NationStates Jolt Archive

Noting that many unfortunate people are unable to earn a living wage by working only a single forty (40) hour job, at which overtime may not be offered;

Noting Farther that artificial limits to amount of time employees may choose to work is harmful to businesses, but especially to smaller businesses and to developing economies;

Realizing that a few areas may have economic conditions such that their current population in unable to adequately fill all positions if each person is limited to contributing forty (40) hours per week of total non-overtime work;

Believing that local governments have a firmer grasp on local economic realities than a single global organization could ever hope to have, and thus are better suited to enacting their own laws to best deal with their own economic situations, and not be subject to regulations that have little meaning for their current economic situations;

Taking Note that UN Resolution #59 does not make any distinction or provision for multiple jobs or part time jobs, but includes all hours worked in a single amount, from which is presumably dived all hours that a person might work at any and all jobs they might hold;

Also Noting that some jobs might not monitor specific hours worked as their primary indicator of work done, or might otherwise not be directly translatable into a fixed amount of hours worked, such as for those that are self employed;

Hereby Resolves that UN Resolution #59, The 40 Hour Workweek, shall be at once considered null and void.

Your proposal is flawed.

The 40 hour week resolution does not prevent people from working more than 40 hours. It prevents people from being FORCED to work more than 40 hours (without overtime etc).

Within the law as it stands, people can work as many hours as they want, and have as many jobs as they want, and yet protects them from being exploited by their employer.

And the self-employed are not covered by this resolution - they aren't exactly "employees"

Your proposal is flawed.

The 40 hour week resolution does not prevent people from working more than 40 hours. It prevents people from being FORCED to work more than 40 hours (without overtime etc).

Within the law as it stands, people can work as many hours as they want, and have as many jobs as they want, and yet protects them from being exploited by their employer.

It doesn't actually say that . . . while I'm sure that's not the intent, going on a strict letter of the law reading, it seems to refer to hours worked total, not hours worked at each job.

Doesn't anyone ever read the resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030161&postcount=60) before pressing the repeal button or joining in on a repeal resolution thread?

The 40 hour limit is only the maximum an employer may demand a worker to work, "no one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week" and not the total limit on the number of hours a worker can work, which is actually 80, "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."

The multiple job loophole is an interesting one. The whole resolution goes into loony land if you change the assumption from that of the employer to the employee. If a person works multiple jobs, how does the employer know the moment when the employee goes past 40 total hours in his multiple jobs? We have to assume that the wording is for a specific employer/employee relationship.

I've only seen one problem in this resolution so far, and that is the notion that "On Call" hours are equivalent to working hours. Real world regulations often have a different ratio than 1:1 to on call verses workng hours. Annoying as all get go, but I can't seea repeal based on this bug alone.

And if you really don't like it then you can always switch over to using a calendar that has shorter weeks... ;)

After reading this resolution I've come to the conclusion that this is actually one of the resolutions that deserves to stay on the books. It even gives allowances for nations to temporarily suspend it in the event of an emergency. This resolution was clearly well thought out and despite the 1:1 ratio of on call hours to work hours it still is a magnificent piece of legislation.

Doesn't anyone ever read the resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030161&postcount=60) before pressing the repeal button or joining in on a repeal resolution thread?

At least a dozen times, slowly and carefully, plus some commentary and failed proposals to repeal it.

The 40 hour limit is only the maximum an employer may demand a worker to work, "no one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week" and not the total limit on the number of hours a worker can work, which is actually 80, "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."

They can only allow them to work more than 40 hours if they pay them the overtime, however. Not all employers will be willing to pay overtime, or able to afford it -- big companies can afford to pay overtime far more easily than small businesses.

The multiple job loophole is an interesting one. The whole resolution goes into loony land if you change the assumption from that of the employer to the employee. If a person works multiple jobs, how does the employer know the moment when the employee goes past 40 total hours in his multiple jobs? We have to assume that the wording is for a specific employer/employee relationship.


When it comes to laws, you can't assume. It's the letter of the law, exactly as writen, that matters. Not what was intended or makes sense. Otherwise, they wouldn't be any more than guidelines, with everyone interpting them in whatever way they claim makes sense.

At least a dozen times, slowly and carefully, plus some commentary and failed proposals to repeal it.

Yeah, well 90% of repeal proposals (just like all types of proposals) are loads of baloney

They can only allow them to work more than 40 hours if they pay them the overtime, however. Not all employers will be willing to pay overtime, or able to afford it -- big companies can afford to pay overtime far more easily than small businesses.

And small businesses will find they probably profit more if they have a need to pay overtime than big businesses since an overtime hour from an employee is a drop in the bucket compared to an overtime hour for a small business

When it comes to laws, you can't assume. It's the letter of the law, exactly as writen, that matters. Not what was intended or makes sense. Otherwise, they wouldn't be any more than guidelines, with everyone interpting them in whatever way they claim makes sense.

Right you are, so let's look at what it says:

2. No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week, except for the following exemptions,

How many times have you worked on two different jobs for two different companies using the same fucking contract?

Right you are, so let's look at what it says:


2. No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week, except for the following exemptions,


How many times have you worked on two different jobs for two different companies using the same fucking contract?

(Speaking OOCwise here) Considering that the only paid job I've had so far has been as a research subject, none.

Nor do I imagine that anyone else has much occasion for the same.

However, that is immaterial, since it doesn't say per contract per week, but just per week -- thus (unintentionally) making hours worked at ANY job count towards the total 40 hours that would be the max they can be contractually obligated for all together. If it specified per contract or per employer, everything would be kosher (if extremely easily gotten around), but the wording disallows any contract from obligating an employee to work more than 40 hours total from all jobs worked per week.

No.

It says that no contract can say that you are obligated to work more than 40 hours per week. Therefore, it can't be within the contract that you work more than 40 hours per week. YES your interpretation can be made from that wording, but technically speaking, BOTH of our interpretations are stated within the TEXT of the resolution. Therefore, if your nation makes it so that no one can work more than 40 hours from all jobs combined, then that's because your nation took the dumber of the two possible interpretations - and I don't support repeals based upon "save the stupid nations from themselves".

No.

It says that no contract can say that you are obligated to work more than 40 hours per week. Therefore, it can't be within the contract that you work more than 40 hours per week. YES your interpretation can be made from that wording, but technically speaking, BOTH of our interpretations are stated within the TEXT of the resolution. Therefore, if your nation makes it so that no one can work more than 40 hours from all jobs combined, then that's because your nation took the dumber of the two possible interpretations - and I don't support repeals based upon "save the stupid nations from themselves".

Says nothing about specific contracts. It only refers to 'contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours a week' -- doesn't say 'no single contract may obligate,' it says contracts in general, read strictly.

So while your interpretation is likely what was intended . . . after rereading it a few times, the letter of the law would be the way I interpret it.

The point of laws is to allow ONLY ONE interpretation, following a strict letter of the law. This means that in most situations, the strict legal interpretation of them is pretty dumb. But you're breaking the law otherwise.

So until the UN's lawyers rule otherwise, my nation will follow the stupid interpretation, so that we are not breaking the law. If the UN's lawyers rule that it is only per contract, then our businesses will be glad to know that they can disregard this Resolution's effect by simply having multiple contracts with each employee.

The problem with English is there's no one strict interpretation to many terms, sentences, etc, etc, etc. The mere fact that every single word in that line has multiple definitions alone makes that difficult.

The problem with claiming that law justifies your explaination is severely flawed since this is about 10,000 words short of being a real law. THIS ISN'T A REAL LAW. This is the framework of a law. A degree of leniency has to be granted on figuring out how the words connect together since, quite frankly, we failed to define every single major term in this resolution.

The problem with claiming that all laws have one interpretation is TOTAL bullshit and there are many instances in real life that prove that.

The fact that you stand behind ANY of those and talk down to me shows that you clearly have no clue. Again, I support no resolution for the purpose of helping stupid nations.

Get a clue.

No.
I don't support repeals based upon "save the stupid nations from themselves".

I think that hits the nail on the head. The loophole in this resolution is not one that harms the individual concerned i.e. it is not a loophole that an employer can exploit to get around the law. In that context, then, if it is purely down to interpretation whether a person can work 40 hours per week per job or 40 hours per week total, then interpret that how your nation feels is best. The ability to interpret a law is not always a bad thing, and often allows different cultures and ideologies to live by the same (flexible) laws.

In some cases of course, you do not want this flexibility, e.g. the Eon Convention on Genocide for example.

Loopholes are only a bad thing if they undermine the law itself, or can potentially damage those it intends to protect. But in this case it is fine, and does not need to be repealed.

They can only allow them to work more than 40 hours if they pay them the overtime, however. Not all employers will be willing to pay overtime, or able to afford it -- big companies can afford to pay overtime far more easily than small businesses.

Actually it can sometimes cost a business more not to pay the overtime. If you go by the general notion that the only exployer cost is the per hour sallery it doesn't make sense. But there are a number of fixed rate costs that an employer needs to spend on ann employee; there is the up front set up costs (either training or selection), there is the fixed per month expenses (insurance, pensions) and finally there is the general need for administration costs (regulations and supervision). The biggest hurdle to working time isn't even addressed by this resolution ... it's the transition from part-time to full-time where employee benefits can be excluded from the former but not the latter.

Says nothing about specific contracts. It only refers to 'contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours a week' -- doesn't say 'no single contract may obligate,' it says contracts in general, read strictly.

I am reading stictly. The wording says "contractually obligated" meaning that this applies to each and every contract. It also says "more than 40 hours a week" and not "more than a total of 40 hours a week." This is clearly a clause binding on the employer who by definition cannot know the employee's non work related working hours.

Everything about this resolution is Employer based, using the wording as it appears. The resolution is not written with the idea of a employee with multiple employers. But it is still, as written, an employer based resolution, not an employee one.

Remember that bit I said above about the PT/FT boundary. Guess what? If the PF/FT boudary is X hours a month, and you work 1/2n company A and 1/2
X in company B then you are still a part time employee for company A and company B. Sorry. That's the way the real world laws work. The same logic must apply (in fact is demanded) for the regular time / over time scenario.

Let's assume Fred works full time for company A and part time for company B(in that order). On Monday Fred works 8 hours for company A and 4 hours for company B. This continues for the entire week.

On Thursday, half way into his full time shift, under your interpertation, he reaches 40 hours and company A now needs to pay him overtime. Likewise company B needs to pay him overtime. Only one problem - how does company A know about company B's time? Remember there is nothing in the resolution that is employee based. No requirements for the employee to tell the employer about this situation.

One of the problems of loophole exploitation is that it requires someone who wants to exploit the loophole. This "loophole" assuming that it exists (whch I believe it does not) is a loose/loose loophole for everyone and thus nobody in their right mind would ever suggest it.

There are limitations in every resolution passed by this ody because on the one hand we are not all lawyers and on the other hand there is that limitation imposed on resolutions. All reslutions are imperfect. The question is whether or not a resolution is sufficiently horrid that it causes major damage by just following it. This resolution can be annoying, but not fatally so.

And the Law has started to take a purposive approach to construing laws not a strict literal approach. Or at least it has in Randomea and the grapevine has said it's a growinf trend in many states.

Work a 60 hour work week without OVERTIME and then call the head of New Hamilton.




And as he laughs in your face...saying "Try drugs to get you through the end of the day."



Laughing as he votes against this.

AKA



WORK A DAY IN YOUR LIFE!


Then rewrite this piece of crap.