NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal the 40 Hour Work Week.

COMMENDING its attempt to pursue greater social equality.

CONCERNED about clause 4 of the resolution which includes ‘on call hours’ as working and its effect on corporations and the government. For example health services/corporations having to employ more doctors to be on call could possibly lead to understaffed hospitals and ultimately loss of human life. Being ‘on call’ is in no way actually ‘doing a job’ so should not be included.

DISAPPOINTED at the way the resolution treats workers as temporary, forcing corporations to hire workers just so they may complete a job which the regular workers refuse/are legally unable to do and then let them go once it has been completed.

DISSATISFIED with the resolution having no definition of ‘hour’ or ‘week’ to avoid exploitation by nations with different time scales.

INCENSED by the implementation of an 80 hour cap on voluntary overtime; again this causes problems for workers who are constantly ‘on call’.

FRUSTRATED by the fact this resolution may cause global corporations to choose to place their factories in non-UN countries thus causing detrimental effects to the economies of UN member states.

ANGERED by the potential devastating effects to small businesses.


This is to garner support for my repeal/accept new ideas and criticisms.

ORIGINAL RESOLUTION:http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=55

PROPOSAL:http://www.nationstates.net/38205/page=display/page=UN_proposal1/match=40

The votes were very close on the original resolution:

Votes For: 8,637
Votes Against: 8,526

This is to garner support for my repeal/accept new ideas and criticisms.
You might want to include some actual arguments, beyond mere rhetoric.

The 40 Hour Workweek infringes greatly upon the liberties of the citizens of UN members. Peoples everywhere should have the right to work for however long they wish and might need to in order to support a large family, pay for an annual luxury or indeed anything they choose.
Why would anyone be able to, let alone want to, work more than 120 hours a week?

This resolution prevents people from succeeding financially and is crippling every class, but especially the working class who are often paid per hour at a rate not much above the minimum wage.
? This makes no sense. If they're not paid much, then the fact the proposal makes sure they're paid higher wages for extra work would be a good thing.

Disputes about how long peoples should work for should be settled in talks between the employer and a trade union.
Why?

a)Why would anyone be able to, let alone want to, work more than 120 hours a week?
b)? This makes no sense. If they're not paid much, then the fact the proposal makes sure they're paid higher wages for extra work would be a good thing.

a)This resolution does not deal with 120 hours per week, but forty which is considerably less.
b)If they could work for more than forty hours they would earn more money.

a)This resolution does not deal with 120 hours per week, but forty which is considerably less.
b)If they could work for more than forty hours they would earn more money.
You're misreading the resolution. You can work for more than 40 hours.

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

You're misreading the resolution. You can work for more than 40 hours.

I am aware of this part of the resolution, however it still regulates working hours and this wrong. It also takes authority away from corporations. However I do understand where you're coming from.

I am aware of this part of the resolution, however it still regulates working hours and this wrong. It also takes authority away from corporations. However I do understand where you're coming from.
Right. And I think we can know see where you're coming from.

I am aware of this part of the resolution, however it still regulates working hours and this wrong. It also takes authority away from corporations. However I do understand where you're coming from.

Why is it necessarily bad to take authority away from corporations?

Incidentally, the 40 Hour Working Week probably improves your economy due to the fact that your workforce will be happier, more motivated and committed to their jobs, healthier, be stabler and more secure socially and able to spend time with their families preparing the future workforce and won't be as prone to strike action and industrial disputes.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Say the Acme Corporation has to produce 15,000 bottles for a shipment by the end of Friday.

It has produced 12,000 when the 40 hours is up, instead of having more hours in workers' contract, Acme has to rely on people voluntarily staying. But there's a game on, so all the workers rush home to see it. Meanwhile, the Acme corp. have just lost a contract (not enough bottles on time). How is that good for the economy?

Say the Acme Corporation has to produce 15,000 bottles for a shipment by the end of Friday.

It has produced 12,000 when the 40 hours is up, instead of having more hours in workers' contract, Acme has to rely on people voluntarily staying. But there's a game on, so all the workers rush home to see it. Meanwhile, the Acme corp. have just lost a contract (not enough bottles on time). How is that good for the economy?
I'd say it's good for the economy, because companies that are fucking stupid are out-competed. You're suggesting we should protect companies who make contractual deals they won't be able to fulfill. You communist.

The corporations aren't stupid, they are being hindered by poor legislation which prevents them from meeting contractual obligations. And no, I am not a commie.

The corporations aren't stupid, they are being hindered by poor legislation which prevents them from meeting contractual obligations. And no, I am not a commie.
Woah, woah, I thought this was all about the poor starving workers, and their freedoms?

I think of the resolution as a pincer, it manages to hurt both the workers and the corporations, therefore a repeal would be beneficial to everybody.

Say the Acme Corporation has to produce 15,000 bottles for a shipment by the end of Friday.

It has produced 12,000 when the 40 hours is up, instead of having more hours in workers' contract, Acme has to rely on people voluntarily staying. But there's a game on, so all the workers rush home to see it. Meanwhile, the Acme corp. have just lost a contract (not enough bottles on time). How is that good for the economy?

I agree with what Sheknu says, why would a company enter into a contractual agreement it couldn't keep. Equally, shouldn't the company invest in high-tech methods by which they can make up for shorter work hours and set themselves sustainable methods of production. For example, they could alternate shifts by having two worker teams work over the week, so one team does 40 hours worth of work in shifts at say 8 hours a day and then another team does another 8 hours a day, totalling 40 hours a week. 16 hours a day and you haven't broken the rules.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Equally, shouldn't the company invest in high-tech methods by which they can make up for shorter work hours and set themselves sustainable methods of production. For example, they could alternate shifts by having two worker teams work over the week, so one team does 40 hours worth of work in shifts at say 8 hours a day and then another team does another 8 hours a day, totalling 40 hours a week. 16 hours a day and you haven't broken the rules.

This still financially hurts the workers being paid by the hour.

But look, your argument is silly. If the company makes a deal, which it knows it will not be able to fill, then it's showing such monstrously low business sense that it deserves to be raped by the market. Whether it's regulations or something entirely separate is irrelevant.

This still financially hurts the workers being paid by the hour.
How? Do you mean workers paid by commission? Because if they're paid by the hour, then this resolution enhances their pay, because it mandates they must be paid at least time and a half/double time for extra work.

The point is that without this legislation the business would be able to keep the agreement and so the repeal is better for the economy.

This still financially hurts the workers being paid by the hour.

Then pay your workforce more to compensate, or provide them with benefits to compensate for their allegedly lower level of pay.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Then this hurts the corporation. Chances are the corporation will rise the price to the consumers in order to compensate and this comes back to sting the workers.

If something under this resolution is FOR the CORPORATION, it hurts the workers.

If something under this resolution is FOR the WORKERS, it hurts the corporations.

To the Representative from The State of Georgia:
We are unable to follow the reasoning presented in your Repeal. You appear to (mis)characterize the Resolution in question as limiting the number of hours a laborer may work to 40 per week. This is untrue. Resolution clearly indicates in Article 5 that the maximum hours a citizen may work is 80 hours. If it delivered an otherwise sound argument, your Repeal would be unappealing simply by virtue of this factual error.
In addition, the Repeal you are drafting also fails to build a compelling case for the harm done to workers by Resolution #59. Your Repeal states that it "cripples" the earning capacity of poor families in particular. However, without Resolution #59, these people would face the risk of less earning power. An example, if you don't mind:

Worker Joe makes 10 Twinkies/hour. In a 40-hour week, he earns 400 Twinkies. If he chooses to work an additional 40 hours in a given week, he will make a minimum of 400 Twinkies (for the first 40 hours) + 600 Twinkies (time-and-a-half for the second 40 hours) = 1000 Twinkies.
Without Resolution #59, Employer Jane can decide to order Worker Joe to work 100 hours per week. In addition, Employer Jane does not have to pay Joe time-and-a-half for additional hours. So, without Resolution #59, Worker Joe works 100 hours for the same 1000 Twinkies it only took him 80 hours to make with Resolution #59 in place.

Without Resolution #59, the stated limitations on a worker's freedom to work what hours they wish are actually exacerbated by allowing employer to mandate 60 or 80 or 100 hour work weeks if they so desire. Without Resolution #59, we risk putting working class citizens at even greater risk by no longer guaranteeing them extrapay for "over-time" hours.

If you feel I have misread your Repeal or misread the original Resolution, please explain how I have done so. If I have not, please explain how you reconcile the fact that the text of your Repeal intends to protect workers while the actual effects will put those same workers at increased risk.

Oh, wow. It hurts the corporation so it MUST hurt the workers, huh?

BULL!

I always think it's hilarious these conservatives who keep bitching about survival of the fittest become extremely outraged when we change the rules so that they have to readapt to their new environment. It's called survival of the fittest, man. The person/creature/corporation that's best able to survive in their environment will thrive and prosper. Those companies that can't deal with the 40hr workweek and collapse probably are better off collapsed as they make room for more efficient and productive industries that can adapt to the 40hr workweek. We clear out those that are unable to operate in a world that treats workers fairly and replace it with those that can.

Survival of the fittest - learn to adapt.

-----------------------------------

Justify, other than using wages (because quite frankly, your understanding of minimum wage is horrendous and your claim that the workers should need this money is mindboggling) that more than....say.....60 hours of work is a GOOD thing for workers. Convince me. Show me that there is any issue other than the abusive wages to your workers to justify the greater hours.

I should be able to decide for how long I should work. Apart from in the interests of health and safety, any legislation that does so infringes on civil liberties.

Disputes should be decided between trade unions and the corporations.

But you can decide how long you work for. The only limit is 120 hours - which is exorbitantly how.

This argument is ridiculous. If you want to argue about productivity, about damage to industry, fine - but in no way does 40HWW infringe on workers' freedoms.

HOW DOES IT NOT?

Any limit on the amount of time a worker can work is infringing upon their liberties.

The repeal does need serious re-writing, I'll post R40HWW V.II on Wednesday...

takes authority away from corporations.

and we want to give authority to corporations why????

HOW DOES IT NOT?

Any limit on the amount of time a worker can work is infringing upon their liberties.

What civil liberties? Do you think the happy workers of The State of Georgia are going to leaping around with joy at the thought of being able to work more than 80 hours a week? "Oh yippee", they'll be saying, "now we can be forced to work longer hours for less pay and without any official entitlement to compensation".

Come off it, this is little more than a crude attempt to appease large corporations who haven't bothered to adjust to the laws and just want to roll the clock back to a time when their complacency wouldn't be punished. Workers aren't going to support any repeal because they know that they're getting a good deal under it. Sensible corporations realise that the benefits of a workforce operating under a maximum 40 hour (mandatory) week are greater than the benefits of forcing them to work much longer hours, almost certainly for lower levels of pay.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

What civil liberties? Do you think the happy workers of The State of Georgia are going to leaping around with joy at the thought of being able to work more than 80 hours a week? "Oh yippee", they'll be saying, "now we can be forced to work longer hours for less pay and without any official entitlement to compensation".


There's a difference between being able to and being forced to, y'know.

Yes, but if this where repealed they could very well be forced to.

Bear in mind that we of Sheknu support a repeal of this resolution...just not this repeal. And I'm sorry, anyone who wants to work more than 120 hours a week is obviously so dedicated, they won't mind marking their time down as volunteer work. This doesn't cap people's workweeks at 40 hours; it just means they're paid extra for staying on beyond that. If anything, would that not prove an incentive for them to do so?

There's a difference between being able to and being forced to, y'know.

And they are able to work more time.

Well...As you guys just post along. =P

The States of Unity: FOR this repeal.

The problem with the Resolution is the person who wrote it was clueless about how working actually... works.

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.I, the player -- in the real world -- am technically on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Tell me, how on earth would this Resolution allow someone to be in my situation. 80 hours isn't going to get me to Thursday before I'm not allowed to "work" any more, even though I'll only have actually worked 24 or so hours.

Furthermore, nobody, nobody, pays overtime for on call hours. The Resolution is pathetic and desperately needs to be repealed. And for the love of God, if someone's going to replace it, let them please have a clue about what they're talking about. Preferably let it be someone who's actually had a job.

Say the Acme Corporation has to produce 15,000 bottles for a shipment by the end of Friday.

It has produced 12,000 when the 40 hours is up, instead of having more hours in workers' contract, Acme has to rely on people voluntarily staying. But there's a game on, so all the workers rush home to see it. Meanwhile, the Acme corp. have just lost a contract (not enough bottles on time). How is that good for the economy?
Because it means that Acme Corp needs to hire enough people to produce 15,000 bottles at 40 hours, in other words, it creates jobs.

It doesn't do this in an artificial way either like so many other pieces of legislation: since those people who have worked their 40 hours have already worked full-time jobs for that week, and there are 3000 more bottles which must be produced, Acme needs to increase its productivity by about 25% in order to meet its contractual obligations. It should therefore hire more workers. Everybody wins - Acme meets its contract, more people have jobs, and those who already have jobs aren't forced to work overtime against their will.

Section 4 needs changing, however...

Because it means that Acme Corp needs to hire enough people to produce 15,000 bottles at 40 hours, in other words, it creates jobs.

It doesn't do this in an artificial way either like so many other pieces of legislation: since those people who have worked their 40 hours have already worked full-time jobs for that week, and there are 3000 more bottles which must be produced, Acme needs to increase its productivity by about 25% in order to meet its contractual obligations. It should therefore hire more workers. Everybody wins - Acme meets its contract, more people have jobs, and those who already have jobs aren't forced to work overtime against their will.

What if training those new workers couldn't be completed in time to win & carry out the contract involved?
And what is Acme supposed to do with those extra workers when that sudden rush of business is over? Would you expect it to keep them on its rolls on a long-term basis then even though there wasn't really enough work to keep them -- as well as the previous number of employees -- busy?

Oh, wow. It hurts the corporation so it MUST hurt the workers, huh?

BULL!

I always think it's hilarious these conservatives who keep bitching about survival of the fittest become extremely outraged when we change the rules so that they have to readapt to their new environment. It's called survival of the fittest, man. The person/creature/corporation that's best able to survive in their environment will thrive and prosper. Those companies that can't deal with the 40hr workweek and collapse probably are better off collapsed as they make room for more efficient and productive industries that can adapt to the 40hr workweek. We clear out those that are unable to operate in a world that treats workers fairly and replace it with those that can.

Survival of the fittest - learn to adapt.


Ahem. Have you forgotten that industries in the nations affected by this resolution may also have to compete with industries in non-UN nations where looser rules apply?

Mind you, what I think the best reason for repealing this resolution is -- as I stated in an earlier debate on the topic -- the simple fact that some nations may use 'weeks' whose lengths differ from the "standard" seven days so that this 40 hours would be a different proportion of a 'week' in their cases...
Oh, and then of course there are the nations located on other planets, where even the 'day' may be a different length from ours...
(OOC: There are historical RL precedents for 'weeks' of anything from 5 to 10 days in length, at least, and some cultures [such as the early Romans] didn't use the concept at all... and, as far as I know, there's no NSUN rule which actually states that a "week" must be 7 days long...)

OOC: So... wait... 120 hours a week isn't enough? Need I point out that this leaves less than 7 hours each day to wash, eat, have a social life and most importantly sleep?

How? Do you mean workers paid by commission? Because if they're paid by the hour, then this resolution enhances their pay, because it mandates they must be paid at least time and a half/double time for extra work.

OOC: True it may enhance there pay if employers want to pay it. In my line work I have often lost time to avoid over time as they don't schedule me to work over 40 hours. Then a work event is canceled leaving me short 8 hours can't makeup that week so get only 32. Then some weeks are dead weeks and may only get 30 hours that week.. Thus where might be able to get that 10 hours for 50 in the first week end up losing it and 8 more.. Then still get 30 in final week so for a 80 hour pay period only get 62 hours. How does this enhance my pay if they don't schedule you to work that extra time so they don't have to pay time and half..?


IC: As our weeks are five days long we have no probem with a 40 hour workweek as our days are just 20 hours long..... but we can see it being a problem for other nations on a different time calender than we are on. So we would support this being repealed and leaving it up to individual companies to decide how long their workers work on a shift or during a set perior. As they know best the hazards of the work and needs for rest of their workers due to the stress of each task done.

Please post reasons for a repeal to be incorporated into R40HWW V.2

The first thing you can do to make this repeal remotely credible is completely drop your risible claim that the resolution impinges on worker freedoms.

No support for repeal from me without sight of a quality replacement, i.e. one that addresses Hack's complaints concerning on-call hours and removes the 80-hr cap.

The basis of the resolution is sound and well worth preserving.

What if training those new workers couldn't be completed in time to win & carry out the contract involved?
And what is Acme supposed to do with those extra workers when that sudden rush of business is over? Would you expect it to keep them on its rolls on a long-term basis then even though there wasn't really enough work to keep them -- as well as the previous number of employees -- busy?
Those are management problems. If a company is so excessively stupid as to sign a contract it cannot possibly fulfill in time, it deserves the penalties which will ensue from breaching the contract. Next time, management should have some foresight and either hire and train enough employees to do the job, or not agree to such a huge job. And if I was Acme's CEO, I'd be firing whoever signed that contract in the first place.

Ahem. Have you forgotten that industries in the nations affected by this resolution may also have to compete with industries in non-UN nations where looser rules apply?

Yes, and mind you, I'm not the one who supports free trade initiatives, especially when my neighbor has refused to give up slavery to push her powerhouse of an economy. It is only out of a special relationship with that region we benefit from her great economic boost rather than are hindered.

Mind you, what I think the best reason for repealing this resolution is -- as I stated in an earlier debate on the topic -- the simple fact that some nations may use 'weeks' whose lengths differ from the "standard" seven days so that this 40 hours would be a different proportion of a 'week' in their cases...

OOC: Yes, let's also define English, day, hour (seriously - day you might argue as possibly being standard, but hour you can't), 40, work, volunteer, overtime, 80, "on call" and "wanking" while we're at it

:rolleyes:

Working with the Nolak Calendar, I am running a 5-day week but I still don't give a shit about the assumed "week must be 7 days" since really, the term "week" that they use isn't even week because it's from a different language and this was the best conclusion that English could give it.

Oh, and then of course there are the nations located on other planets, where even the 'day' may be a different length from ours...
(OOC: There are historical RL precedents for 'weeks' of anything from 5 to 10 days in length, at least, and some cultures [such as the early Romans] didn't use the concept at all... and, as far as I know, there's no NSUN rule which actually states that a "week" must be 7 days long...)

Oh, you already hit everything.

Seriously, the era of DLE is over. She left her mark, but that doesn't mean that everything still needs to be defined to every minute detail.

Those are management problems. If a company is so excessively stupid as to sign a contract it cannot possibly fulfill in time, it deserves the penalties which will ensue from breaching the contract. Next time, management should have some foresight and either hire and train enough employees to do the job, or not agree to such a huge job. And if I was Acme's CEO, I'd be firing whoever signed that contract in the first place.

So what you're effectively saying is that any potential contracts that arise suddenly like this would have to be left for companies in non-UN nations? Do you realise that that would probably strengthen those companies relative to their competitors in the UN nations, making it easier for them to win other contracts too and thus threatening jobs in the UN nations?

Please post reasons for a repeal to be incorporated into R40HWW V.2

First, since you are unable to provide any support that the worker's "freedoms" that are allegedly being abbreviated by Resolution #59 will be better protected without Resolution #59 in place, you should focus your arguments elsewhere. Resolution #59 protects workers from being forced to work long weeks and grants them extra compensation when they work over-time. Even if limiting workers to 80 hours is an infringement upon freedom to do something, you have to admit that the establishment of a limited week offers workers a freedom from certain exploitative working conditions. You need to recognize that you make workers vulnerable to mandatory 80-hour weeks without an increased pay-rate if Resolution #59 is repealed. If your concern is truly for the workers, then this should be recognized in your Repeal. Thus far, your arguments in forum have focused on the negative effects to employers. If these are, in fact, your best arguments for repeal, put these in your Repeal Proposal.

Perhaps also some ideas for a replacement resolution which will maintain the workers' higher pay?

Perhaps also some ideas for a replacement resolution which will maintain the workers' higher pay?
How about enshrining the right to greater remuneration for time worked over an acceptable benchmark, thereby compensating the worker for their pains. Oh, hang on...

So what you're effectively saying is that any potential contracts that arise suddenly like this would have to be left for companies in non-UN nations? Do you realise that that would probably strengthen those companies relative to their competitors in the UN nations, making it easier for them to win other contracts too and thus threatening jobs in the UN nations?

Aha, I disagree with this. Labour will go where the jobs are and if workers in other nations are attracted to the higher wage, more secure and socially protected jobs available in the U.N. economic sphere, then we will get motivated, new, immigrant employees flooding into our nations, eager to reap the rewards of our progressive social and work policies, such as this example. If you're so concerned about offshoring and outsourcing, then nationalise your industries or offer more incentives for companies to stay and work in your nation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

But maybe we don't want those scruffy immigrants from non-UN countries.

But maybe we don't want those scruffy immigrants from non-UN countries.

Honestly, that makes me even less inclined to support a repeal.

Aha, I disagree with this. Labour will go where the jobs are

But if UN resolutions seriously hinder our businesses' ability to compete with ones in non-UN nations then the jobs won't be here... and, from the cases that I've seen, nationalising industries as you suggest tends to reduce their competitiveness too...

How about enshrining the right to greater remuneration for time worked over an acceptable benchmark, thereby compensating the worker for their pains. Oh, hang on...

There should be greater renumeration for time worked over that amount stated in the workers' contracts which should be decided between the trade union and the employer, because believe it or not different industries, sectors and professions have different circumstances. A generic benchmark is therefore unsuitable, and regulating every industry one by one internationally is impractical therefore should be dealt with on a national level.

But if UN resolutions seriously hinder our businesses' ability to compete with ones in non-UN nations then the jobs won't be here... and, from the cases that I've seen, nationalising industries as you suggest tends to reduce their competitiveness too...

OOC: *gasps* Oh my god! Of course! The jobs are all flowing out of Europe and into the US because they're trying to get to the less regulated country! The brain drain in Canada is continuing because it's so much easier to make money there.

False

The brain drain actually began reversing around the turn of the millenium, and the jobs are, of course, headed to third world nations where the standard of living is lower so the cost of the employee is a mere fraction of the cost of a first world employee because the goods are cheaper.

No matter how much you deregulate American industries, the jobs are NOT coming back to America. That's true of all first world nations.

The reason the brain drain reversed included everything from safety (9/11, go figure) to social services to crime rates.

The jobs WILL be in those nations that regulate because they will have unique characteristics that make them attractive to certain markets. Yes, some markets may not be as attracted (in fact, downright disgusted), but you can't take your cake and eat it too.

I think the most interesting thing is the risk America is at right now - partly because of its deregulation of industry. It holds a record trade deficit (with imports nearly doubling exports) and is being propped up by investments. Other first world nations - most of which are much more regulated than the US - they aren't seeing these extreme deficits. Heck, Germany has 20% more exports than imports.

Your argument doesn't sell

I laughed out loud when I first read the 40-hour work week resolution. This had to be written by some over-worked sap that need a way to vent their frutrations.
Naive.
Inventive.
Imaginative.
Not practical.
And, as I always say, NOT within the purview of the UN

--Rooty

I laughed out loud when I first read the 40-hour work week resolution. This had to be written by some over-worked sap that need a way to vent their frutrations.
Naive.
Inventive.
Imaginative.
Not practical.
And, as I always say, NOT within the purview of the UN

--Rooty

I am working on the repeal right now, glad to here some support.

With only 5 telegrams sent out, the following delegates have supported the original resolution:

Approvals: 25 (Hill tops, Assassinos, Leg-ends, Tsar Praetere, Futuristic America, Haelcyon, F-Carthage III, Nospam, Los Santos, Heizelburg, Whatsitts, NewTexas, Alexandrian Ptolemais, Richard2008, St Edmund, Palentine UN Office, Brozvakia, Aakron, Van Dieman, Compulsoria, Justin Shearer, Svarica, Cornbread Fanatics, Krankor, Scottsvillania)

I laughed out loud when I first read the 40-hour work week resolution. This had to be written by some over-worked sap that need a way to vent their frutrations.
Naive.
Inventive.
Imaginative.
Not practical.
And, as I always say, NOT within the purview of the UN

--Rooty

As a matter of interest Madam, do you believe that anything is within the purview of the U.N? And what's wrong with something being 'imaginative'?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

No matter how much you deregulate American industries, the jobs are NOT coming back to America. That's true of all first world nations.And the ridiculous corporate tax systems have nothing to do with it, I'm sure...

I laughed out loud when I first read the 40-hour work week resolution. This had to be written by some over-worked sap that need a way to vent their frutrations.
Naive.
Inventive.
Imaginative.
Not practical.
And, as I always say, NOT within the purview of the UN

--Rooty
Nonsense. It could do with tweaking, yes, but it's hardly a radical piece of legislation. Many countries adopt similar policy.

Nonsense. It could do with tweaking, yes, but it's hardly a radical piece of legislation. Many countries adopt similar policy.

Radical? No.
Stupid? Definitely.
I don't care what countries have a policy like this. They can slack off on their own time. Don't force the rest of us to be lazy. Some of us actually appreciate a nice, robust economy.
I mean, seriously, a forced, forty-hour work week would probably crush all RL small businesses. It's just not practical.

--Rooty

Here is the second draft incorporating many ideas from the thread:

Repeal the 40 Hour Work Week.

REPEALS RESOLUTION #59

COMMENDING its attempt to pursue greater social equality.

CONCERNED about clause 4 of the resolution which includes ‘on call hours’ as working and its effect on corporations and the government. For example health services/corporations having to employ more doctors to be on call could possibly lead to understaffed hospitals and ultimately loss of human life. Being ‘on call’ is in no way actually ‘doing a job’ so should not be included.

DISAPPOINTED at the way the resolution treats workers as temporary, forcing corporations to hire workers just so they may complete a job which the regular workers refuse/are legally unable to do and then let them go once it has been completed.

DISSATISFIED with the resolution having no definition of ‘hour’ or ‘week’ to avoid exploitation by nations with different time scales.

INCENSED by the implementation of an 80 hour cap on voluntary overtime; again this causes problems for workers who are constantly ‘on call’.

FRUSTRATED by the fact this resolution may cause global corporations to choose to place their factories in non-UN countries thus causing detrimental effects to the economies of UN member states.

ANGERED by the potential devastating effects to small businesses.

Add "Repeals Resolution #59."

And the ridiculous corporate tax systems have nothing to do with it, I'm sure...

Of course! It makes so much sense now. The corporate taxes make it so that a company can't make as much profit paying American workers $5/hr as they could if they paid $5/day across the border

(Actually, who works for only $5/hr these days?)

The head offices aren't, necessarily, moving overseas. It's the factory workers. While the tax system might have prompted corporations to speed up the process of outsourcing, overhauling it won't reverse the flow - might slow it down, but it won't reverse it.

The jobs aren't coming back.

Radical? No.
Stupid? Definitely.
I don't care what countries have a policy like this. They can slack off on their own time. Don't force the rest of us to be lazy. Some of us actually appreciate a nice, robust economy.
I mean, seriously, a forced, forty-hour work week would probably crush all RL small businesses. It's just not practical.

--Rooty
Complete nonsense. Laziness? No, the fact is that Americans and Brits are over-worked. What use is a more 'robust' economy if you've sacrificed health and wellbeing. This comes down to a more fundamental question of what you perceive as important. Personally, I think it's lunacy to sacrifice everything in the name of economc growth - there are more important considerations.

France operates a 35-hr system. Yes, there are problems but to claim that this has wrecked their economy is ignorant twaddle. There's more than one way to measure productivity and some indices suggest that France is actually more prodcutive. The balance isn't right, it seems, but the Anglo-Saxon 'flog the workers into the ground' approach has certainly not won this argument. Just look at the measures of discontent and stress in the UK.

Any more suggestions to the new draft we need to be posted by Saturday because I want to submit then.

Thanks

TSoG

To the Representative from The State of Georgia:
It seems that most of our esteemed colleagues are too busy having ideological debates centered on the economies of mythical lands like "UK" and "France" to engage the matter at hand...

COMMENDING its attempt to pursue greater social equality.
Excellent.

CONCERNED about clause 4 of the resolution which includes ‘on call hours’ as working and its effect on corporations and the government. For example health services/corporations having to employ more doctors to be on call could possibly lead to understaffed hospitals and ultimately loss of human life. Being ‘on call’ is in no way actually ‘doing a job’ so should not be included.
This is a compelling argument but poorly written.

DISAPPOINTED at the way the resolution treats workers as temporary, forcing corporations to hire workers just so they may complete a job which the regular workers refuse/are legally unable to do and then let them go once it has been completed.
This argument is confusing and not terribly compeling. What would be lost from the repeal's strength if this were omitted? What is gained by including it?

DISSATISFIED with the resolution having no definition of ‘hour’ or ‘week’ to avoid exploitation by nations with different time scales.
Fine.

INCENSED by the implementation of an 80 hour cap on voluntary overtime; again this causes problems for workers who are constantly ‘on call’.
Good.

FRUSTRATED by the fact this resolution may cause global corporations to choose to place their factories in non-UN countries thus causing detrimental effects to the economies of UN member states.
This is speculation at best and totally irrelevant in any event. The purpose of Resolution #59 was not to increase the competitive advantage of UN member corporations. The purpose was to protect workers in UN member nations from being exploited. The definition of a Social Justice resolution is "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare." This definition says nothing about increasing business, marketshare, competitive advantage and so criticisms of that kind are irrelevant. If we were interested in optimizing corporate profits, we would pass a resolution (probably in the Free Trade category) to chain 99% of the UN population to their workstations and make them work for no pay or something.
I understand your concern for keeping UN member corporations competitve in the world but Resolutions like #59 are not tasked with doing so and should not be held accountable when they do not.

ANGERED by the potential devastating effects to small businesses.
What does this mean and how do you support it? Again, this appears to be a criticism that would be germane to a Free Trade category resolution but not to Social Justice.

As much as I do not like resolution #59, I can't think of a good reason for its repeal. The "On Call" clause is troubling, but I'm not sure if it really merrits a repeal argument on its weight alone.

Time to do some googling, and in doing so I came across the state of North Carolina ("North Carolina yields to South Carolina" oops wrong musical.)

On-Call and Emergency Callback Pay (http://hr.unc.edu/Data/SPA/paysystems/specialpay/oncall?printFriendly=true)


On-Call Compensatory Time Off

For permanent SPA non-exempt employees, management may choose to compensate on-call time with paid time off calculated at one hour for every eight hours of on-call time (or, 1/8th of an hour earned for every hour of on-call time).

On-Call Time Off (OCTO) may be accumulated up to a maximum of 240 hours. (Note: This on-call time off is not the same as compensatory time received in lieu of overtime pay and must be tracked separately.)

...

Overtime Pay Rate for FLSA Non-Exempt Employees

If an FLSA non-exempt employee works overtime during a week in which s/he receives on-call pay, the on-call pay rate must be included in the employee's regular pay rate for calculating the overtime pay rate. However, the time spent in on-call status is not included for determining hours for overtime eligibility (with the exception of those hours for which the employee receives emergency callback pay).



Meanwhile, back in England, where I googled the document AHB 2000-001, 1-1- 2000 ON-CALL Definition ON-CALL is the ... (http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/ahp/632-5.pdf)

On-call hours count as working time when workers arerequired to be at their place of work and either working or available for work, and this includes time spent sleeping-in. When workers are on-call but based at home or elsewhere, on-call time only counts as working time from the timethey are called out.

What a difference a definition makes. Using the UK definition, resolution #59 is perfectly fine and OK.

So I'm back again without a good reason to repeal. Sorry. If you want me I'll be at home. On call.

What a difference a definition makes. Using the UK definition, resolution #59 is perfectly fine and OK.If the Proposal indicated which definition it was working worth, then you might have a point. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Then again, I suppose one could spin it as a crumb to NatSovs by letting them decide, but...

"INCENSED" and "ANGERED"? Don't you think you could use language that's a bit more emotive, mayhap? How about "APOPLEPTIC WITH RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION" and "IMBUED WITH THE LORD'S OWN FURY"? It might play well with the voters, y'know.

If the Proposal indicated which definition it was working worth, then you might have a point. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

There is an old saying, "When you 'ASSUME' you make an 'ASS' out of 'yoU' and 'ME.'" Having terms in reslutions that either rely on assumed common definitions is clearly wrong. As we can see, however, wrong things happen all the time.

This leads to a strange, apparently paradoxical point of view. Generally speaking when looking at a resolution, I think the worst. In this case I would probably have voted against the resolution because of the lack of definition. However when looking at the repeal, I would think the best. The resolution doesn't need to be repealed because it is possible to have a RW definition of the term that avoids the doomsday scenario argued for.

That's an important thing for repeal ... "am I dead yet?" After all, if a resolution passed ages ago, and it really was all as bad as the repeal proposers say it was my nation should be financialy dead due to the massive chaos that this resolution is supposed to have caused. Yet it is not, so why not? Rather than embrace the paradox I find it easier to seek out the loophole. So assumed definitions become more of a speed bump; they impede my decision both for the resolution and for the repeal.

If people want to submit ideas for the proposal, y'all have 24 hours.

It will be submitted at: 1230pm, (Central Daylight Time), 1830pm, (GMT), 0330am, (NSW, Australia).

The above times incorporate DST where applicable.

When you say Middle Standard Time (a non-existant time zone), do you mean Mountain Daylight time or Central Standard Time

And if it is Central, do you mean with or without daylight savings time (and if it's the latter, it actually is Central Daylight Time).

Well, CST is six hours behind GMT. I believe that GMT doesn't technically use Daylight Saving time. I know England uses... what's it called?... "summer time", but I believe GMT itself stays the same, regardless of summer time as it's essentially a construct to standardize time zones, people living where it resides are of no consequence to the concept that is GMT; so 12:30 would be CST. Since Central is currently in DS, that would most likely correlated to Mountain Daylight Time: MDT.

This is the most bizarre thread, ever.

Well, CST is six hours behind GMT. I believe that GMT doesn't technically use Daylight Saving time. I know England uses... what's it called?... "summer time", but I believe GMT itself stays the same, regardless of summer time as it's essentially a construct to standardize time zones, people living where it resides are of no consequence to the concept that is GMT; so 12:30 would be CST. Since Central is currently in DS, that would most likely correlated to Mountain Daylight Time: MDT.

Sorry for the grave digging.

CST actually is actually permanent -6 while it's daylight form is CDT (-5) - just as MST has a permanent. Also, the southern hemisphere I'm pretty sure is back on CST by now and certainly Saskatchewan, Canada doesn't use any daylight savings time so the majority of the province is still on CST. I made a further inquiry about the possibility that it might be CDT since not everyone knows that GMT is static.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 9:52 PM.look writing!

Oh yeah?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM.

Ha-HA! :p

I think of the resolution as a pincer, it manages to hurt both the workers and the corporations, therefore a repeal would be beneficial to everybody.
The repeal would be benificial for the componies only. If this repeal is passed, a company has a right to hire only emplyes that work, let's say 80 hours a week, pushing other people out of their jobs, because they cannot work that much. Sure, if you're single and have no kids, there's not much of a bother to work that long, but otherwise this will lead to large number of divorces, the criminal rate will rise due to the point that kids are free from their parents for a long time, and overall, the population will stop growing, because everybody's busy. This repeal should not be passed.