NationStates Jolt Archive

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the freedom of individuals and businesses to contract with each other is one of the cornerstones of a free society,

BELIEVING that the restrictions placed on contract law by "The 40 Hour Workweek" are in direct violation of the language of "Universal Freedom of Choice",

REMEMBERING that nearly all modern nations went through a development period during which hours were lengthened,

BELIEVING that this period of economic development was instrumental in the successes of these nations as the infrastructure necessary for streamlined modern commerce was built,

NOTING the devestating effects of under-employment that a 40-hour workweek causes in less fortunate societies with nonindustrialized agrarian economies,

REGRETFULLY NOTING that the individual free time which is the obvious goal of "The 40 Hour Workweek" is a luxury that can only be afforded by the most heavily industrialized and richest nations,

BELIEVING THUS that this measure has had the unintended side effect of forcing poorer nations to make the unpleasant choice of either giving up UN protection or watching their economies stagnate as resources remain untapped,

REPEALS "The 40 Hour Workweek".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original resolution:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------
This is my first submitted proposal. Thoughts?

Very well written, very well thought out.

I don't actually agree with the overall argument, but you get plenty of kudos for laying it out so well.

I like it.

One minor bit of editing: "devastating" rather than "devestating"...

Well written and a nice first effort. Yelda will not be supporting it though.

Interesting and well founded argument. Was there a drafting stage on this forum? If so, you might want to link to it. If not, WHY? ;)

Well done! The people of Cluichstan would support this.

After the defeat of the "Anti-Terrorism Act," I'm in a repealing mood.

Opposed.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Strongly against.

No support from me for a repeal of this resolution.

I think your repeal arguement is a bit off too. In most agarian developing nations the majority of businesses (farms ect) would be worked by owner/occupiers and their families who would'nt be "contractually obligated" or employed by another person, so wouldn't be required to restrict their own hours of work under this resolution.

This only protects hired employees from exploitation and abuse by greedy employers.

It's structured nicely, but I do not think your arguments hold water. The 40 hour work week is something that must be upheld

Ceorana will support this if/when it comes to vote. However, we do not look so favorable on the second half of the repeal; the first two clauses are what really do it for us.

In another submission, may we suggest adding language saying that limiting overtime is also against personal freedom?

I have to agree, that this proposal is very well drafted, and well thought out. I congratulate you.

However, I will be strongly opposing this proposal, and using my endorsers and anyone I can sway to vote against.

No support from me for a repeal of this resolution.

I think your repeal arguement is a bit off too. In most agarian developing nations the majority of businesses (farms ect) would be worked by owner/occupiers and their families who would'nt be "contractually obligated" or employed by another person, so wouldn't be required to restrict their own hours of work under this resolution.

This only protects hired employees from exploitation and abuse by greedy employers.

No support from me for a repeal of this resolution.

I think your repeal arguement is a bit off too. In most agarian developing nations the majority of businesses (farms ect) would be worked by owner/occupiers and their families who would'nt be "contractually obligated" or employed by another person, so wouldn't be required to restrict their own hours of work under this resolution.

This only protects hired employees from exploitation and abuse by greedy employers.

I respectfully disagree. While the farmers may be self employed and therefore exempt from the requirements of the proposal at discussion here, an agrarian society requires much more than just the farmers. There are, for example, the teamsters necessary to move the product across country and the workers who sort and load the product onto foreign barges. Exports are important to any national economy in today's global marketplace, and taxes on these fund the infrastructure that streamlines the process.

I only have my financial advisor's word to go on here, but he says that it's simply not possible to move 15,000 tons of grapefruit over 150 miles using only human and animal labour and ensure that the teamsters are working only 8 hours a day. He says that the fruit would spoil before it ever reached market. I don't really get the numbers, he showed me some nice pretty pie charts, though.

When Frelune joined the UN and enacted the 40-hour workweek, we were well on the way to becoming a minor industrial power already. 90% of our industries had a 40-hour week standard even without being forced to, as employment was way up. We've progressed so quickly mainly because our citizens are used to hard labour, being ex-convicts, and because the Wardens left a skeletal infrastructure behind in their haste to flee. Perhaps it is the fact that our nation still remembers how little wealth there was before industrialization that makes us sensitive to the plight of agrarian societies trying to become industrial powers. It's hard work restructuring a nation, and there's a lot of it to be done. Frankly, we don't believe that 40 hours makes sense in all circumstances.

It is our feeling that the UN charter would be better served by enforcing the rights of individuals and companies to contract together by strengthening union protections rather than taking the "one-size-fits-all" approach outlined by Resolution #59.

If a 40-hour workweek is good, surely it would be twice as good to have a 20-hour workweek, hm? There'd be twice as many jobs to go around, also. Limiting the workweek makes sense in industries where unemployment is a major issue. However, the lasting effects of national underemployment can be as bad as or worse than unemployment. For a developing nation, each day that the roads aren't built is another day that its better-off neighbors get to enjoy the benefits of technology. Every day before the factories come is wealth that nation will never see.

I agree that a shorter workweek and more leisure time is a noble goal for a nation, but it is one that comes about only after many years of investment in infrastructure and technology. I urge you, fellow delegates, to consider what your region was like before the birth of industry. How would a shorter workweek have affected your national standard of living? Your GDP? I urge you to think carefully and consult your finance ministers before coming to a decision on this repeal.

I think this is a fantastic repeal. I would like to repeal this resolution, and this is a very interesting new argument. Have you had any thoughts on when you might submit it? If you want help with TGing, I'd be glad to chip in.

BELIEVING that the restrictions placed on contract law by "The 40 Hour Workweek" are in direct violation of the language of "Universal Freedom of Choice",
I have no hesitation in dismissing this claim, given that that such an extreme interpretation of 'Universal Freedom of Choice' would probably render a huge swathe of UN legislation illegal.

NOTING the devestating effects of under-employment that a 40-hour workweek causes in less fortunate societies with nonindustrialized agrarian economies,
[OOC: I could argue here that Ecopoeia, exactly the type of society you're describing, did not suffer from implementing thet resolution but i think that would be unfair - how do you counter such an assertion when the game offers little recorded evidence in support or opposition? Nonetheless, be aware that some players will argue this]

Contentious. You assume that no one is working more than 40 hours. The resolution merely states that hours worked over 40 be progressively compensated. Yes, this introduces extra costs, but I disagree that the effects are as damaging as you assert.

REGRETFULLY NOTING that the individual free time which is the obvious goal of "The 40 Hour Workweek" is a luxury that can only be afforded by the most heavily industrialized and richest nations,
And here is the assumption that luxury is for the wealthy. I refute this absolutely. Such a culturally limited perspective is unbecoming of the UN; you would do well to acknowledge that the traditional route of economic progression [OOC: sorry, this is my clumsy way of saying 'western' without referring to the real world] is not the only option available to nations.

BELIEVING THUS that this measure has had the unintended side effect of forcing poorer nations to make the unpleasant choice of either giving up UN protection or watching their economies stagnate as resources remain untapped,
I have seen no evidence to support this claim.

What would repeal mean for the people of the UN? A negligible rise in GDP and other such flawed indicators of 'wealth', perhaps. More significantly, hard-earnt worker protections will again be tossed aside. The UN's wanton abandonment of the rights of trade and labour unions on the basis of fallacy and deception was disgrace enough, surely? Please, delegates, don't compound this grave error by repealing 'The 40 Hour Workweek' as well.

Lata Chakrabarti

OOC: There have been RL calendars, such as the ancient Roman one, that didn't have the concept of 'weeks'... and the French Revolutionaries briefly experimented with a 10-day week... and NS includes nations based on other planets, with different-length years, which might not use our system either. How does the original resolution work for any nations that use such "non-standard" calendars?

I'll go over this point by point.Argument: NOTING THAT the freedom of individuals and businesses to contract with each other is one of the cornerstones of a free society,Yup.BELIEVING that the restrictions placed on contract law by "The 40 Hour Workweek" are in direct violation of the language of "Universal Freedom of Choice",I disagree, the original actually says (emphasis my own):No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week, except for the following exemptions,Meaning there is no obligation, but that they can choose to work. It still fits with universal freedom of choice.REMEMBERING that nearly all modern nations went through a development period during which hours were lengthened,Disagreeable.REGRETFULLY NOTING that the individual free time which is the obvious goal of "The 40 Hour Workweek" is a luxury that can only be afforded by the most heavily industrialized and richest nations,Debatable.BELIEVING THUS that this measure has had the unintended side effect of forcing poorer nations to make the unpleasant choice of either giving up UN protection or watching their economies stagnate as resources remain untapped,I don't have an opinion on this - I don't think this happened, but I'm not certain.This is my first submitted proposal. Thoughts?Well written, but suffers from faulty premise. You have potential, my young apprentice.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5876/hirota8gp.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)
I am the anti-fluff

OOC: There have been RL calendars, such as the ancient Roman one, that didn't have the concept of 'weeks'... and the French Revolutionaries briefly experimented with a 10-day week... and NS includes nations based on other planets, with different-length years, which might not use our system either. How does the original resolution work for any nations that use such "non-standard" calendars?
OOC: This was written when people were less bothered about all this defining weeks/years etc nonsense.

I respectfully disagree. While the farmers may be self employed and therefore exempt from the requirements of the proposal at discussion here, an agrarian society requires much more than just the farmers. There are, for example, the teamsters necessary to move the product across country and the workers who sort and load the product onto foreign barges. Exports are important to any national economy in today's global marketplace, and taxes on these fund the infrastructure that streamlines the process.

I only have my financial advisor's word to go on here, but he says that it's simply not possible to move 15,000 tons of grapefruit over 150 miles using only human and animal labour and ensure that the teamsters are working only 8 hours a day. He says that the fruit would spoil before it ever reached market. I don't really get the numbers, he showed me some nice pretty pie charts, though.

When Frelune joined the UN and enacted the 40-hour workweek, we were well on the way to becoming a minor industrial power already. 90% of our industries had a 40-hour week standard even without being forced to, as employment was way up. We've progressed so quickly mainly because our citizens are used to hard labour, being ex-convicts, and because the Wardens left a skeletal infrastructure behind in their haste to flee. Perhaps it is the fact that our nation still remembers how little wealth there was before industrialization that makes us sensitive to the plight of agrarian societies trying to become industrial powers. It's hard work restructuring a nation, and there's a lot of it to be done. Frankly, we don't believe that 40 hours makes sense in all circumstances.

It is our feeling that the UN charter would be better served by enforcing the rights of individuals and companies to contract together by strengthening union protections rather than taking the "one-size-fits-all" approach outlined by Resolution #59.

If a 40-hour workweek is good, surely it would be twice as good to have a 20-hour workweek, hm? There'd be twice as many jobs to go around, also. Limiting the workweek makes sense in industries where unemployment is a major issue. However, the lasting effects of national underemployment can be as bad as or worse than unemployment. For a developing nation, each day that the roads aren't built is another day that its better-off neighbors get to enjoy the benefits of technology. Every day before the factories come is wealth that nation will never see.

I agree that a shorter workweek and more leisure time is a noble goal for a nation, but it is one that comes about only after many years of investment in infrastructure and technology. I urge you, fellow delegates, to consider what your region was like before the birth of industry. How would a shorter workweek have affected your national standard of living? Your GDP? I urge you to think carefully and consult your finance ministers before coming to a decision on this repeal.


Under this resolution, your teamsters can work up to 80 hours a week. They just have to receive decent compensation, either money or time off. One question, why do you need one individual working say 16 hours a day, when you could have 2 workers working 8 hours a day each, and both of them earning a wage to feed their families. If your workers can't earn a decent living without working themselves into the ground, then that is a problem with your nation, not this resolution.

I still stand firmly opposed to any repeal of the 40 hour work week.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the freedom of individuals and businesses to contract with each other is one of the cornerstones of a free society,

BELIEVING that the restrictions placed on contract law by "The 40 Hour Workweek" are in direct violation of the language of "Universal Freedom of Choice",

With respect for the honourable delegate, we disagree on this point strongly. The restrictions here are not placed on contract so much as they are placed on unfair treatment by businesses of their workforce. By ensuring that exploitative conditions are not permitted, vis-a-vis work hours, the resolution takes a vital step towards empowering workers and freeing them from being compelled to work long hours which may severely adversely affect their social and physical well-being. As such, I support such vital protections.

REMEMBERING that nearly all modern nations went through a development period during which hours were lengthened,

BELIEVING that this period of economic development was instrumental in the successes of these nations as the infrastructure necessary for streamlined modern commerce was built,

NOTING the devestating effects of under-employment that a 40-hour workweek causes in less fortunate societies with nonindustrialized agrarian economies,

I would disagree with the points on under-employment, agrarian economies can still function perfectly adaquately under the provisions of the act and indeed would benefit from a more committed, prepared workforce, who show a willingness to work. If help is required in modernisation to catch up and adjust for any problems with the resolution, then the nations in question should appeal to neighbouring friendly nations for assistance, not oppress their workforce.

Equally, the costs of the development cited above are so egregious as to be un-palatable. Societies also employed children, had no safety or health regulations and other monstrosities during their economic development. Are such things acceptable?

REGRETFULLY NOTING that the individual free time which is the obvious goal of "The 40 Hour Workweek" is a luxury that can only be afforded by the most heavily industrialized and richest nations,

BELIEVING THUS that this measure has had the unintended side effect of forcing poorer nations to make the unpleasant choice of either giving up UN protection or watching their economies stagnate as resources remain untapped,

REPEALS "The 40 Hour Workweek".

This will not force anything, economies will only stagnate if the nation does not show a flexibility to change and a willingness to place humanitarian concerns ahead of crude economic ones. A small boost in GDP is not a rationale for the destruction of vital protections.

Compadria is fervently pro-union and pro-worker in such circumstances and hopes to defend workers rights of acceptable working hours, protection in pay and labour disputes and progress towards a more humane and caring society, instead of a regression to primitive, brutal neo-Darwinism, where the survival of the fittest and the manic dominance of the priviliged few are enshrined over collective rights.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

As Otterby sat down, those near Lata Chakrabarti overheard her mutter a defiant "Hell, yeah".

I only have my financial advisor's word to go on here, but he says that it's simply not possible to move 15,000 tons of grapefruit over 150 miles using only human and animal labour and ensure that the teamsters are working only 8 hours a day.

Shifts. That's not too hard, is it?

No problem is solved by repealing the 40-hour workweek, except possibly that of companies trying to squeeze their workers to the last bit. Considering this repeal, it really is time the right to form a union is going up for vote to make sure that even if this is repealed, the unions can force this to sta in place nationally anyway.

Imperiux supports this. It makes sense, could improve most economies and is valued by our people. We support you!

With respect for the honourable delegate, we disagree on this point strongly. The restrictions here are not placed on contract so much as they are placed on unfair treatment by businesses of their workforce. By ensuring that exploitative conditions are not permitted, vis-a-vis work hours, the resolution takes a vital step towards empowering workers and freeing them from being compelled to work long hours which may severely adversely affect their social and physical well-being. As such, I support such vital protections.p

Is "compelled" truly the right word to use to describe a worker signing a contract of his own free will? Anyone being compelled to work, with no say in the matter, is a slave. We have other resolutions that deal with slavery. None in Frelune have ever been compelled to work since our glorious Revolution.

I would disagree with the points on under-employment, agrarian economies can still function perfectly adaquately under the provisions of the act and indeed would benefit from a more committed, prepared workforce, who show a willingness to work. If help is required in modernisation to catch up and adjust for any problems with the resolution, then the nations in question should appeal to neighbouring friendly nations for assistance, not oppress their workforce.

Equally, the costs of the development cited above are so egregious as to be un-palatable. Societies also employed children, had no safety or health regulations and other monstrosities during their economic development. Are such things acceptable?

How young a child are you talking about here? The definition of youth changes quite a bit when your nation's life expectancy is in its low thirties.

This will not force anything, economies will only stagnate if the nation does not show a flexibility to change and a willingness to place humanitarian concerns ahead of crude economic ones. A small boost in GDP is not a rationale for the destruction of vital protections.

Compadria is fervently pro-union and pro-worker in such circumstances and hopes to defend workers rights of acceptable working hours, protection in pay and labour disputes and progress towards a more humane and caring society, instead of a regression to primitive, brutal neo-Darwinism, where the survival of the fittest and the manic dominance of the priviliged few are enshrined over collective rights.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Would ancient hunter-gatherers have been able to subsist on 40-hour workweeks? What about pre-irrigation cultivators and farmers? Would the wheat have all been harvested in Egypt if the farmer's hadn't worked from dawn till dusk? Every nation has its own place on the developmental scale, and very few have deliberately chosen to be on the poorer end of it.

I agree entirely that a post-industrial society should, in general, respect its workers and ensure that they share enough in the fruits of their labor that a 40-hour week will pay enough for a person to live on. However, the simple fact that no one wants to discuss is that a worker in a nonindustrialized nation produces less than one in an industrialized region, and thus his labor is not of as much value (until he can make use of the multiplicative effects of industrialized labor). Since his work makes his boss such little money, his pay does not improve. He has to work more than 40 hours, the only question is where he does his work. Under resolution #59, he must find a second employer willing to take him on and work around his current schedule. In more rural areas, this is often very difficult or impossible, resulting in illegal employment practices. Since he's going to be working for more than 40 hours per week anyway, I propose that he be allowed to do it in the way that is simplest for him: by working for one employer as much as they both agree is fair, without interference from the UN.

Would ancient hunter-gatherers have been able to subsist on 40-hour workweeks?

they would never dream of working so long. for them, try the 10-20 hour workweek, with significant portions of the population engaging in essentially no subsistence activity at all.

What about pre-irrigation cultivators and farmers?

same as above - wouldn't think of it. in fact, there is evidence to indicate that some horticulturalists spent even less time on subsistence activities than your average forager.

How was this clause of the original resolution

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.

compatible with communist or anarchist cultures operating on the basis of "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" where there isn't supposed to be a direct link between what's done & what's received?

I have one or two problems with the wording (such as "modern" nations!) but I am in favour of a repeal for several reasons.

That said, I would wait until the Trades Unions replacement is in effect before submitting/telegramming, and add a clause stating:

BELIEVING that Trades Unions are a more effective method of ensuring workers rights, and more responsive to the individual circumstances that may affect the member nation they are based within,

How was this clause of the original resolution
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.
compatible with communist or anarchist cultures operating on the basis of "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" where there isn't supposed to be a direct link between what's done & what's received?
OOC: Sorry, St Edmund, I'm not sure what point you're trying to put across.

OOC: Sorry, St Edmund, I'm not sure what point you're trying to put across.

OOC: I just wondered how workable that clause was for cultures of that type: After all, if a nation runs on the basis that (1) everybody's supposed to do as much as they can for society and (2) that society should meet as many of people's needs as it can, then neither "pay" nor "overtime" would seem to be applicable concepts...

OOC: I just wondered how workable that clause was for cultures of that type: After all, if a nation runs on the basis that (1) everybody's supposed to do as much as they can for society and (2) that society should meet as many of people's needs as it can, then neither "pay" nor "overtime" would seem to be applicable concepts...
OOC: Thanks, I see. I would imagine they are unaffected. If a society is cashless then some provisions of the resolution will not be applicable. I think resolutions only apply where they are relevant. If societies aren't run according to traditional notions of reward and compensation, then they are unaffected by this resolution (though I imagine most would be compliant in spirit).