NationStates Jolt Archive

International Fare Wage Rights

Category: Social Justice (Strength: Significant)

NOTING that many major companies use sweatshops in countries with no minimum wage laws.

CONCERNED about the welfare of the workers in these sweatshops, as some of these sweatshops employ all but slave labor.

NOTING that many of these workers are child laborers and are paid less than .10 USD a day while the CEOs and Executives of the company they work for get rich.

DECIDING that, to ensure fair treatment to all workers, any company making a product that is being produced in a country without minimum wage laws, if they are selling products to a UN country, they must pay 50% or more of the country that is buying the product's minimum wage.

ALSO deciding that any company trading with a UN country must obey child labor laws created by the UN.

DECLARING that any company that violates these laws when trading with a UN nation will not be able to trade with a UN nation again without a lengthy review of their buisness practices by UN workers.

URGES Non-Member and Member nations to help enforce this law, even if they are not bound by international law to do so.

HOPING that this law will increase social equality across the international stage.

It is impractical to ask that minimum wages from one nation be applied to another, because the cost of living varies from one nation to another. What might constitute a living wage, enough for the essentials, in a rich country, could be a wildly excessive amount of money in another, enough to allow someone to live in luxury far above the average worker. To stop transnational corporations pulling out of their markets, rich nations may be forced to lower their minimum wages, potentially pushing their own workers into poverty.

It is impractical to ask that minimum wages from one nation be applied to another, because the cost of living varies from one nation to another. What might constitute a living wage, enough for the essentials, in a rich country, could be a wildly excessive amount of money in another, enough to allow someone to live in luxury far above the average worker. To stop transnational corporations pulling out of their markets, rich nations may be forced to lower their minimum wages, potentially pushing their own workers into poverty.
But, if you have workers in a country without minimum wage, without this propasel, they can be paid near nothing.

its also illegal in a proposal to mention a RL currency (us dollars).

isn't child labour already covered in another act. I can't remember which one off the top of my head.

i would suggest a minimum wage should be based on the rate of inflation a country has so that any rises keep pace with rising prices.

But, if you have workers in a country without minimum wage, without this propasel, they can be paid near nothing.
So they form a union. Or they just quit and find a better paying job.

DECLARING that any company that violates these laws when trading with a UN nation will not be able to trade with a UN nation again.
This is far too final. What happens if a company has some shoddy practices, but subsequently cleans them up?

I also voice agreement with _Myopia_. This creates situations that are entirely unrealistic for a company, especially one based in a country with a lower standard of living.

Your preamble also doesn't mention how much people get paid. So they get paid .10USD. Per year? Per second? I honestly do not know what value you are getting at.

Also note that child labour, at least in UN nations, is prohibited under Resolution#14. While this doesn't do anything about nonmembers, which is what I see you trying to address, but it goes about as far as feasibly possible.

This is far too final. What happens if a company has some shoddy practices, but subsequently cleans them up?

I also voice agreement with _Myopia_. This creates situations that are entirely unrealistic for a company, especially one based in a country with a lower standard of living.

Your preamble also doesn't mention how much people get paid. So they get paid .10USD. Per year? Per second? I honestly do not know what value you are getting at.

Also note that child labour, at least in UN nations, is prohibited under Resolution#14. While this doesn't do anything about nonmembers, which is what I see you trying to address, but it goes about as far as feasibly possible.Okay, I updated the proposal.

International Fare Wage Rights

Category: Social Justice (Strength: Significant)

I'm a big fan of social justice :). Some concerns though, which I'll give to you so you can improve your proposal.

NOTING that many major companies use sweatshops in countries with no minimum wage laws.

CONCERNED about the welfare of the workers in these sweatshops, as some of these sweatshops employ all but slave labor.

It's not just sweatshops, this covers all businesses, so mention them.

NOTING that many of these workers are child laborers and are paid less than .10 USD a day while the CEOs and Executives of the company they work for get rich.

Child labor is illegal in the NSUN, so don't assume that's still happening, otherwise we'd be constantly writing the same resolution ("and now you're *really* stopping child labor! We mean it!"). Don't mention USD as they're a real life currency, and in any case, what you can do with that amount of money varies wildly from country to country.

DECIDING that, to ensure fair treatment to all workers, any company making a product that is being produced in a country without minimum wage laws, if they are selling products to a UN country, they must pay 50% or more of the country that is buying the product's minimum wage.

As has been mentioned, this is a very impractical solution. I always advocate a minimum wage that is enough to cover the basic needs (housing, education, healthcare, food and transport) in the nation itself.

ALSO deciding that any company trading with a UN country must obey child labor laws created by the UN.

No need for this, so you might as well remove it.

DECLARING that any company that violates these laws when trading with a UN nation will not be able to trade with a UN nation again without a lengthy review of their buisness practices by UN workers.

Better than the original.

URGES Non-Member and Member nations to help enforce this law, even if they are not bound by international law to do so.

HOPING that this law will increase social equality across the international stage.

I hope you'll be able to use these comments.

If you want a minimum wage, ensure that it is determined by the subsistence level of the member states.

For example, make the minimum level of wages to be 125% of the annual subsistence level, subject to annual adjustment after consideration for inflation and other factors.

OOC: I hate all this sweatshop talk. Not intending to attack the author's intentions, which are surely noble, I would like to point out a few factual statements.

1. Any international legislation on social dumping takes the form of protectionist mechanisms, benefiting rich, developed countries while seriously crippling the incipient industry of the developing world.

2. The concept of connecting wages to subsistence levels is profoundly socialist ("to each according to their needs..."). While it is a legitimate political position, any basic economics course will tell you that setting a minimum wage above an industry's labour productivity will lead to immediate shutdown. Productivity is linked to education, capital investment, infrastructures, etc. but not to subsistence levels. Leading us to...

3. The immediate consequence for workers in sweatshops is not improved work conditions. It is unemployment. Very often, it is starvation and death; at best, it is hard labour in agriculture. Of course, we can all still have the warm fuzzy feeling that our tennis shoes are now made in the US with great working conditions, and American factory workers get to keep their jobs. But try telling the Indonesian kids that you did it to save them, to see what they reply.

I'm a big fan of social justice :). Some concerns though, which I'll give to you so you can improve your proposal.



It's not just sweatshops, this covers all businesses, so mention them.



Child labor is illegal in the NSUN, so don't assume that's still happening, otherwise we'd be constantly writing the same resolution ("and now you're *really* stopping child labor! We mean it!"). Don't mention USD as they're a real life currency, and in any case, what you can do with that amount of money varies wildly from country to country.



As has been mentioned, this is a very impractical solution. I always advocate a minimum wage that is enough to cover the basic needs (housing, education, healthcare, food and transport) in the nation itself.



No need for this, so you might as well remove it.



Better than the original.



I hope you'll be able to use these comments.I'll update the proposal with your suggestions later today.

OOC: I hate all this sweatshop talk. Not intending to attack the author's intentions, which are surely noble, I would like to point out a few factual statements.

1. Any international legislation on social dumping takes the form of protectionist mechanisms, benefiting rich, developed countries while seriously crippling the incipient industry of the developing world.

2. The concept of connecting wages to subsistence levels is profoundly socialist ("to which according to their needs..."). While it is a legitimate political position, any basic economics course will tell you that setting a minimum wage above an industry's labour productivity will lead to immediate shutdown. Productivity is linked to education, capital investment, infrastructures, etc. but not to subsistence levels. Leading us to...

3. The immediate consequence for workers in sweatshops is not improved work conditions. It is unemployment. Very often, it is starvation and death; at best, it is hard labour in agriculture. Of course, we can all still have the warm fuzzy feeling that our tennis shoes are now made in the US with great working conditions, and American factory workers get to keep their jobs. But try telling the Indonesian kids that you did it to save them, to see what they reply.

Quoted for brilliant economic analysis.

2. The concept of connecting wages to subsistence levels is profoundly socialist ("to which according to their needs..."). While it is a legitimate political position, any basic economics course will tell you that setting a minimum wage above an industry's labour productivity will lead to immediate shutdown. Productivity is linked to education, capital investment, infrastructures, etc. but not to subsistence levels. Leading us to...
Bah, starving people are more important than productivity. If your workforce starve to death, then I'm pretty certain that will lead to immediate shutdown. If your worforce are dead, it does not help you produce.

It’s not socialism, it’s not economics. Its practicality.

Bah, starving people are more important than productivity. If your workforce starve to death, then I'm pretty certain that will lead to immediate shutdown. If your worforce are dead, it does not help you produce.

It’s not socialism, it’s not economics. Its practicality.
OOC: Which isn't always a concern. South Californian sweatshop owners know they have a steady supply of Central/South American immigrants, who cannot pick and choose. So they do work them to starvation. Yes, the workers grow ill, and their productivity falls. So they lose their job, and the next person willing to work for ten cents an hour in Coca Cola Land steps in. If your entire workforce is dead, yes, your productivity drops; if you know you can replace them, where is the incentive? This is what happened in the early American plantation days: contracted workers had a worse time than slaves, because the owners pushed the former - who they'd only get five years' work out of - to the limit, but were careful to conserve slaves, who they might get twenty-five years from.

(Sorry if your post was IC; I don't really have an IC response except "yay sweatshops".)

Bah, starving people are more important than productivity. If your workforce starve to death, then I'm pretty certain that will lead to immediate shutdown. If your worforce are dead, it does not help you produce.

It’s not socialism, it’s not economics. Its practicality.

7. Wages lower than subsistence do not imply starvation. That is one of the purposes of family units - economies of scale and income redistribution.

1. As Gruen pointed out, people die, workers are replaced. The factory still goes on.

8. We agree that something should be done. However, if you impose a measure that does cause the factory to shut down, then how on earth are you solving the starvation problem?

4. I wasn't taking a swing at socialism, there will be many opportunities for that in the future. I was merely pointing out an economic fact that even socialists have to agree with.
wages > productivity => shut down.
Simple, no?

27. Yeah, I like numbered lists. So shoot me.

EDIT: Please stop quoting my embarrassing mistake, now corrected. I obviously meant each, not which.

I feel that it is unneccessary, for the rights to labour unions resolution is now in the queue for quorum. I feel that unions are the best way to ensure fair wages, and take into account local conditions that may exist.

Also, I feel that the inclusion of thingies pertaining to non-UN countries is dodgy, and seems slightly protectionist to me...

2. The concept of connecting wages to subsistence levels is profoundly socialist ("to each according to their needs..."). While it is a legitimate political position, any basic economics course will tell you that setting a minimum wage above an industry's labour productivity will lead to immediate shutdown. Productivity is linked to education, capital investment, infrastructures, etc. but not to subsistence levels.

OOC: I live in a country with minimum wages aimed at subsistence (or even above that level), and I don't notice a huge shutdown going on.

IC: What matters is that people can reasonably live of a job. This matters more as less jobs are available, because that means less choice, so more people are forced to take on a job below subsistence. That is why this resolution is needed.

OOC: I live in a country with minimum wages aimed at subsistence (or even above that level), and I don't notice a huge shutdown going on.

IC: What matters is that people can reasonably live of a job. This matters more as less jobs are available, because that means less choice, so more people are forced to take on a job below subsistence. That is why this resolution is needed.

OOC: For Christ sake, you don't live in Indonesia or Ethiopia, do you? What is the point of applying progressive Western European legislation in countries where the GDP per capita itself is below what we would consider "acceptable" subsistence levels? That is basically saying that from now on, everyone will earn more than the country produces.

I never attacked the concept of a minimum wage. I attacked the presumption that an international organisation can determine standards to force a minimum wage on every member nation. If accidentally you set the minimum wage too high, you destroy the economy. If the RL EU doesn't dare to harmonise it among 25 developed nations, how could we do it in NS for 30,000 members in dramatically different stages of development?

Urge governments to set a minimum wage if you want. But don't even try to create a pretty rule of thumb, based on subsistence, GDP, or any other unrealistic target. If you actually care for the poor people you are trying to save, that is.

Story time:

Life jackets are fundamental in ships. They are great, easy to handle, cheap to produce, and save lives. You make UN legislation forbidding sailing without life jackets. Unfortunately, you forget that half of the countries in the world are poor, uneducated, and isolated. They do not produce life jackets, cannot afford life jackets, do not import life jackets, and never in their lives learned how to use a life jacket. As a result, the government comes and takes their boats; all the fishermen starve to death. Do you really think this saves lives?

OOC: For Christ sake, you don't live in Indonesia or Ethiopia, do you? What is the point of applying progressive Western European legislation in countries where the GDP per capita itself is below what we would consider "acceptable" subsistence levels? That is basically saying that from now on, everyone will earn more than the country produces.

OOC: No, I don't, but then again, you didn't say that shutdown prediction was only valid for developed nations.

The point is that people are now abused, by having to work for less than subsistance. The results are disastrous, as whole families have to work, including children who don't receive the education they need. It also forces people to have more children to bring in money, who in turn will need jobs later on.

I never attacked the concept of a minimum wage. I attacked the presumption that an international organisation can determine standards to force a minimum wage on every member nation. If accidentally you set the minimum wage too high, you destroy the economy. If the RL EU doesn't dare to harmonise it among 25 developed nations, how could we do it in NS for 30,000 members in dramatically different stages of development?

The RL EU doesn't do it because of many reasons which probably have more to do with their organisation which is worse than NSUN. Also, it appears to me that minimum wages are mostly fine throughout the EU (except possibly the newly joined nations, but there hasn't been time yet to legislate on that). There's nothing stopping the NSUN to legislate on this, provided that the rule is general enough for all nations. For that you have to start with what a minimum wage is for. I think it is necessary to ensure subsistence for all UN citizens. That doesn't need to destroy an economy, because it isn't just costs that rise, but also income.

Life jackets are fundamental in ships. They are great, easy to handle, cheap to produce, and save lives. You make UN legislation forbidding sailing without life jackets. Unfortunately, you forget that half of the countries in the world are poor, uneducated, and isolated. They do not produce life jackets, cannot afford life jackets, do not import life jackets, and never in their lives learned how to use a life jacket. As a result, the government comes and takes their boats; all the fishermen starve to death. Do you really think this saves lives?

No, I think it's a great stimulant for a life jacket industry to start in those nations.

But I don't think this resolution will make it. More experienced authors have tried, and failed, and the Unions resolution if it passes can help accomplishing the same goals as stated in this resolution. But you still haven't convinced me that a global minimum wage cannot be set.

OOC: No, I don't, but then again, you didn't say that shutdown prediction was only valid for developed nations.

It is not only valid for developing nations. The prediction is clear as water. The issue is that, for various and obvious reasons, labour productivity is MUCH higher in the developed world. As such, the condition "wages > productivity" is unlikely to hold there.

The point is that people are now abused, by having to work for less than subsistance. The results are disastrous, as whole families have to work, including children who don't receive the education they need. It also forces people to have more children to bring in money, who in turn will need jobs later on.

We agree on the problem, just not on the solution.

The RL EU doesn't do it because of many reasons which probably have more to do with their organisation which is worse than NSUN. Also, it appears to me that minimum wages are mostly fine throughout the EU (except possibly the newly joined nations, but there hasn't been time yet to legislate on that). There's nothing stopping the NSUN to legislate on this, provided that the rule is general enough for all nations. For that you have to start with what a minimum wage is for. I think it is necessary to ensure subsistence for all UN citizens. That doesn't need to destroy an economy, because it isn't just costs that rise, but also income.

Wage determination is specifically excluded from the areas of competence of the EU (by some treaty, don't ask me which). This happens for good reason, it is not a product of "organisational problems." As such, no minimum wage legislation will ever be considered, unless the EU makes a serious move towards federalism. All countries have minimum wages, but even in a relatively homogeneous group, and excluding new members, they vary from around 400 euros a month to around 1400. In candidate and new countries, it can be as low as 60 euros. (Info here. (http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NK-03-010/EN/KS-NK-03-010-EN.PDF))

As I told, I agree that minimum wage legislation should exist in every country. But the specific value is much too complicated to set without seriously studying the economic factors involved. And setting it based on "subsistence levels," which is done based on PPP, is completely inadequate. It does not consider the wealth of the country, the structure of the industry, the impact on growth and unemployment, labour productivity, etc. In addition, as you are surely aware, labour legislation is completely irrelevant in countries dominated by the informal sector.

Bottom line: Economic policy is usually too complicated for the "one-size-fits-all" approach, especially in such a sensitive issue.

No, I think it's a great stimulant for a life jacket industry to start in those nations.

It is micromanagement. The UN has no reason to believe that it can legislate on such matters, or that the country leaders are acting against the best interests of the population.

But I don't think this resolution will make it. More experienced authors have tried, and failed, and the Unions resolution if it passes can help accomplishing the same goals as stated in this resolution.

Agreed.

But you still haven't convinced me that a global minimum wage cannot be set.

And I don't think I ever will... ;)

One other root problem with centring wage laws around sustenance levelsl is the lack of distinction between single and multiple income families. A single income family is going to need a much higher wage to reach sustinence levels than a double (or even triple) income family (and no, I'm not talking child labour here, but multiple families living together, especially an extended family unit). It is very hard to determine what will bring sustenance in these situations, especially where children are involved. An extended family living together will have lower costs than the same number of people living apart, because of the pooling of labour for chores, the requirement of a single residence, etc.

Therefore, deciding on what a "real" sustenance level is would be nigh impossible; only a general one could come about.

I must also (reluctantly) agree with Fonzoland. The only reason that people in developed nations can survive at the current standard of living today is because of the inexpensive products made in countries with lower minimum wage laws (I think I'm misquoting here). (But accurately) bringing in minimum wage laws will cut jobs, because there will no longer be as much demand for outsourcing, nor to create so many positions in developing countries, because a company will have to pay their workers more.

I need time to consider adjustments to the proposal. Thank you for your debate.

Another potential problem with basing a minimum wage on subsistence requirements is that doing so would seem to assume that everybody who's in low-paid jobs is working full-time at these: Whilst this may be true for many of those people, it's also far from unknown for people in 'developing' countries to obtain most of their subsistence requirements from family-owned & family-worked smallholdings and then work only part-time in the cash economy... Automatically giving somebody in that situation the same minimum wage as somebody who actually relies on their pay for survival would get doesn't seem very fair to me...

Obviously the minimum wage should be related to a full-time job. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair (or some people would be seriously overpaid).

I've been thinking. This resolution is useless, so I'm not going to submit it.

1000th post!

I've been thinking. This resolution is useless, so I'm not going to submit it.

1000th post!

As President of the Republic of Teruchev, I thank you for your prudent and informed decision.


Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

I've been thinking. This resolution is useless, so I'm not going to submit it.

1000th post!

:) Congratulations on both counts!

I've been thinking. This resolution is useless, so I'm not going to submit it.
While I sympathise with you for the decision you had to make, I think it was the right one.
'Twas a good shot, though.

While I sympathise with you for the decision you had to make, I think it was the right one.
'Twas a good shot, though.

The people of Cluichstan concur with the statement made by the representative of Jonquiere-Tadoussac.

I've been thinking. This resolution is useless, so I'm not going to submit it.

1000th post!

I applaud both your 1000th post and the bravery of accepting that something isn't worth submitting. If only other, much worse authors would follow your example.

I hope you'll continue to invest your time in UN resolutions because although this was a difficult subject, you have the qualities that make you a good resolution writer - you listen to criticism and you're prepared to change your opinion. Keep up the good work!

I applaud both your 1000th post and the bravery of accepting that something isn't worth submitting. If only other, much worse authors would follow your example.

I hope you'll continue to invest your time in UN resolutions because although this was a difficult subject, you have the qualities that make you a good resolution writer - you listen to criticism and you're prepared to change your opinion. Keep up the good work!
Thank you.