NationStates Jolt Archive

Approval link --> http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=40

The United Nations,

CONSIDERATE of the need to safeguard workers' rights,

FURTHER CONVINCED that sensible limits on workweeks will prove conducive to productivity,

APPRECIATIVE of the variety of economic systems at work within member nations,

MINDFUL that workweeks are a part of law best suited to devolved decision making, where the particular circumstances of the labour situation can be best accounted for,

CONCERNED that "The 40 Hour Workweek", unfairly restricts the capacity for such local appraisal,

TAKING NOTE of much other international law safeguarding workers' rights,

NOT WISHING to unduly constrain developing economies,

FURTHER CONSIDERING the prospect of unfair and unworkable industrial restrictions driving out corporations from UN member economies, into the unregulated sectors of non-members,

APPLAUDING, especially, UN Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions", for instituting mechanisms for greater employer-employee negotiation,

AWARE that national unions and other such institutions would be best placed to determine fairer standards for areas of industrial law such as workweeks:

REPEALS Resolution #59, "The 40 Hour Workweek".

Original resolution: http://www.nationstates.net/pin=82597915/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=58

Burn, baby, burn! :cool:

AWARE that localised unions and other national or more local institutions would be best placed to determine fairer standards for areas of industrial law such as workweeks, working time, minimum and maximum wages, aspects of work safety, stick beatings, provision of assorted benefits, and the legality of strike actions, and as such forwarding this repeal in the spirit of greater empathy for the particular situations of workers:

For the love of God, think of the child workers! Against.

For the love of God, think of the child workers! Against.

Per Resolution #14, there are no child workers. :p

FURTHER CONVINCED that sensible limits on workweeks will prove conducive to productivity,
At risk of sounding like some crazed Free-Market-obsessive: Why? It's in a company's interest to increase its own productivity, so what's the point of legislating (even locally) on the matter?

At risk of sounding like some crazed Free-Market-obsessive: Why? It's in a company's interest to increase its own productivity, so what's the point of legislating (even locally) on the matter?
I'm not saying there is point. That clause could be read as "companies might find that by limiting workweeks, they benefit". For example, for those operating within a closed labour pool, by capping their workweek, they'd be able to sustain long term revenue. If they work their workers too hard, they might run out of people to employ.

More seriously now:

AWARE that localised unions and other national or more local institutions would be best placed to determine fairer standards for (...) the legality of strike actions (...)

Isn't this a direct contradition with the recently passed resolution?

Isn't this a direct contradition with the recently passed resolution?
I wouldn't say it's an illegal contradiction. Only operative clauses can have effects: the arguments in a repeal are not operative clauses. So, yes, it does disagree with Resolution #149, to an extent, but there's plenty of precedent for that. I would say that so long as the repeal arguments aren't illegal - offensive, false, NatSov, other infractions - this wouldn't be a problem.

I'm not saying there is point. That clause could be read as "companies might find that by limiting workweeks, they benefit". For example, for those operating within a closed labour pool, by capping their workweek, they'd be able to sustain long term revenue. If they work their workers too hard, they might run out of people to employ.
Ah, I see. I thought by 'limit' you meant a legal limit, as opposed to a self-imposed limit.

Approved

As a nation devoted to the enshrinement and preservation of international humanist and humanitarian protections under international law, as passed by the U.N., we would strongly oppose a repeal of the 40 hour week resolution. We are grateful and appreciative of the honourable delegate of Gruenberg's acknowledgement of the importance of workers' rights and workweek limits, yet disagree with the fundamental assertion that these should be set locally.

MINDFUL that workweeks are a part of law best suited to devolved decision making, where the particular circumstances of the labour situation can be best accounted for,

CONCERNED that "The 40 Hour Workweek", unfairly restricts the capacity for such local appraisal,

It can certainly be said that "The 40 Hour Workweek" is restrictive, yet it permits adaquate exemptions for employees and employers, particularly with regards to personnel to whom it applies and the circumstances under which it can be suspended. The fact though, is that the hour is largely unimportant, what is being enshrined here is the recognition that a workforce has the right not to be contractually (or otherwise) compelled to work long and unreasonable hours. Such a protection should be universal, for all workers, not subject to the whims of nations, where they may simply be discarded on account of convenience.

TAKING NOTE of much other international law safeguarding workers' rights,

NOT WISHING to unduly constrain developing economies,

FURTHER CONSIDERING the prospect of unfair and unworkable industrial restrictions driving out corporations from UN member economies, into the unregulated sectors of non-members,

APPLAUDING, especially, UN Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions", for instituting mechanisms for greater employer-employee negotiation,

As noted, the limited work hours culture has resulted in workers being more motivated and alert during work-hours, as opposed to simply wiling them away in boredom. Furthermore, the granting of rights to workers gives them better health benefits and permits nations and workers to make efficiency of hours, as opposed to maximisation of hours, a priority. Equally, we should not forget the humanitarian concerns of depriving workers of their home and social lives, merely for economic expediency. As a closing point, fellow delegates, let us consider that by removing this regulation, those U.N. members who are social-democracies will be under-cut for the preservation of work related regulations and social protections, by less scrupulous countries. As such, economic decline amongst such nations could well set in and an atmosphere of economic Darwinism would develop between the member states of the U.N., which would not be conduisive to diplomacy.

Let us protect international rights of labour and let us not fall victim to the arguments that another nation's transgressions against workers' rights are an excuse for us to follow suit.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Much of our industry is automated. This creates a need for less man hours and higher pay because of increasing need for specialization. Increasing work hours beyond 30 hours a week would be an incredible burden to industry. We are increasingly moving towards a highly educated workforce with high pay. Our industrial base is fairly advanced to the point where most "heavy physical labor" is increasingly done by machines. Full automation is actually cheaper than cheap physical labor. However, the social upheavals it would cause has made many countries shy away from this approach for fear of a social revolution which would permanently change the class structure like the United Colonies. Germania and Swazerland have partially followed this rule and is doing quite well by this. People are being paid increasingly to find out how to reduce physical labor and boost reliance on an educated workforce. Eventually we will reach a state where the national income will be high enough to guarantee permanent freedom from "regular work". Please allow for a repeal that lets us restructure our industry to not rely on mass cheap labor. We would prefer that this repeal would not affect our political freedoms.

Much of our industry is automated. This creates a need for less man hours and higher pay because of increasing need for specialization. Increasing work hours beyond 30 hours a week would be an incredible burden to industry. We are increasingly moving towards a highly educated workforce with high pay. Our industrial base is fairly advanced to the point where most "heavy physical labor" is increasingly done by machines. Full automation is actually cheaper than cheap physical labor. However, the social upheavals it would cause has made many countries shy away from this approach for fear of a social revolution which would permanently change the class structure like the United Colonies. Germania and Swazerland have partially followed this rule and is doing quite well by this. People are being paid increasingly to find out how to reduce physical labor and boost reliance on an educated workforce. Eventually we will reach a state where the national income will be high enough to guarantee permanent freedom from "regular work". Please allow for a repeal that lets us restructure our industry to not rely on mass cheap labor. We would prefer that this repeal would not affect our political freedoms.

I am sure there is a point somewhere. But it is really well hidden.

Per Resolution #14, there are no child workers. :p

OOC: Just some very young "adult" ones... ;)

Repeal the 40 hour workweek? Excellent!*rubs hands together like Mr. Burns*

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Jeez, very simply put, people need to wake up and realize that life isn't about economic superiority. Stop treating workers like resources and start treating them like human beings.

Against.

For, because we don't like the clause about 80 hours voluntarily, but we'll be writing a replacement if this passes and no one else writes one.

Jeez, very simply put, people need to wake up and realize that life isn't about economic superiority. Stop treating workers like resources and start treating them like human beings.
We fully agree. The way to treat them like human beings is to talk to them, and institute policies they have some say in, not institute sweeping, unaccountable laws with no consideration for their individual needs.

Jeez, very simply put, people need to wake up and realize that life isn't about economic superiority. Stop treating workers like resources and start treating them like human beings.

Very simply put, economic "superiority" is the difference between subsistence and poverty, employment and starvation, dignity and sweatshops. We are discussing economic legislation; in economic legislation, workers are resources. These resources, together with others, are used to create wealth. That wealth is distributed among human beings (some of which are the workers themselves) so that they can feed their families and buy pretty hats. Economic "inferiority" means not enough pretty hats to go around. Oh yeah, and food.

Now, there are plenty of valid economic arguments one can make in defense of "The 40 Hour Week." Some of those have been used in the past to defend it, and will surely be used again here. I am reluctant to support this repeal, which shows that I agree with some of those arguments.

But basing your case on "life isn't about economics" is just, well, daft. Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources: it is the very essence of life.

We fully agree.

Yeah right.

Yeah right.
We do! Workers are cute, cuddly and loved by children everywhere.

We do! Workers are cute, cuddly and loved by children everywhere.
And in some non-UN countries are children.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And in some non-UN countries are children.
Not just in non-UN countries...

I thought the Gruenberger kids in sweatshops were considered to be in compulsory education rather than work...

I thought the Gruenbergian kids in sweatshops were considered to be in compulsory education rather than work...
It's Gruenberger. And Gruenberg is world-renowned for the standard of its hands-on, vocational education.

Last edited by Fonzoland : Today at 12:19 PM. Reason: OK, no point in offending Shub-Niggurath...Damn straight. Ia! Ia! The Black Goat of the Woods and her Thousand Dark Young (http://images.epilogue.net/users/megaflow/shub-niggurath.jpg)!

Resubmitted.

Although with Unions in place a lo can be accomplished, the republic firmly opposes the repeal of this resolution.

Although with Unions in place a lo can be accomplished, the republic firmly opposes the repeal of this resolution.
Why? If unions can't argue for a fair workweek, there's little point having them.

Why? If unions can't argue for a fair workweek, there's little point having them.

They can argue for less than 40 hours.

They can argue for less than 40 hours.
It's 'fewer'.

Unions are in place to collectively bargain for workers' rights. Let's trust them to do that.

There are situations when, due to the economic structure of the country or due to underpopulation or a decreasing population, the ability to work more than forty hours is not only a good thing (and something that unions may actually support), but an economic neccessity.

OoC: Iceland

It's 'fewer'.

Unions are in place to collectively bargain for workers' rights. Let's trust them to do that.

OOC: Thank you for the grammar correction. That less/fewer thing always grates on me.

IC: Why would we trust anyone to do anything? We clearly have to legislate on every minute detail of everyday life here...
/sarcasm

There are situations when, due to the economic structure of the country or due to underpopulation or a decreasing population, the ability to work more than forty hours is not only a good thing (and something that unions may actually support), but an economic neccessity.


And it may become necessary in wartime, if a high proportion of the peacetime workforce has been reassigned to military duties, too...

And it may become necessary in wartime, if a high proportion of the peacetime workforce has been reassigned to military duties, too...
Well, in fairness, the original resolution does allow for that in the case of a "declared emergency".

Well, in fairness, the original resolution does allow for that in the case of a "declared emergency".

Oh, knock it off with your silly "fairness"... :p

Ladies and gentlemen of these here fine United Nations,

It is the opinion of the Federal Republic that recent strides made for workers' rights in these halls will actually serve to limit workers' freedoms and job security. After all, the greater burden we place on the corporation, the more expensive the jobs of their laborers become, and consequently, companies before long will barely afford to get rid of problem workers, or hire on new ones. We note as evidence the astonishingly high unemployment rates in nations where they have 35-hour workweeks (for 40 hours pay), mandatory six-weeks vacation and the like, and this absolutely obscene concept of the "minimum wage." The more valuable we make workers, the less able businesses will be able to let them go, or expand their workforce and bring in new hires. Do you realize just how expensive new labor is? All those wasted hours and resources training them, orienting them, asking existing workers to expend valuable time (remember, it's only 35 hours in some nations) showing them the ropes, how to do their respective jobs, when naptime is, how to pretend to be working when you're really goofing off? Bah! Might as well keep the workers we already have, no matter how incompetent or slothish, right?

Don't get us wrong. In the Federal Republic, we value human rights: "A free citizen is a happy shopper," we always say. But at the very same time, we abhor workers' rights, for as we all know, a free worker is a total slack-off. We also fear the massive red tide that is starting to sweep across this world, what with the new UN mandates protecting workers. The "workers," too; they smell our fear, and they feel it too: the day is nigh when an international workers revolt will topple the proletariat and bring in a bold era of bourgeoisie -- oh, wait. ... That's not right. ... How does this Marxist bullshit lingo go, anyway? ... Ah, yes ... the international workers revolt will topple the bourgeoisie and bring in a bold new era of proletariat governance. ... Yes, I think that's right. Why, they're out in the streets of Paradise City as we speak, singing their frightening anthem ("Workers Paradise," to the tune of Coolio's "Gangstas Paradise"), and dancing the robot dance. And if there's a sight more frightening than Al Gore doing the Macarena, it's hundreds of thousands of "workers" doing the robot! Later on, of course, will give them even more occasion to be shocking and offensive, as they all strip and gather 'round a huge statue of infamous Kennyite 19th century revolutionary Borracho Villa for a naked group portrait. Then if there's time they'll set off a few car bombs, call in a bomb threat to the Congress building -- and what would Paradise City be without a good old-fashioned riot? Of course, the heavy irony of all this (aside from Sec. MacDougall lecturing her fellow ambassadors about their sense of moral superiority (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10636831&postcount=11)) is that none of these "labor protestors" are laborers at all! They're a bunch of idealistic, snot-nosed little punks who live off their parents' money and their trust funds and haven't worked a day in their life! The real workers are still working 18-hour days at the factories, because our corporate sponsors have the good sense not to let them out.

Nonetheless, the red tide is sweeping; a world workers revolt is possible, and the international labor movement needs to be taken down a peg. Not a spline, not a splinter, not half a peg, not in between pegs (where you would have to hold the shelf up with boxes or books or something), but a whole peg! We thus support the repeal of The 40 Hour Workweek.

OOC: Awesome. :D

Finally, another major attempt to remove this one. Approved.

We have no interest in the proletariat. Most of our workers are too educated to be "proletariat" or proles. Communism does not lead to an idealized state. We want to control the means of production to the point where we do not have to "work" in the traditional sense. More brainwork less handwork. Our goal is to at least partially reach a full RICH economy-- Robert Anton Wilson's idea. The modern concepts of labor are outmoded and ultimately lead to slavery.

Our goal is to at least partially reach a full RICH economy-- Robert Anton Wilson's idea.You mean he's written something besides the various Illuminatus! books and various things on conspiracies? Huh. Learn something every day.

You mean he's written something besides the various Illuminatus! books and various things on conspiracies? Huh. Learn something every day.
OOC: It's actually taken from a book on the Illuminati, I think. http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/texts/raw-RICH.html

Sounds like bollocks to me.

The modern concepts of labor are outmoded and ultimately lead to slavery.
That's strange - I could have sworn that the abolition of slavery led to the modern concepts of labour.