NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey all,
I'm new to this site, but it looks promising.
The question I have is...I see the resolution that allows all citizens to quit on two week's notice...but what about jobs like the military, which requires it's employees to deploy for months on end? Not to mention that given the many incentives and training the military provides, one could 'get out' in two weeks and join a company that needs those job skills.
Is there anything that I'm missing here, or is this a valid point?

Hey all,
I'm new to this site, but it looks promising.
The question I have is...I see the resolution that allows all citizens to quit on two week's notice...but what about jobs like the military, which requires it's employees to deploy for months on end? Not to mention that given the many incentives and training the military provides, one could 'get out' in two weeks and join a company that needs those job skills.
Is there anything that I'm missing here, or is this a valid point?
It is a valid point, and it's often used as a reason in attempts to repeal the resolution. I suppose one way round it is to say that being in the military is not a 'job' but a 'service'.

Also: http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45hk.png

Well..if it's a 'service' and not a 'job' perhaps a resolution should be written up delineating the differences? Just thinking aloud here.

Well..if it's a 'service' and not a 'job' perhaps a resolution should be written up delineating the differences? Just thinking aloud here.
Hmm...I'd prefer not. Creatively interpreting resolutions is one of the joys of UN membership. We like our loopholes.

Besides, I wasn't saying that was a valid interpretation - I tend to think it does apply to the military - just that it was possibly a way round.

I don't think that the military would be very effective if people were allowed to leave after 2 weeks. One of the reasons that the military can justify long and expensive training times is because they know that they will be getting two to three years out of the person.
Perhaps the government could have 'contracts' as they do now, and if the person decided to quit, then the government could sue?

(I guess this would apply to any person who signs a contract for a job really.)

The right to leave a 'job' doesn't necessarily confer the right to change employers too: In fact I don't see how it it could be read as doing so in this case, because after all the NSUN has some member-nations where the national government is the only legal employer... That being so, any member of the armed forces who expresses a wish to leave their job could always be reassigned to another (possibly worse) one in the same service...

Interestingly enough, I was once told that the US military didn't allow for reups longer than 7 or 8 years. Aparently you aren't allowed to sign your life away that long.

Isn't that sitting in End Slavery somewhere?

Shouldn't this be merged with the Labour thread?

Isn't that sitting in End Slavery somewhere?


Yes, it is.

I don't think that the military would be very effective if people were allowed to leave after 2 weeks. One of the reasons that the military can justify long and expensive training times is because they know that they will be getting two to three years out of the person.
Perhaps the government could have 'contracts' as they do now, and if the person decided to quit, then the government could sue?

(I guess this would apply to any person who signs a contract for a job really.)

Well the document certainly doesn't seem to draw the lines between 'job' and 'service'.

And there's STILL problems with that. What if I get trained for the bomb squad, or to be a ranger, but then combat time comes and I choose to be a cook for the rest of my service?

What about if I learned lots of information technology information but then got bored and decided to be an a/c repairmen? Then three weeks later he got bored and wanted to learn something else?

What about a quarterback on a football team? Teams go into seasons expecting certain people at certain positions. If everyone suddenly wants to play quarterback, the coach certainly can't rely much on them to play other positions.

What about a person who hires a contractor to build his house? Does the contractor have the right to quit after two weeks? Can the man sue the contractor if he quits?

I just think 'jobs' should be better-defined.

You can't amend resolutions, though.

Where the resolution gives a definition, it's up to you to decide. So although you say 'job' should be better defined, you can still decide that in Kiften, being in the military is a 'service' not a 'job'. Or you could have contracts, which people have to sign to join up, which say they agree to relinquish that right.

You can't amend resolutions, though.

Where the resolution gives a definition, it's up to you to decide. So although you say 'job' should be better defined, you can still decide that in Kiften, being in the military is a 'service' not a 'job'. Or you could have contracts, which people have to sign to join up, which say they agree to relinquish that right.

The problem I see if, what if a country decides to say that all 'jobs' need a contract?

Or a country that outlaws 'jobs' and only allows 'services'?


Edited: Because I can't spell.

Well the document certainly doesn't seem to draw the lines between 'job' and 'service'.

And there's STILL problems with that. What if I get trained for the bomb squad, or to be a ranger, but then combat time comes and I choose to be a cook for the rest of my service?

What about if I learned lots of information technology information but then got bored and decided to be an a/c repairmen? Then three weeks later he got bored and wanted to learn something else?

What about a quarterback on a football team? Teams go into seasons expecting certain people at certain positions. If everyone suddenly wants to play quarterback, the coach certainly can't rely much on them to play other positions.

What about a person who hires a contractor to build his house? Does the contractor have the right to quit after two weeks? Can the man sue the contractor if he quits?

I just think 'jobs' should be better-defined.

It doesn't give you the right to choose the new job... If somebody gets trained for the bomb squad, or to be a ranger, but then wants a change when combat time comes then their superiors could redeploy them as an ordinary infantryman -- or even as a 'human shield', if the nation concerned uses those -- instead...

It doesn't give you the right to choose the new job... If somebody gets trained for the bomb squad, or to be a ranger, but then wants a change when combat time comes then their superiors could redeploy them as an ordinary infantryman -- or even as a 'human shield', if the nation concerned uses those -- instead...

And they would then have the right to AGAIN leave their job after two weeks....and again....and again... Which would certainly be a hassle and pain to any military.

And tell me, if a person is not allowed what job they want, isn't that somewhat against the whole purpose of it being in the "End Slavery" resolution in the first place?

Why not just have the government give everyone a job at 17, and then if they don't like it, then can reapply for another job (but not one of their choosing)? Because that is the same as the example you give.

And they would then have the right to AGAIN leave their job after two weeks....and again....and again... Which would certainly be a hassle and pain to any military.

And tell me, if a person is not allowed what job they want, isn't that somewhat against the whole purpose of it being in the "End Slavery" resolution in the first place?

Why not just have the government give everyone a job at 17, and then if they don't like it, then can reapply for another job (but not one of their choosing)? Because that is the same as the example you give.

Why not?
(1) Because some jobs require more education than a 17-year-old is likely to have.
(2) Because I'd rather give people a bit more choice (& governments less power than that) in the first place... and then make it a bit harder for people in certain types of jobs (or who have certain types of obligations to their employers, such as a promise to work for them for a specified length of time in exchange for training) to change jobs...


'End Slavery' was badly written: It abolishes the slave trade but doesn't actually free existing slaves, end hereditary slavery, or prevent people being enslaved by any of several possible methods...

And what I really want to know is, does its clause granting people the right to travel freely around their countries make it illegal for nation's courts to use imprisonment as a sentence?

Why not?
(1) Because some jobs require more education than a 17-year-old is likely to have.
(2) Because I'd rather give people a bit more choice (& governments less power than that) in the first place... and then make it a bit harder for people in certain types of jobs (or who have certain types of obligations to their employers, such as a promise to work for them for a specified length of time in exchange for training) to change jobs...


'End Slavery' was badly written: It abolishes the slave trade but doesn't actually free existing slaves, end hereditary slavery, or prevent people being enslaved by any of several possible methods...

And what I really want to know is, does its clause granting people the right to travel freely around their countries make it illegal for nation's courts to use imprisonment as a sentence?

St. Edmund,

Other very good points. I just think that someone (me, you, shrug) could/should rewrite this resolution to clear up all these inconsistencies.


And I agree with you on principle number 2...but the fact is, that the current resolution ruling PREVENTS the military from holding a contract or whatnot, because the current definition is so ill-defined.

Those in battle could surely say that being in the military was a 'job' and then apply to quit in two weeks.

And if you say that the military is a 'service' and not a job, there's really no basis for that, and the argument could be said that EVERY job could be considered a service.

Just poorly defined all around, and needs to be cleaned up.