. Rather, perhaps would could consider a slightly different approach that would have the benefit of providing increased employment opportunities for our citizenry.

Um.....unless a replacement exists, we won't even consider a repeal. I don't like promises when there is little evidence they will be kept.

Why not have a 32 or 35 hour work week at the same pay rate as the 40 hour week. Further, since going to school is work, as well, I would suggest that not only should we pay the full associated costs of attending college but we should also pay them while they attend so that families can be reasonably well supported. I know that I'm drifting off topic here, but the proposal seems fraught with many potential pitfalls and abuses. Let's perhaps concentrate on doing what's in the best interests of our people.

Your nation has every right to do EVERY SINGLE ONE of those things. However, you will find minimal support in forcing people to do those collectively. The issue of attending college has already seen a repeal within the last year. Add on that with exception to the shorter workweeks, absolutely everything there does not require a repeal of this resolution.

Oh, I'm not talking about places with different weeks. I mean if you consider sapient robots which don't need sleep, so have more free time, or some biological species which just needs much less sleep than humans.

Another edit which might be worth doing is to say that the 40 hours/week could be averaged over a longer time period - say 6 months of paid work, to allow for people like sailors.

If someone did draft a replacement which dealt with this properly, then I would support them.
Sorry, I should have clarified that the comment wasn't specifically directed at you. In any event, I'm not prepared to support legislation making specific allowances for robots and aliens. I think that it's reasonable to work on the basis that most people affected by UN resolutions are roughly human-equaivalent, else virtually every resolution would be pointless.

Your second point is fair, though I don't think the text precludes such an option - it merely doesn't make it explicit. Actually, my only objection is to the 80-hr limit, which stretches beyond restricting employers to curtailing individual freedom (ther freedom in question being the one to do really fucking stupid things to your body and sanity, but still...).

I'm not going to support a repeal at any point - partly because there are far more deserving targets for removal from the UN statute books, partly because the flaws are very minor and partly out of respect for my regional colleagues who drafted the resolution.

"If they can't earn a living in 40 hours a week, then the employment conditions in your nation are in desperate need of improvement.

We will not support a repeal of this resolution, certainly not on these arguments."


That is not true. Lets suppose a family with 3 kids and a widowed mother. The mother would have to work more than 1 job because she is in the lower class. She wouldn't be living in a crappy apartment if she was a buisnesswoman. She would have to work two jobs to sustain a comfortable life for her children.

As I said, your nation is in desparate need of improvement. Why would a single mother with kids have to work more than 40 hours? In Groot Gouda, she doesn't. A 40 hour job is more than enough to pay the bills, and our welfare system ensures that less hours are enough, too. It costs, but at least you get a happy population.

Reasons I oppose the 40 Hour Workweek resolution:

1. The resolution does not address a "human right" and so should not be within the purview of the United Nations. Nothing is presented to support the argument that a 41-hour work week is a human rights violation.

2. The resolution prevents employess from negotiating a schedule which might be beneficial to the employee. (for example, in a two-week pay period, an employee might want to pick up an extra day one week in order to get an extra day off the following week... this resolution prevents this practice)

3. The resolution forces businesses to pay for nonproductive time. A business might need to have someone on-call at all times, but such employess may only be rarely called. The business may be required to hire several additional employees to be on-call.

1. The resolution does not address a "human right" and so should not be within the purview of the United Nations. Nothing is presented to support the argument that a 41-hour work week is a human rights violation.

It addresses the human right not to be forced to work too much to live.

2. The resolution prevents employess from negotiating a schedule which might be beneficial to the employee. (for example, in a two-week pay period, an employee might want to pick up an extra day one week in order to get an extra day off the following week... this resolution prevents this practice)

How exactly? As far as I'm concerned they still can.

3. The resolution forces businesses to pay for nonproductive time. A business might need to have someone on-call at all times, but such employess may only be rarely called. The business may be required to hire several additional employees to be on-call.

But on-call time means that you are limited in what you can do. It's entirely reasonable that those hours are considered working time.

OOC: in the Netherlands, apparently a judge has ruled that doctors who are waiting for a patient to come in are paid for that time. Went through quite a few courts even. If that's reasonable, then considering on-call time work seems reasonable too.

(responses are OOC, since they refer to RL anecdotes)

It addresses the human right not to be forced to work too much to live.
How, exactly, is being scheduled to work 41 hours in a single week being "forced to work too much to live".

Other laws can address the human rights concern... an arbitrary limit of 40 hours per week is unnecessary.

How exactly? As far as I'm concerned they still can.
According to the resolution (and laws passed in all UN member nations), they cannot.

Personal anecdote as an example... I used to work as a lab tech in a hospital, so the workplace was open 7 days a week. Occasionally, I would want to take a 3 day weekend, but didn't want to use a vacation day or lose a day's pay. I could work Monday through Saturday one week, then Monday through Thursday the next to get the three-day weekend the second week. Under this resolution, I could NOT have been scheduled the six days (48 hours) the first week.

But on-call time means that you are limited in what you can do. It's entirely reasonable that those hours are considered working time.
I realize that... again, a personal anecdote used as an example. My current job has me on call a week at a time (I.S. analyst). Over that week, I figure I usually work less than 3-4 hours "extra" (and am paid a trivial flat rate for being on call, plus overtime for time actually spent working), and often am not paged at all during the week.

Under the resolution, with my regular schedule, I could not be scheduled as on-call. Since the job DOES need someone on call at all times, that means 5 people need to be hired, trained, and paid... and slightly less than 2 FTEs are available during the standard business day.

OOC: in the Netherlands, apparently a judge has ruled that doctors who are waiting for a patient to come in are paid for that time. Went through quite a few courts even. If that's reasonable, then considering on-call time work seems reasonable too.
But the doctors have to be on the premises ready to see the patient, so that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

On the other hand, while on-call I can go see movies, stay at home and play video games, etc.

I think the resolution is just unreasonable, and bad.

work to live, not live to work. that is our philosophy. its fine to say 'repeal this, and write a new one'. the reality is, you have to get the new one in place, and there is no guarentee that you will. Malclavia, being scheduled to work 41 hours in a single week isnt being forced to work too much, but remove this, and people could be forced to work a lot longer. people do have the right to not work themselves to death. people do have a right to spend time with their families. this resolution protects those rights. remove this, an employer could force a worker to work 24/7. you would scoff at that, but there are nations that would allow it out there. i, personally, OOC, have worked 12 hour days, with 13 days on, one day off. admitedly it was volentarily, but i eventually left the job because i was becomming too run down, especially since it was a labouring job. now i wouldnt want anybody to be forced to work like that, without any compensation. this resolution does that. it allows people to work a maximum of 40 hours a week normal pay, and makes sure they get paid more for working up to 80 hours.

(responses are OOC, since they refer to RL anecdotes)


How, exactly, is being scheduled to work 41 hours in a single week being "forced to work too much to live".


So when does it become too much to work?

80 hours? 120 hours? 160 hours? 200 hours?

At what point do you place a limit on when someone is being exploited?


Other laws can address the human rights concern... an arbitrary limit of 40 hours per week is unnecessary.


Prove it.


Personal anecdote as an example... I used to work as a lab tech in a hospital, so the workplace was open 7 days a week. Occasionally, I would want to take a 3 day weekend, but didn't want to use a vacation day or lose a day's pay. I could work Monday through Saturday one week, then Monday through Thursday the next to get the three-day weekend the second week. Under this resolution, I could NOT have been scheduled the six days (48 hours) the first week.


Personal annecdote - in one of my former jobs I was forced to work two fiften hour days back to back, followed by two ten hours days back to back, followed by three eight hour days back to back in one week. All for the same rate, with no overtime and no time off in leiu.

(If you are curious - that is 30 + 20 + 24 = 74 hours in a single week, and I was given no choice about it, no overtime and no time off in leiu. If I object, I get fired)

Do you think that is acceptable?

I think the resolution is just unreasonable, and bad.

And I think that it protects the people who are most vunerable from being exploited by greedy employers.

Why is it 40, not 41? Because if we made it 41, you'd ask the same question about 42, and we would continue until we drew the line. Well guess what, we drew the line at 40. Yes it took one person's system and made it universal over the systems that had 42, 45, 49, and 72 hours, but I honestly don't give a damn. We picked a number, we agreed to that number, it's a nice round number, and in the grand scheme of things, I think we'd all agree that 30 is too low and 50 we may quarral on but I think the vast majority would say it's too high, so we picked 40. Don't like it? Tough.

It works. We didn't pick it because 41 was abusive, we picked it because 50 was abusive, and it is pointless to quarral over 1 hour, or 4. So if you're quite done bitching about the number 40, I would greatly appreciate it so we can address some much more relevant points.

So if you're quite done bitching about the number 40, I would greatly appreciate it so we can address some much more relevant points.
What "much more relevant points"? The number is in the very title of the resolution... if it wasn't relevant, why base it around the number?

If I thought the resolution was actually to ensure rights, I'd support it, but it goes well beyond what I think is needed to do that. I would support a resolution to repeal this Resolution, but I'm only one vote.

What "much more relevant points"? The number is in the very title of the resolution... if it wasn't relevant, why base it around the number?

If I thought the resolution was actually to ensure rights, I'd support it, but it goes well beyond what I think is needed to do that. I would support a resolution to repeal this Resolution, but I'm only one vote.

If your argument is "why not use 41 instead of 40", you must be either in denial or have much different beliefs that are arguments on other points of the resolution or reasons why you fail to feel the resolution protects human rights. Do you honestly believe that 41 vs 40 is that freaking important? If you feel it doesn't correctly deal with ensuring rights, why did you completely skip over my argument of why we picked 40 over 41 and just proceeded to the end?

I would have thought that everything that this resolution aims at doing would be covered (albeit not directly) by "Right to Form Trades Unions". Why set an arbritrary figure, when you are allowed to join/form a union and thus, through that, ensure you're working conditions are reasonable, without the loopholes inherent in this resolution.

Sorry, I should have clarified that the comment wasn't specifically directed at you.

Oh ok, no worries.

In any event, I'm not prepared to support legislation making specific allowances for robots and aliens. I think that it's reasonable to work on the basis that most people affected by UN resolutions are roughly human-equaivalent, else virtually every resolution would be pointless.

My view is, if someone else happens to produce a draft which I find satisfactory, then I may as well support them, even though the matter isn't that important.

However, I don't see it as likely that this could be satisafactorily dealt with, as it's not a simple matter of setting different limits for humans and non-humans - that would just end up in mixed nations with less hardy species being laid off in favour of those able and allowed to work for longer.

Your second point is fair, though I don't think the text precludes such an option - it merely doesn't make it explicit.

The resolution says: "No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week". "Per" in this context means "for each" or "for every", so I interpret that as saying that, each/every week, you can't be contractually obliged to work for more than 40 hours.

Actually, my only objection is to the 80-hr limit, which stretches beyond restricting employers to curtailing individual freedom (ther freedom in question being the one to do really fucking stupid things to your body and sanity, but still...).

I tend to support this principle for the same reason that I support a minimum wage - which curtails the freedom to work for very low wages. If one guy is willing to kill himself working absurd overtime, "less industrious" workers will be forced to meet his standards for fear of being the one to go when cutbacks happen. And if someone tells an employer informally at interview that they'd be willing to work 100 hours a week, they'll be hired over the saner applicants.

Actually, I've often been troubled by a further loophole in the resolution:

Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week

To me, this allows you to work 140 hours per week. It seems to say that the overtime cannot exceed 80 hours, on top of the 40 hours already worked on contract.

*snip*
To me, this allows you to work 140 hours per week. It seems to say that the overtime cannot exceed 80 hours, on top of the 40 hours already worked on contract.

Uh...wouldn't that be 120? :confused:

Uh...wouldn't that be 120? :confused:

Yes. Damn.

Well seeing that the proposal didn't pass I will hope to creat a new proposal that clearly defines what I think is fair and I will put it on the forum.

Interesting. I guess the wording isn't watertight on those aspects of the resolution.

I should point out that I abstained on the original vote, on the basis that I had quibbles but didn't personally check the drafting when I had ample opportunity to do so. Voting against would have been harsh on my regional friends, who worked very hard on this.

you'd ask the same question about 42

No, no, 42 is the answer, not the question.

Sorry. Anyway I just wanted to say that my interpretation is that 80 hours per week is the limit, not 120, because it says the "total" you cannot exceed is 80 hours per week. That includes the 40 hours regular time. And frankly, 80 hours is just under half the entire week (168 hours), day and night, so it's a pretty high upper limit anyway.

No, no, 42 is the answer, not the question.
:D

No, no, 42 is the answer, not the question.

I said you could ask the question ABOUT 42 - so I'm not claiming 42 is the question. The question about 42 of course is "What is the ultimate question about Life, the Universe and Everything?" since we want to know how the heck we got 42.