NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #59
Proposed by: Leg-ends

Description: UN Resolution #59: The 40 Hour Workweek (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that individuals have the right to choose to work for more than 40 hours per week should they so wish;

OBSERVING that every country has differing, complex socioeconomic conditions;

RECOGNISING that the UN is not as informed as national governments on economic circumstances prevalent in individual nations, and is as such less well placed to effectively accommodate their varying needs;

CONCERNED that "The 40 Hour Workweek" unfairly restricts the economic progress of developing countries, and of small businesses within more developed countries;

BELIEVING that terms and conditions of employment are best decided through negotiations between employees and employers;

FURTHER BELIEVING that the United Nations should where possible not interfere in private negotiations;

CONCLUDING that key economic decisions should be taken at the level where those closest to the issue at hand have the greatest information and understanding of differing economic conditions:

REPEALS "The 40 Hour Workweek".

Co-authored by the members of ACCEL

There are two central arguments to this repeal:

1) Individuals should have freedom and be free to choose their hours of work through private negotiations between themselves and their employer.

2) Given the vastly different economic conditions between nations it is simply foolish to have a "one size fits all" approach to economic policy. In particular this unified approach often punishes economically less developed nations. Decisions should be taken at the level where those closest to the issue at hand have the greatest information and understanding of differing economic conditions.

I ask the members of the UN to vote AYE on this repeal ensuring that individual freedoms are protected and allowing economic policy to be formulated at a national level.

How the blue hell did a forty hour work week resolution get passed in the first place?

BELIEVING that individuals have the right to choose to work for more than 40 hours per week should they so wish;
Why is this in here? Under Resolution #59, individuals already can work "more than 40 hours per week should they so wish".

BELIEVING that individuals have the right to choose to work for more than 40 hours per week should they so wish;

Depending on how one interprets the original, it is perfectly legal to work either 80 or even 120 hours a week, should one so choose.

That argument is irrelevent as it rests on a false readiong of the original resolution.

How the blue hell did a forty hour work week resolution get passed in the first place?
Satayana was correct. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_40_Hour_Workweek) Have a look.

Ceorana believes that this resolution should be repealed and replaced. We support the concept of a maximum workweek to give workers rights in places where they don't have a lot of choice or leverage in places to work, but Resolution #59 has a few fatal flaws. Among these are a failure to distinguish between salaried workers and waged workers and the "on call" provision. We don't agree with the arguments in the resolution, but still tentatively support.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Depending on how one interprets the original, it is perfectly legal to work either 80 or even 120 hours a week, should one so choose.

That argument is irrelevent as it rests on a false readiong of the original resolution.That's a quite deliberate ploy to try and fool the masses of the UN. Hirota votes against.

Depending on how one interprets the original, it is perfectly legal to work either 80 or even 120 hours a week, should one so choose.Um... I don't see how you could reach the interpretation.

# On call hours shall count against the 40 hour limit.
# 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[...]Still, note that first bullet point? Let's do some math:

Me == on call 24/7
hours in day == 24
hour in week == 168
limit == 80

Whoops. I've got 88 hours a week in violation. And have for the past 7 years. Even with a brain-damaged reading of this, I'm still 48 hours over the limit every week.

Well hang on Hack, wouldn't your life be better if you weren't required to be on call 24/7? Say only for 80 hours a week, and have slightly over half your life when you can count on a boss not telling you to get over here now?

The whole argument that it "restricts workers' rights" is completely invalid, and it's a lie that they can't choose to work more than 40 hours - they can work up to 80 hours because of the overtime provision. And 80 hours is just 8 hours short of half the entire week, waking and sleeping.

The resolution doesn't prevent people from working. It prevents people from being forced to work. And frankly the argument that a country should allow its people to be in semi-slavery because it's less developed is sickening, because the workers in developed countries are the ones who need their rights protected the most.

I don't think repealing this is a good idea.

Many employers may take advantage of it, in that they will 'advise' that their employees work extra hours.

Why is this in here? Under Resolution #59, individuals already can work "more than 40 hours per week should they so wish".
And nowhere in the repeal does it say they can't. It just says they should be able to - kudos to the original resolution for acknowledging this right.

And nowhere in the repeal does it say they can't. It just says they should be able to - kudos to the original resolution for acknowledging this right.
Heh. O.K. then, I could launch a repeal of GFDA and start it off with the line: "BELIEVING that UN member nations have the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping". It would be true. And legal. It would also be misleading.
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.

I'm sure that, eventually, a repeal of this resolution will be written that is intellectually honest. Eventually. I'll keep hoping...

It would also be misleading.
Quite so.

But then, everyone will thoroughly read the original resolution, and know that.

Well hang on Hack, wouldn't your life be better if you weren't required to be on call 24/7? Say only for 80 hours a week, and have slightly over half your life when you can count on a boss not telling you to get over here now?Sure, and my life would be better if I could teleport to work and thus not need to spend money on gas for my car, but that would be ignoring reality. The nature of my job requires that I (and others) be available at any time in case of emergency. Lots of things would make my life better (say, being able to lay golden eggs), but that doesn't mean they're practical or realistic.

The whole argument that it "restricts workers' rights" is completely invalid, and it's a lie that they can't choose to work more than 40 hours - they can work up to 80 hours because of the overtime provision. And 80 hours is just 8 hours short of half the entire week, waking and sleeping.I spent three months working 72 hours a week, and would have willingly worked 84, but my employer didn't want to pay me that much overtime, and more importanly, they were restricted by state law (any employee working more than 80 hours would result in a fine). The law was restricting me. I wanted the hours; I had plenty of debts and was single. An extra 12 hours of overtime (essentially, an extra 18 hours of pay) would have helped. The limit on overtime should be picked by the worker, not the government. I was willing and able to work twelve hour shifts seven days a week, but I wasn't allowed to.

How were my rights being "protected" by such a law? From where I'm sitting, they were being restricted. I don't need the government telling me when I've worked enough. I know well enough.

The resolution doesn't prevent people from working.Unless they want to work more than 80 hours. Just because you have never been in that situation doesn't mean it's some fanciful creation.

It prevents people from being forced to work. And frankly the argument that a country should allow its people to be in semi-slavery because it's less developed is sickening, because the workers in developed countries are the ones who need their rights protected the most.Appeal to emotion and pure, fluffy nonsense. The above isn't some contrived RP example to prove a point; I, the player, was actually in that situation from mid-December to mid-March 01/02. I wasn't forced to work those hours; the shifts needed to be filled and I needed the money.

Sure it was hard, but someone in their 20's is more than capable of pulling it off, and often in a position where they'd be willing to.

Sure, and my life would be better if I could teleport to work and thus not need to spend money on gas for my car, but that would be ignoring reality. The nature of my job requires that I (and others) be available at any time in case of emergency. Lots of things would make my life better (say, being able to lay golden eggs), but that doesn't mean they're practical or realistic.

Well thank god Galileo Galilei did not restrict himself to the flat reality of the "globe".
People being exploited by people and thus loosing the best part of their life in the rat wheel without a possibility to change it, that is a really sad case of "reality". And the UN setting up the pace for this. So odd.

Quite so.

But then, everyone will thoroughly read the original resolution, and know that.

Yeah, and my citizens are loyal followers of Wena :rolleyes:

The Principlaity of Melsonland Royal Committee on Industry


The Prince and his Royal Cabinet's Committee for Industrial states its voting intentions for the repeal. While it recognises the need for people to have time off and supports a quota an working limits, the committee believes an indiidual nation should set its own quota in accordance to its own economic circumstances, culture and believes the UN is too large to understand the effects of a 40 hour week on every members workforce. Howevere the Prince will allow his royal dressers and servants to work until their hands are running with blood. than they can have a tea break

Well thank god Galileo Galilei did not restrict himself to the flat reality of the "globe".
People being exploited by people and thus loosing the best part of their life in the rat wheel without a possibility to change it, that is a really sad case of "reality". And the UN setting up the pace for this. So odd.Right. Sure.

Yeah, and my citizens are loyal followers of Wena.
Well, you're not proposing we appeal to the lowest common denominator, surely? We think it in the UN's interests to raise the level of debate, not sink to a lower one in order to accommodate those who do not care about this institution and even their own nations.

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

I spent three months working 72 hours a week, and would have willingly worked 84, but my employer didn't want to pay me that much overtime, and more importanly, they were restricted by state law (any employee working more than 80 hours would result in a fine). The law was restricting me.

Perhaps not wanting to pay you for the extra time was a bigger factor than the law? I'm thinking if your employer was willing to pay you for the extra time, you would've been working 80 rather than 72 hours. In which case it's not really the law restricting you anyway, and the overtime pay you wanted likely was only there because of the employment law, I'm guessing.

And as you said, you were in a position where you were willing to work 84 hours. Not all people are in their 20s, however, or willing to spend half the entire day at work.

I wanted the hours; I had plenty of debts and was single. An extra 12 hours of overtime (essentially, an extra 18 hours of pay) would have helped. The limit on overtime should be picked by the worker, not the government. I was willing and able to work twelve hour shifts seven days a week, but I wasn't allowed to.

Isn't that a much better situation than not wanting to work twelve hours seven days a week, but having no choice because that's how the working conditions are everywhere, or because due to market conditions there are more workers than jobs and your other option is unemployment?

How were my rights being "protected" by such a law? From where I'm sitting, they were being restricted. I don't need the government telling me when I've worked enough. I know well enough.

And what about people who don't want to work 12 hours a day but would have no choice if such laws didn't exist? The point isn't the government telling you when you've worked enough, it's to tell employers how long they can make employees work. You're willing to, fine. But not everyone is.

Appeal to emotion and pure, fluffy nonsense. The above isn't some contrived RP example to prove a point; I, the player, was actually in that situation from mid-December to mid-March 01/02. I wasn't forced to work those hours; the shifts needed to be filled and I needed the money.

Appalling working conditions in developed countries are not "contrived RP examples" or "fluffy nonsense". They're real too. You're talking of a very specific situation and ignoring the big picture here. Obviously it's more real to you since it's a personal experience, but you aren't the only person in the world.

...Among these are a failure to distinguish between salaried workers and waged workers...
Forgive me but what's the difference?
If I have to put in more hours than expected, why should I not get overtime?

Perhaps not wanting to pay you for the extra time was a bigger factor than the law?When there's roughly 300 hours of OT being handed out, my wages weren't much of a concern. Not to mention my boss pointing to the law as his main reason.

I'm thinking if your employer was willing to pay you for the extra time, you would've been working 80 rather than 72 hours.If you can find a way to make 12 hour shifts equal 80, I'd like to hear it.

And as you said, you were in a position where you were willing to work 84 hours. Not all people are in their 20s, however, or willing to spend half the entire day at work.Nice side-step. I wasn't talking about people unable or unwilling to work 80+. Those people aren't likely to butt up against such a law, now are they? Considering I support this Repeal based on the fact that many people are able and willing to work more than 80 hours, perhaps focusing on that demographic would be... germaine.

Isn't that a much better situation than not wanting to work twelve hours seven days a week, but having no choice because that's how the working conditions are everywhere, or because due to market conditions there are more workers than jobs and your other option is unemployment?Irrelevent. Please stick to the actual argument as opposed to random hypotheticals.

And what about people who don't want to work 12 hours a day but would have no choice if such laws didn't exist?Hint: Appeal to Emotion is bad.

The point isn't the government telling you when you've worked enough, it's to tell employers how long they can make employees work. You're willing to, fine. But not everyone is.No, it's not fine; this law prevents that. This is a really simple concept here. I want to work more than 80 hours, a law that mirrors the Resolution in question prevented that.

You're talking of a very specific situation and ignoring the big picture here. Obviously it's more real to you since it's a personal experience, but you aren't the only person in the world.Hey, guess what? You're ignoring my line of argument (presumably because you have no real responce) in favor of arguing something irrelevent to my point.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/redherring.jpg

It prevents people from being forced to work.

Interesting. I don't see firing squads outside the job interviews...If you don't want to work over 40 hours, there's a simple answer; you find a job that does not stipulate you have to. If people want to work a job with ridiculous hours, that's their shout, and if they don't, there's plenty of businesses out there that don't want staff in every hour god sends because exhausted staff are crappy staff. And because exhausted staff do things like nodding off with their hand in a metal press and suing you.

Well, you're not proposing we appeal to the lowest common denominator, surely? We think it in the UN's interests to raise the level of debate, not sink to a lower one in order to accommodate those who do not care about this institution and even their own nations.

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

If you use the common denominator that can't achieve a majority on its own, you do not have a generalization.

If you can find a way to make 12 hour shifts equal 80, I'd like to hear it.

One of my friends has his official work day start at 8:30am and end at 6:42pm because his company does a 44 hour week. You could've tacked on a extra hour to each day, and one day with two extra hours. If your employer was inflexible that way, then don't blame the law just because that was their reason.

Hey, guess what? You're ignoring my line of argument (presumably because you have no real responce) in favor of arguing something irrelevent to my point.

We're talking about 40-hour work weeks and whether the UN should continue to have the resolution, not your personal sob story about having debts and not being allowed to work 84 hours because of employment law. If anyone is making fluffy emotional arguments or being irrelevant, it's you. I've given you plenty of response. But personal anecdotes don't justify repealing major employee rights legislation.

You're dismissing everything I say as "random hypotheticals". Fine. Show me the evidence that most people would really like to work over 80 hours a week but can't because of the stupid law. Just cause it's true for you at one point in your life doesn't mean it's universally true.

One of my friends has his official work day start at 8:30am and end at 6:42pm because his company does a 44 hour week. You could've tacked on a extra hour to each day, and one day with two extra hours.Which, oddly enough, isn't a 12 hour day. Shifts were either 8 hours or 12 hours. This wasn't some office building where there's nobody around for half the day.

But personal anecdotes don't justify repealing major employee rights legislation.You continue to miss the point. The point is that this law hurts workers while making claims that it exists only to benefit them. It punishes workers who are willing and able to work more hours. My anecdote was to give a real example of how such laws hurt real people. I'm not asking for a pity party.

Just cause it's true for you at one point in your life doesn't mean it's universally true.Sigh.

The Repeal states that the law limits peoples' choices. Counterpoints are made that workers can work overtime. My point was that there are plenty of people willing and able to work more than 80 that are stopped by this law.

Actually, the point that I originally raised, and that is always ignored, is that the on call restriction is utterly crippling. Part of the point of being on call is so that you can be called at any point in time. Being on call for 40 hours is largely worthless.


I seriously need to take a cue from Fris and stay out of these things. Or at least limit myself to snide IC comments.

Some nations like myself, believe in Laissez-faire. If the economy of the nation is too weak to support the "40 hour work week" than it is in our best interests in those nation nations to support them. This restricts economic freedom. The fact that you have to get paid more if you work more than 40 hours, is the fact that will make more businesses make you work 40 hours. Also since there is no "minimum wage" set up, 40 hours a week will bring people in poverty. Let nations make their laws on this, not the UN. The UN has absolutely no right to interfer with how many hours our naton's workers work.

Anyways, in the case of Entrepreneurs, how can they get overtime for working more than 40 hours?

Some nations like myself, believe in Laissez-faire. If the economy of the nation is too weak to support the "40 hour work week" than it is in our best interests in those nation nations to support them. This restricts economic freedom. The fact that you have to get paid more if you work more than 40 hours, is the fact that will make more businesses make you work 40 hours. Also since there is no "minimum wage" set up, 40 hours a week will bring people in poverty. Let nations make their laws on this, not the UN. The UN has absolutely no right to interfer with how many hours our naton's workers work.

Anyways, in the case of Entrepreneurs, how can they get overtime for working more than 40 hours?

You see, I would rather keep the 40 hr workweek and instead set up a minimum wage

But hey, that's just crazy talk.

The people of Daradskel proposes that we KEEP the "40 Hour Workweek" resolution. It is our firm belief that workers should spend more time with their families.

AGAINST

While initially the Democratic States of Bevatt was for this resolution, it has become a harder choice for us as we have thought about it. The 40 hour workweek, while perhaps slightly over the top (we would prefer a limit of 50, or maybe 60 hours) protects the poor from the threat of sweatshops. While there are many rich countries in NS where individual choice is a reality, in the poor countries this resolution is often the only barrier to horrific hours for incredibly low pay. As such, while we believe that UN Resolution #59 remains flawed we feel we have no other choice but to continue to support it. As such we are voting against this resolution.

The Democratic States of Bevatt also note that the resolution allows up to another 40 hours overtime work, bringing the total potential work to 80 hours.

Which, oddly enough, isn't a 12 hour day. Shifts were either 8 hours or 12 hours. This wasn't some office building where there's nobody around for half the day.

Like I said, that is the fault of the employment law how? Your employer also has other reasons, I'm guessing, such as that brought up by GMC Military Arms:

And because exhausted staff do things like nodding off with their hand in a metal press and suing you.

Though in most places it isn't the lawsuit, but the interest it tends to generate from the labour authorities.

You continue to miss the point. The point is that this law hurts workers while making claims that it exists only to benefit them. It punishes workers who are willing and able to work more hours. My anecdote was to give a real example of how such laws hurt real people. I'm not asking for a pity party.

But not having the law also hurts workers. The point is that most people aren't willing and able to work over 80 hours. The negative effects on health and quality of life from excessive work also make it a question of human rights. If it's a matter of the lesser of two evils, I happen to think it's better to "punish" people who want to work extra than creating the possibility that everyone will have to work excessive hours, like it or not. And also that the freedom of leisure time is much more important than the freedom to work long hours.

Actually, the point that I originally raised, and that is always ignored, is that the on call restriction is utterly crippling. Part of the point of being on call is so that you can be called at any point in time. Being on call for 40 hours is largely worthless.

You know, if people don't argue against something, it might be because they agree with it. I do think there should be a limit on it, though. Being on call can be very disruptive to your activities, and you probably know that better than I do. But I don't think it's worth repealing the whole thing over, especially given the difficulty in putting in a replacement. In any case, the repeal doesn't address that at all.

Interesting. I don't see firing squads outside the job interviews...If you don't want to work over 40 hours, there's a simple answer; you find a job that does not stipulate you have to.

"Forcing" doesn't just mean pointing guns or immediate threats of death, and you know that very well. Furthermore, the reality of the job market and the economy is that they change. Employees do not typically have that much power. People are restricted in job choices by their qualifications. It's not simple at all. You want to think it is.

If people want to work a job with ridiculous hours, that's their shout, and if they don't, there's plenty of businesses out there that don't want staff in every hour god sends because exhausted staff are crappy staff. And because exhausted staff do things like nodding off with their hand in a metal press and suing you.

Of course, because the economic conditions and the job market are always going to be favourable for employees, the labour unions in every nation are powerful enough to effectively protect the workers, and there are never any recessions or unemployment, so the employee can always dictate the terms of their employment...

Anyways, in the case of Entrepreneurs, how can they get overtime for working more than 40 hours?

Entrepreneurs are self-employed and are therefore not affected by this.

The people of Jacobic agree that this should be repealed and let the nations themselves dictate the work force labor laws.

Prime Minister of Jacobic
Delenn Satai
UN Member
Social Capitalist Party

Some nations like myself, believe in Laissez-faire. If the economy of the nation is too weak to support the "40 hour work week" than it is in our best interests in those nation nations to support them. This restricts economic freedom.
Yes, and? Banning paedophilia restricts personal freedom - does this make it unworthy of our time?

The fact that you have to get paid more if you work more than 40 hours, is the fact that will make more businesses make you work 40 hours. Also since there is no "minimum wage" set up, 40 hours a week will bring people in poverty.
Sorry, could you rephrase this, please? I'm not sure I follow your chain of reasoning.

Let nations make their laws on this, not the UN. The UN has absolutely no right to interfer with how many hours our naton's workers work.
Why does it not have this right?

Anyways, in the case of Entrepreneurs, how can they get overtime for working more than 40 hours?
Irrelevant. The resolution under attack addresses employees' rights only.

Mt Sam is heavily opposed.

This is a thinly shrouded attempt by large capitalist nations to legitimize the exploitation of weaker ones.

Once we remove the stopping point of 40 hours, large businesses (who choose to pay a pitence to their workers) will be able to easily force the under priveleged into gruesome and unbearably long shifts.

Employees do not typically have that much power. People are restricted in job choices by their qualifications. It's not simple at all. You want to think it is.

If absolutely nobody is prepared to work a >40 hour standard week, no employer will be able to stipulate it as a working condition and still remain solvent, it really is that simple. The fact that people are prepared to work more than 40 hours a week is what creates the need for laws to prevent them making up their own minds about what contract they sign. And given the entire resolution can be ignored in the name of 'declared emergencies,' an undefined term, it's easy to sidestep the whole thing just by arbitarily declaring an 'employment emergency.'

In other words, even with this law, if the national government is on the side of business [or is business], it may never have any effect felt by the man on the street anyway.

It is also unfair to limit the voluntary overtime an employee can work, given the definition of 'voluntary' work is that the employee is not 'forced' to do anything.

Of course, because the economic conditions and the job market are always going to be favourable for employees, the labour unions in every nation are powerful enough to effectively protect the workers, and there are never any recessions or unemployment, so the employee can always dictate the terms of their employment...

And you are making the exact opposite assumption, that it is necessarily true that all businesses will instantly try to screw all their employees over if the resolution is repealed even though everyone in their workforce will already on 40-hour contracts anyway.

Given that the need for such a resolution is largely gauged by the state of the national economy and job market and is not universal, does this perhaps remind you of something that ought to be decided by individual governments rather than blanket-applied regardless of what the job market is like?

This is the text of the original. I see nothing wrong with it. Frankly it prevents large companies from exploiting workers. Further, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not working more than 40 hours a week, regardless. I have a life. and I am not interested in getting paid extra to give more of my time to a company.

1. The maximum standard full-time workweek shall be set at 40 hours. Nations shall remain free to set their workweeks lower than this.
2. No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week, except for the following exemptions,

a) military personnel
b) civil defense forces
c) civilian emergency response personnel
Excepting military personnel, these exemptions shall only apply during emergency situations.

3. No one may be contractually obligated to remain on the worksite without pay.
4. On call hours shall count against the 40 hour limit.
5. Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu. Nations shall remain free to set their allowable overtime hours lower and their overtime pay rates higher than specified in this proposal.
6. The 40 hour week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers. Nations shall enact the laws needed to comply with the 40 hour week within 1 year of the passing of this resolution and they may phase in the changes over the course of up to 4 years. The necessary changes must be fully implemented within 5 years of the passing of this resolution.
7. In time of declared emergencies the national government may suspend this directive to any sector of the workforce it deems essential to the effective running of the country for the duration of that emergency.

You see, I would rather keep the 40 hr workweek and instead set up a minimum wage

But hey, that's just crazy talk.

Yes, it most certainly is.

And given the entire resolution can be ignored in the name of 'declared emergencies,' an undefined term, it's easy to sidestep the whole thing just by arbitarily declaring an 'employment emergency.'
So why all the fucking whinging?

So why all the fucking whinging?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware voicing opposition to the content of a UN proposal qualified as 'fucking whinging.' Have a forum-holiday to go with your trolling.

Hey guys, relax, it's just a game, why the arguing if a lot of what's being said isn't, and won't be, happening in the game?

Peoples of the world: The imperialism is pushing a UN proposal to destroy one of the pillars of modern labor, the 40 hour work week. We, as developing countries should move against this hidden agenda of the developed economies. Please, I urge you members and our delegates to vote against this crazy proposal that wants to solidify payed slavery as the only way of life for the poorest of the poorest, while the richest of the richest enjoy a week of more than 40 hours of unlimited and hedonistic luxury.

The Presidency and the Congress of the Free Lands of Culture Spreading

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST the repeal.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA (who is filling in as UN Rep. while Bob is on vacation)

You see, I would rather keep the 40 hr workweek and instead set up a minimum wage

But hey, that's just crazy talk.

I was thinking the same. Let's just set a minimum wage.
And still a reminder: the economic order, the countries and governments are set up to make human life easier. Making it possible for companies to exploit workers by making them work half of their life is not enabling and perfecting our lives.
There are plenty of countries that have restrictions and over time pay laws and the economy functions fine.

AGAINST

While initially the Democratic States of Bevatt was for this resolution, it has become a harder choice for us as we have thought about it. The 40 hour workweek, while perhaps slightly over the top (we would prefer a limit of 50, or maybe 60 hours) protects the poor from the threat of sweatshops. While there are many rich countries in NS where individual choice is a reality, in the poor countries this resolution is often the only barrier to horrific hours for incredibly low pay. As such, while we believe that UN Resolution #59 remains flawed we feel we have no other choice but to continue to support it. As such we are voting against this resolution.

The Democratic States of Bevatt also note that the resolution allows up to another 40 hours overtime work, bringing the total potential work to 80 hours.

The people of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity agree with the position outlined by the Democratic States of Bevatt, and would like to point out that the resolution does not restrict a second job nor self employment, thus the 80-hour limit itself can be easily avoided by the choice of the worker.

The point of the resolution is to empower workers, not business owners. Looking at business reports in Mikitivity my government has not seen in negative impact due to this resolution ... though that could be because most Mikitivitians tend to work between 30 and 50 hours a week.

-Howie T. Katzman

After much thought and consideration, the Forgotten Territories, through its UN member Forgottenlands UN, will cast all 30 of its votes against this proposal. We believe there is great reason for a resolution along the lines of 40 hour workweek.

While we feel it lacks flexibility on many agreements that have been demonstrated to work and be beneficial to both employees and employers - such as rotational work (2 weeks straight of 12hrs per day, 2 week vacation, wash, rinse, repeat - often used when someone is working in a remote location away from home and, normally, given the additional benefit of being flown home for the two weeks of vacation) and low-likelihood-of-being-called on-call shifts - it is not this flexibility issue being argued here. The arguments presented seem focused upon the unfair disadvantage nations - particularly developing nations - are put into. Considering that developing nations without laws along these lines are renouned for their disgusting abuse of workers rights, it is ludicrous to believe that this could even be considered a valid argument.

AGAINST

40 hour work week is one of the pillars of the modern labor movement and it supports an active and educated middle class and a democratic society.

Repeal paves the way for widespread abuse of the labor force.

FOR.
Apart from the usual 'NatSov' arguments...
The original resolution isn't flexible enough about the "on call" situation, cases where a particular company might actually need a few more hours work per week out of its employees (or, at least, certain key employees) in order to win contracts & stay in business (and its current economic situation isn't healthy enough for it to hire extra staff to work those hours instead, or even to pay overtime rather than at normal rates), members of nonhuman species with different sleeping patterns, cultures that don't have 168-hour weeks, or various other possibilities...
And then there's the loose wording that leaves a disputed point about whether the maximum hours allowed are meant to be the basic 40 + 40 of overtime, for 80 in total, or the basic 40 + 80 of overtime for 120 in total...

"Co-authored by the members of ACCEL" is code for "this proposal is fucking evil".

"Co-authored by the members of ACCEL" is code for "this proposal is fucking evil".

QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!!!!

I'm sure that, eventually, a repeal of this resolution will be written that is intellectually honest. Eventually. I'll keep hoping...

Given infinite amounts of time, it's bound to happen eventually. But not today.

"Co-authored by the members of ACCEL" is code for "this proposal is fucking evil".
As a member of ACCEL...ok, that was pretty funny.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware voicing opposition to the content of a UN proposal qualified as 'fucking whinging.' Have a forum-holiday to go with your trolling.

overreact much?

r u guys retarded this goes completly against all morals and it violates the freedom to work how long u want its ridiculous this should be an easy vote i will vote against this and stop the oppression

such as rotational work
Which omits to mention the obvious downside for employees. I run several factories in Gruenberg. My workers often come from very deprived areas, and would willingly work more than 40 hours per week, to raise money (after all, with no state provision for education, healthcare or welfare, they're going to need it) for themselves. But they can't. The overtime requirement of Resolution #59 means we limit them to 40 hours per week, maximum. We hire on more employees, and rotate them in shifts. So the factories are open 16 hours a day, but the workers are only there for 8 at a time. This is cheaper: we pay the second shift the standard rate too, whereas if it was the first shift continuing on, we'd have to pay them considerably more.

This is fine for me, as it keeps my profit margins looking healthy. But I admit it's bad for my workers, because they don't earn enough money. If this resolution were repealed, I would give them the opportunity to continue into the second shift at the same rate of pay. Unfair, claim the leftists: my workers, who would then be earning more money, would tend to disagree.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

r u guys retarded this goes completly against all morals and it violates the freedom to work how long u want its ridiculous this should be an easy vote i will vote against this and stop the oppression
Uh...no, we're not retarded. We can read the word "repeal". If you believe in "the freedom to work how long u want [sic]", then you'd be voting FOR the repeal of the resolution that restricts that freedom.

FOR

The government(especially an oppressive trans-national government like the UN) has no place regulating the voluntary interaction between any individuals or groups, specifically in this case between employee and employer and especially when it is done to mutual benefit of both parties.

Which omits to mention the obvious downside for employees. I run several factories in Gruenberg. My workers often come from very deprived areas, and would willingly work more than 40 hours per week, to raise money (after all, with no state provision for education, healthcare or welfare, they're going to need it) for themselves. But they can't. The overtime requirement of Resolution #59 means we limit them to 40 hours per week, maximum. We hire on more employees, and rotate them in shifts. So the factories are open 16 hours a day, but the workers are only there for 8 at a time. This is cheaper: we pay the second shift the standard rate too, whereas if it was the first shift continuing on, we'd have to pay them considerably more.

This is fine for me, as it keeps my profit margins looking healthy. But I admit it's bad for my workers, because they don't earn enough money. If this resolution were repealed, I would give them the opportunity to continue into the second shift at the same rate of pay. Unfair, claim the leftists: my workers, who would then be earning more money, would tend to disagree.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

You are confusing rotational work with shift work.

Jees, you're the one that's employing people.

You are confusing rotational work with shift work.
No, I'm not. I know they're different: hence my use of the word "omit". You didn't mention shift work. And I'm not surprised.

FOR

The government(especially an oppressive trans-national government like the UN) has no place regulating the voluntary interaction between any individuals or groups, specifically in this case between employee and employer and especially when it is done to mutual benefit of both parties.

We're undecided. The case that most worries us most is in poorer countries, with scarce foreign investment, plenty of internal turmoil, high inflation, and a depressing economy.

In these cases the employer will often be paying the workers the minimum required to keep them alive. Unless prevented, they will make the employees work every waking hour, paying them just enough to sustain their workers existance, and letting them off work just enough to sleep and eat. Often the employer will be virtually the only option for employment in a given town.

Limits on the work week prevent this form of virtual slavery.

We're undecided. The case that most worries us most is in poorer countries, with scarce foreign investment, plenty of internal turmoil, high inflation, and a depressing economy.

In these cases the employer will often be paying the workers the minimum required to keep them alive. Unless prevented, they will make the employees work every waking hour, paying them just enough to sustain their workers existance, and letting them off work just enough to sleep and eat. Often the employer will be virtually the only option for employment in a given town.

Limits on the work week prevent this form of virtual slavery.
No they don't. They just mean that instead of earning pittance per hour x 100, the worker earns pittance per hour x 40.

Yay.

I vote for the repeal. Razat has no limit on the number of hours an employee can work, and cutting it down to 40 hours, as we are in the process of doing now that we're in the UN, will be a major hardship on some of our people.

No, I'm not. I know they're different: hence my use of the word "omit". You didn't mention shift work. And I'm not surprised.

You snipped my post down to my comment about rotational work, omitted every other part including my comment about on-call work and then started moping about deficiencies of something that I could only assume was meant to refer to the failings of rotational work with wording that looks back at the failings of the resolution. Of course! I must be psychic to figure out that your post wasn't referring to rotational work and was really complaining about shift work.

Or did you miss the two lines following where I explained what rotational work is?

(2 weeks straight of 12hrs per day, 2 week vacation, wash, rinse, repeat - often used when someone is working in a remote location away from home and, normally, given the additional benefit of being flown home for the two weeks of vacation)

Whatever.

You hate freedom.

Whatever.

You hate freedom.

You hate people. What's your point?

They have the luxury of getting a second job if they need the extra hours. Or did you ban that luxury, making you the one that restricted their freedoms? They have the freedom to work only 40 hours on a week that they are having other issues in their lives - such as needing to move to a new place or finding a job where the boss isn't such a stickler to the bottom line?

No they don't. They just mean that instead of earning pittance per hour x 100, the worker earns pittance per hour x 40.

Yay.

You are saying the situation I have described never happens? Why not? Often employers without competition for the labor market are in a position where they can set the wages as low as they want. The pay only as much as necessary to keep their workers alive.

What do you dispute?

overreact much?

OOC:
I want to say I'm pretty disappointed by this as well. In 2.5 years of activity in this forum, this sort of response *seems* extreme relative to many other statements. :(

IC:
Advisor Lennto from Gruenberg raised an interesting point in relation to rotational work, however, my government still maintains that if a laborer wants to work more than 40-hours, there is nothing in the present language to prevent that worker from getting two completely different jobs from different employers. Admittedly some diplomats may argue that this goes against the spirit of the resolution, however, we are fortunate enough that a represented from the Free Soviets is present ... and my government feels that the original authors should be consulted when a repeal is being discussed.

-Howie T. Katzman

You are saying the situation I have described never happens? Why not? Often employers without competition for the labor market are in a position where they can set the wages as low as they want. The pay only as much as necessary to keep their workers alive.

What do you dispute?
That in such situations it is then good to limit how much workers can work.

You are saying: "it is better that workers work only 40 hours for low pay, than that they work 80 hours for low pay". That makes no sense to me, as I fail to see how they're going to get any money.

I vote AGAINST this resolution to repeal the 40 hour work week.

The 40-hr. work week limit was established so that employees would not be overworked, literally tiring themselves out; so that they would have time to deal with their personal lives (such as child care, bills, relationships etc).

Plus, eliminating the 40-hr. work week would eliminate overtime pay, which may be a good thing to the companies, but isn't a good thing to the employees. Instead of getting paid time and a half, or whatever the overtime rate is for your country, the employee would be working any number of hours, and earning slightly less money. And seeing as how inflation is on the rise, and things become more expensive for the low and middle income families, they will need all the extra pay they can get, without overdoing it.

Thus, the nation of Tarandella votes against.

That in such situations it is then good to limit how much workers can work.

You are saying: "it is better that workers work only 40 hours for low pay, than that they work 80 hours for low pay". That makes no sense to me, as I fail to see how they're going to get any money.

Do you know how many hours there are in a week? Do you even know how many hours there are in a day? By repealing the 40-hr. work week, you're suggesting it's alright to let employees work twice as many hours, meaning they have twice as less time to deal with personal things, meaning they are twice as likely to lose their homes or their cars, because of late payments. Or lose their children because they're not there to care for them. What your suggesting would undermine what people in the past sacrificed to work for. You think people will want to earn money so badly that they are willing to give up their personal lives to do it? You might be that greedy, but not everyone thinks like you.

If you want to help your people to earn more money, how about establishing a minimum wage resolution that sets minimum wage at $10.00 per hour, instead of increasing the work week.

Although many people don't like it, I'm going to answer how I intend to vote with a real-life situation. Most countries in the Western world have laws similar to this. They are also widely considered the most developed and humane governments. People should get paid extra for going above and beyond by receiving some sort of "overtime" pay after working a set number of hours. As I said, this number of hours is usually 40 most nations with such laws.

Also, people who work more than 80-84 hours could be a danger to themselves or others. They get less sleep, and would entail 12 hour shifts every day. To me that pretty much makes them a drone, but we won't throw around random definitions. If they get less sleep and leisure time, they are more liely for psychiatric episodes (i.e. stress) and overfatigue which are dangerous on the work force. Anyone who cares about people should vote no to this repeal.

OOC: I want to say I'm pretty disappointed by this as well. In 2.5 years of activity in this forum, this sort of response *seems* extreme relative to many other statements.
Agreed. Same old same old, but probably not worth carrying on over: Eco's a big boy.

*awaits smut*

IC: Advisor Lennto from Gruenberg raised an interesting point in relation to rotational work, however, my government still maintains that if a laborer wants to work more than 40-hours, there is nothing in the present language to prevent that worker from getting two completely different jobs from different employers. Admittedly some diplomats may argue that this goes against the spirit of the resolution, however, we are fortunate enough that a represented from the Free Soviets is present ... and my government feels that the original authors should be consulted when a repeal is being discussed.
Agreed. And I actually don't think working two jobs would violate the spirit of the resolution. But, it can't be denied it's a major inconvenience. For one thing, unless the workplaces happen to be right next to one another, there's going to be travelling time (and probably expenses) involved. There could be a change of uniform; they might have to collect equipment (which it could be difficult to store at the first job); they might simply have trouble finding two jobs. Unemployment is low in Gruenberg, but we don't pretend job offers dangle from trees (except for apple pickers, ho ho).

I think working two jobs is an unsatisfactory answer. They should not need to do so. And I would expect exactly that response to me, if I argued a minimum wage proposal was bunk because people could work two jobs.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

Agreed. Same old same old, but probably not worth carrying on over: Eco's a big boy.

*awaits smut*


Agreed. And I actually don't think working two jobs would violate the spirit of the resolution. But, it can't be denied it's a major inconvenience. For one thing, unless the workplaces happen to be right next to one another, there's going to be travelling time (and probably expenses) involved. There could be a change of uniform; they might have to collect equipment (which it could be difficult to store at the first job); they might simply have trouble finding two jobs. Unemployment is low in Gruenberg, but we don't pretend job offers dangle from trees (except for apple pickers, ho ho).

I think working two jobs is an unsatisfactory answer. They should not need to do so. And I would expect exactly that response to me, if I argued a minimum wage proposal was bunk because people could work two jobs.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

You're right that it is insufficient, but that's only because only one piece of the puzzle is solved by this resolution. They shouldn't have to work 2 jobs. They shouldn't have to work 80 hrs. They shouldn't be put into a situation that would require them to spend more than 40 hrs at work, and that every hour on top of it is for the purposes of acquiring luxuries.

Guess what we need to fix that.

Oh yes, a bloody minimum wage law

Do you know how many hours there are in a week?
168.
Do you even know how many hours there are in a day?
24.

However, in future you'd be better off looking these things up through Google.

By repealing the 40-hr. work week, you're suggesting it's alright to let employees work twice as many hours,
Yes. Why is it problematic "to let" employees work as long as they want? Are you suggesting we shouldn't be able to work as long as we want - that we should have governments dictating our working hours? Sounds like institutional slavery to me.

meaning they have twice as less time to deal with personal things,
You do realize that if those "personal things" include eating, living in a house, raising children, etc., they're probably going to need some money. But hey, let's abolish all labour! That way, we'll all have loads more personal time!

meaning they are twice as likely to lose their homes or their cars, because of late payments.
Huh? How does having enough money to keep up with payments make them more likely to fall behind?

Or lose their children because they're not there to care for them.
Under your system, they don't have enough money to care for their children. Absence of attention versus absence of food, water, clothing, heating, education, toys, and so on. I know which I'd pick.

What your suggesting would undermine what people in the past sacrificed to work for.
And what you're suggesting would prohibit people from sacrificing themselves to work for better futures for their children.

You think people will want to earn money so badly that they are willing to give up their personal lives to do it? You might be that greedy, but not everyone thinks like you.
Excellent. Then no one will work more than 40 hours, so there's nothing to worry about.

If you want to help your people to earn more money, how about establishing a minimum wage resolution that sets minimum wage at $10.00 per hour, instead of increasing the work week.
We don't use dollars in Gruenberg. And given setting a minimum wage that high would kill our manufacturing industry in one stroke, and cause massive unemployment, it wouldn't be helping anyone earn any more money. But the topic at hand isn't minimum wage: it's the workweek.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

You're right that it is insufficient, but that's only because only one piece of the puzzle is solved by this resolution. They shouldn't have to work 2 jobs. They shouldn't have to work 80 hrs. They shouldn't be put into a situation that would require them to spend more than 40 hrs at work, and that every hour on top of it is for the purposes of acquiring luxuries.

Guess what we need to fix that.

Oh yes, a bloody minimum wage law
As I've noted, a minimum wage law would suck employment out of Gruenberg. We don't have a social welfare system, so I fail to see how that would help Gruenberg's poor.

Of course, next you'll be telling us we should have a social welfare system.

In fact, should we just run the Forgottenlands flag up the Palace pole right now?

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

Yes. Why is it problematic "to let" employees work as long as they want? Are you suggesting we shouldn't be able to work as long as we want - that we should have governments dictating our working hours? Sounds like institutional slavery to me.

They already have this choice to work more hours than 40. It's called overtime. Oh, and guess what, they get paid even more! Time and a half is the usual multiplier for over time pay in most countries.

You do realize that if those "personal things" include eating, living in a house, raising children, etc., they're probably going to need some money. But hey, let's abolish all labour! That way, we'll all have loads more personal time!

First off, by raising the minimum wage, and allowing for overtime on a 40-hr. work week, people will make more than enough money to pay for all of these. On top of that, if all residents in a home who are legally old enough to work, are working, then there is enough income in that residence to earn a better future. Plus, there's also the option to go to college and earn salaries that pay far more than hourly work weeks. See, that's what you forgot. People who earn salaries, ie - not paid by the hour, would be affected by resolution too. They'd have to work whatever hours their company establishes for them, and they won't earn a cent more than they already are, because they're not being paid by the hour. That would include your CEOs. I don't think they'd be too happy about that.

Secondly, I never said anything about abolishing labor altogether... You should try reading things more clearly before you reply.


Huh? How does having enough money to keep up with payments make them more likely to fall behind?

It's a little thing called "late payments". You may not be old enough to know this yet, but we adults, when we have credit cards, and automobiles, and apartments/houses, and cable tv, and broadband internet, etc...all of these cost money. And many people put them on credit cards to pay for them right away, and pay off their bank to which their credit card is issued by, in small payments. However, you only have a limited amount of time to make each monthly payment. The same goes for utility bills, mortgage payments, etc. And when you don't pay your bills on time, you get a 2nd notice, then a 3rd notice, then a final notice, before you get a visit by the jolly old Repo man! Oh, and then you get calls from these wonderful people that work at places called Collection Agencies! If people are forced/choose to work 80, 90 hr. work weeks, they're not gonna have time to pay their bills on time. Hence why I said they are likely to fall behind.

Under your system, they don't have enough money to care for their children. Absence of attention versus absence of food, water, clothing, heating, education, toys, and so on. I know which I'd pick.

Huh? I'm sorry, I don't quite get your logic (or lack thereof) here. How does working a 40-hr. work week mean less money with overtime pay and higher minimum wages for working families? I'll tell you how. It doesn't. And, you obviously don't have children of your own, or never have been responsible for a child. Children require adult supervision to ensure that the child grows up to become an upstanding, law-abiding, contributing citizen of society. By choosing to give your children lack of attention over other necessities, you neglect a child's social and emotional needs. Children are more likely to become violent, simply to act out for attention. Any decent psychologist could quote studies upon studies concerning this matter. I'm sorry to say, but attention is as important as food, clothing, and shelter.

And what you're suggesting would prohibit people from sacrificing themselves to work for better futures for their children.

Look at history. Enough people have already sacrificed themselves so that future generations would have a better future, and you're suggesting we flush it down the toilet because your personal greed isn't satisfied.

Excellent. Then no one will work more than 40 hours, so there's nothing to worry about.

Another sarcastic remark from you. If you'd bother to read the resolution you're trying to repeal, people still have the choice to work more than 40-hrs. a week. When they do that, they earn what is called over-time pay. From OOC experience, I can tell you that I earned a lot of money working 45 to 50 hours a week, via over time, even though I wasn't supposed to work more than 40 hours, and I even had 2 days off. So I only worked 5 days a week, for 45 to 50 hours, and I made as much money as those people that worked 6 days a week and only worked 40 hrs. a week. Raising minimum wage would only make this more likely.

We don't use dollars in Gruenberg. And given setting a minimum wage that high would kill our manufacturing industry in one stroke, and cause massive unemployment, it wouldn't be helping anyone earn any more money. But the topic at hand isn't minimum wage: it's the workweek.

First of all, the dollars was used as an example. I know full well that not all nations use the same currency. My nation uses the Daro.

Secondly, seeing as how expensive the standard of living has become in the 1st world nations, raising the minimum wage would not, as you so eloquently put it, "kill of industry". Most industries today make billions and trillions, and aren't limited to single markets. There's no way on this cyberearth, that your industries could go out of business from higher minimum wages, unless they're concentrating on single markets, or you ship their jobs overseas for cheaper labor.

Also, in case you hadn't realized, your industries would have to pay wages, regardless if it's to a higher minimum wage, or longer work hours. Either way, it means that people will be making more money, which means that more money will be spent by the industries to pay their employees...so...your point on industries going belly up if wages are raised is rather pointless and illogical

And since industries wouldn't go belly up, there wouldn't be any unemployment to speak of. If anything, there'd be more taxes available to build MORE industries and reduce unemployment further.

And while the topic at hand is the work week, my point of raising minimum wage is meant as an alternative suggestion to repealing the 40-hr. work week.

Mr. Lennto - some comments for you. First of all, I don't know what an Environmental Advisor would have to do with the work week and industries. Your job is the environment of the nation, not the work force. That falls under the Secretary of Labor, or Labor Advisor, watever.

Secondly, by your remarks, and from what I've heard, it sounds to me that this isn't your first attempt at repealing this resolution. And based on your logic in your arguments, I'd say that you have no clear understanding of how business works. What you suggest is dangerous to the individual, to the work force, and eventually the nation.

Sincerely,
President of Tarandella

168.

24.

However, in future you'd be better off looking these things up through Google.


Yes. Why is it problematic "to let" employees work as long as they want? Are you suggesting we shouldn't be able to work as long as we want - that we should have governments dictating our working hours? Sounds like institutional slavery to me.

Oh yes, it is "slavery" to prevent people from working themselves to death. Funny, I could've sworn slavery was forcing people to do what they didn't want to do while rules tended to force people not to do what they wanted to do. Funny how one of those is considered a great evil and the other is considered an annoyance.

Note: I'm not disagreeing with the suggestion that it is problematic to force them not to work those hours, I just take issue with your use of the term "slavery"

You do realize that if those "personal things" include eating, living in a house, raising children, etc., they're probably going to need some money. But hey, let's abolish all labour! That way, we'll all have loads more personal time!

Hmm......if you lived in the same fashion as Gruenberg's poorest right now and the excess was distributed amongst Gruenberg's poorest, I wonder how much money Gruenberg's poorest would be getting.

Huh? How does having enough money to keep up with payments make them more likely to fall behind?

Under your system, they don't have enough money to care for their children. Absence of attention versus absence of food, water, clothing, heating, education, toys, and so on. I know which I'd pick.

Yes, I'm sure a family that can't survive unless the parents work 100 hrs/wk have enough left over for toys and heating in your system. Yes, your system is sooooooo much better. I suppose this would explain the intelligence level that seems to be rather prodominant by your representatives here

And what you're suggesting would prohibit people from sacrificing themselves to work for better futures for their children.

And we're working for the betterment of those children without the ludicrous claims of the Gruenberg representatives.

Excellent. Then no one will work more than 40 hours, so there's nothing to worry about.

We don't use dollars in Gruenberg. And given setting a minimum wage that high would kill our manufacturing industry in one stroke, and cause massive unemployment, it wouldn't be helping anyone earn any more money. But the topic at hand isn't minimum wage: it's the workweek.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

Hmph. I've got comments about minimum wage, but why waste it when we've got an entire post devoted to that concept.

As I've noted, a minimum wage law would suck employment out of Gruenberg. We don't have a social welfare system, so I fail to see how that would help Gruenberg's poor.

Keynesian economics are a rather powerful tool. You may wish to consider them. Certainly, they don't allow for your economic peaks to hit as high as they might, but it also prevents the recessions from reaching as low as they might go. Might wish to look into it.

There was a statement I once heard that I'd like to share with the General Assembly. During a debate about raising the minimum wage, one person I knew said "many businesses will close because they can't afford the new rate". The other person responded "the same could be said about ending slavery".

Yes, businesses will close. Yes, your nation will suffer an economic setback. Yes, the unemployed will increase. However, there are thousands of ways to improve one's economy, thousands of ways of having a productive population and having a populace that is well off. It would be foolhardy for members of this body to ignore such a devestating effect and do nothing for their populace would riot. Things will improve, and probably for the better. You don't necessarily need the number of restrictions to be decreased - that's one-tracked thinking. If you can't be imaginative enough to expand your thought for new ways to operate, you don't deserve a favor from us.

There are thousands of ways to produce a good, productive society. Why should we not stop the most abhorent from continuing?

Of course, next you'll be telling us we should have a social welfare system.

Of course

In fact, should we just run the Forgottenlands flag up the Palace pole right now?

Forgottenlord's leadership would certainly be more beneficial to your citizens than your wenaistic tyranny. However, we do not seek to conquer.

That in such situations it is then good to limit how much workers can work.

You are saying: "it is better that workers work only 40 hours for low pay, than that they work 80 hours for low pay". That makes no sense to me, as I fail to see how they're going to get any money.

We're talking about workers receiving the same take home pay per week in both circumstances. The situation I put forward was one where the employer is paying workers the minimum to keep them alive. If allowed, the employer will require workers to put in 80 hours to make enough money to stay alive.

The government of Telidia’s position remain against this repeal. In our humble opinion the arguments presented do little to further the debate. In fact they are so vague it could be applied to any resolution currently on statute. After all national governments in opposition to a resolution is bound to feel ‘they know better’ and as such this argument is of little consideration to us.

While the economic effects of the resolution can be debated the result in its absence can’t. Through human history employees has been mistreated by employers and we can see no reason why this trend should suddenly change should the repeal pass. For us this resolution not only address abuse, but also sends a wider message to the international community on what is acceptable behaviour. In essence it sets a tone for civilised behaviour.

There has been some discussion regarding effects on economies, but think for a moment the potential chaos should this repeal. We will go from a regulated labour market to a completely unregulated one overnight and with it economic instability for some members in our opinion. Lets not forget those wealthy nations we so happily throw the book at either directly or indirectly support more developing economies and causing instability here will no doubt filter through to those it support. We seem to have lost sight of the fact this resolution has been in statute for over two years. Significant investment has been made by all member states all of which will be useless on the passing of this repeal.

In short as UN members we have already paid the price in economic terms to have a better more civilised labour policy. No matter what way we look at it regulating labour against abuse must be a priority for this body. All a repeal will do is nullify over two years of investment only to have to pay again once similar legislation is introduced at another date. Telidia for one is not in the business of paying twice, it simply makes no economic sense.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Members
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

They already have this choice to work more hours than 40. It's called overtime. Oh, and guess what, they get paid even more! Time and a half is the usual multiplier for over time pay in most countries.
First, they don't have the choice to work more than 80 hours.

Second, the "choice" to work more than 40 hours is usually diminished by the fact that employers won't want to pay overtime. I note while all the communist anecdotes about the poor workers are given centre-stage, whilst the anecdotes of their opponents are ignored.

First off, by raising the minimum wage
We don't have one in Gruenberg.

people will make more than enough money to pay for all of these.
You have sums to back that up, I'm hoping, because I don't see how you can say definitively that people will have more than enough money to pay for expensive medical treatments, education, to provide food and housing and increasingly pricey energy for their family, when you don't know:
1. what they're earning;
2. what they cost.

On top of that, if all residents in a home who are legally old enough to work, are working, then there is enough income in that residence to earn a better future.
So you're saying no one should go into higher education? We should all start working the moment we can - that's the price you're willing to pay for this diktat? We'd rather have some doctors around in 30 years' time, if it's all the same to you.

Plus, there's also the option to go to college and earn salaries that pay far more than hourly work weeks.
No no - you just said everyone old enough to work should be doing so, and may need to do so. No time for college.

See, that's what you forgot. People who earn salaries, ie - not paid by the hour, would be affected by resolution too. They'd have to work whatever hours their company establishes for them, and they won't earn a cent more than they already are, because they're not being paid by the hour. That would include your CEOs. I don't think they'd be too happy about that.
You don't believe CEOs have sufficient bargaining power to negotiate their own working weeks? Your higher-level employees don't? The unions must be in a state in Tarandella.

Secondly, I never said anything about abolishing labor altogether... You should try reading things more clearly before you reply.
And you should try reading mine, because I never said you did say that (this could go on). I'm saying it's the logical extension of your premise.

Less time working is desirable, because it allows more time for personal things (work not being permitted to be classed as personal).
Therefore, if no one worked, they'd have loads of time for personal things.

It's a little thing called "late payments". You may not be old enough to know this yet, but we adults, when we have credit cards, and automobiles, and apartments/houses, and cable tv, and broadband internet, etc...all of these cost money. And many people put them on credit cards to pay for them right away, and pay off their bank to which their credit card is issued by, in small payments. However, you only have a limited amount of time to make each monthly payment. The same goes for utility bills, mortgage payments, etc. And when you don't pay your bills on time, you get a 2nd notice, then a 3rd notice, then a final notice, before you get a visit by the jolly old Repo man! Oh, and then you get calls from these wonderful people that work at places called Collection Agencies! If people are forced/choose to work 80, 90 hr. work weeks, they're not gonna have time to pay their bills on time. Hence why I said they are likely to fall behind.
OOC: That's an odd comment to make to what would obviously be an adult ambassador. If it's directed at me the player, I am an adult, work a full time job, and pay my bills on time thanks very much.

How much time does it take you to pay your bills? Unless you have unbelievably sprawling personal finances, not more than an hour or so a week. Nothing that working longer hours would seriously impinge upon. But not having enough money to pay the bills, because your employer is unwilling to pay overtime, is a problem.

IC:
Huh? I'm sorry, I don't quite get your logic (or lack thereof) here. How does working a 40-hr. work week mean less money with overtime pay and higher minimum wages for working families?
Have you not read anything in this thread?

1. Not all nations have minimum wages.
2. Not all employers are going to be willing to pay overtime. For menial labour, it's probably cost-ineffective: therefore, they simply won't do it. If they were paying at the same rate over 40 hours, though, they might think it worth it.
3. You can't work more than 80 hours. No overtime pay above that.

I'll tell you how. It doesn't. And, you obviously don't have children of your own, or never have been responsible for a child. Children require adult supervision to ensure that the child grows up to become an upstanding, law-abiding, contributing citizen of society. By choosing to give your children lack of attention over other necessities, you neglect a child's social and emotional needs. Children are more likely to become violent, simply to act out for attention.
What do you think wives are for?

Any decent psychologist could quote studies upon studies concerning this matter.
Go ahead. Quote the studies.

I'm sorry to say, but attention is as important as food, clothing, and shelter.
"You're dying of starvation, exposure, and plague...never forget daddy loves you very much." *hugs*

Another sarcastic remark from you. If you'd bother to read the resolution you're trying to repeal, people still have the choice to work more than 40-hrs. a week. When they do that, they earn what is called over-time pay. From OOC experience, I can tell you that I earned a lot of money working 45 to 50 hours a week, via over time, even though I wasn't supposed to work more than 40 hours, and I even had 2 days off. So I only worked 5 days a week, for 45 to 50 hours, and I made as much money as those people that worked 6 days a week and only worked 40 hrs. a week. Raising minimum wage would only make this more likely.
Once again, just in case you didn't hear it: some nations do not have minimum wages.

I know full well what overtime is. What I'm disputing is that employers will always be willing to pay it. If it will seriously affect profits, then they won't do so: for many occupations (nor thinking so much factory work, but more things like cleaning), there wouldn't be an obvious benefit from employing workers for more money. But if they're able to pay them the same amount past 40 hours, they would be more likely to do so.

Secondly, seeing as how expensive the standard of living has become in the 1st world nations, raising the minimum wage would not, as you so eloquently put it, "kill of industry". Most industries today make billions and trillions, and aren't limited to single markets. There's no way on this cyberearth, that your industries could go out of business from higher minimum wages, unless they're concentrating on single markets, or you ship their jobs overseas for cheaper labor.
Of course it would. If we institute a minimum wage, manufacturing jobs would move to non-UN countries without minimum wages, where they could hire workers for much lower amounts, and thus increase their profits.

Also, in case you hadn't realized, your industries would have to pay wages, regardless if it's to a higher minimum wage, or longer work hours. Either way, it means that people will be making more money, which means that more money will be spent by the industries to pay their employees...so...your point on industries going belly up if wages are raised is rather pointless and illogical
Um...no. A $10 minimum wage would be significantly higher than factory workers in Gruenberg are presently paid. Why would employers take the massive hit to profits, when they could outsource employment to Gurglestan, and pay them...$2 an hour? Furthermore, that would be driving labour out of UN nations, into places where the Workplace Safety Act, The Right to Form Unions, End Slavery, even The Universal Bill of Rights, doesn't apply. Hardly seems to be in anyone's interests, least of all the mass unemployed at home in Gruenberg. Oh, hang on, I forgot: more free time for them. So they do win.

And since industries wouldn't go belly up, there wouldn't be any unemployment to speak of. If anything, there'd be more taxes available to build MORE industries and reduce unemployment further.
Taxes do not build industries: industrialists build industries. We don't have a state-run economy in Gruenberg.

Mr. Lennto - some comments for you. First of all, I don't know what an Environmental Advisor would have to do with the work week and industries. Your job is the environment of the nation, not the work force. That falls under the Secretary of Labor, or Labor Advisor, watever.
That does not invalidate any of the points raised, in itself. That you need to speak to such irrelevancies suggests a lack of substantive rebuttal.

Secondly, by your remarks, and from what I've heard, it sounds to me that this isn't your first attempt at repealing this resolution. And based on your logic in your arguments, I'd say that you have no clear understanding of how business works. What you suggest is dangerous to the individual, to the work force, and eventually the nation.
I guess I just don't see freedom as a dangerous thing. Sorry if that offends you.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Spokesman

Mr. Lennto - some comments for you. First of all, I don't know what an Environmental Advisor would have to do with the work week and industries. Your job is the environment of the nation, not the work force. That falls under the Secretary of Labor, or Labor Advisor, watever. ...

Sincerely,
President of TarandellaAnd it seems to us that the leader of an entire nation might have better things to do than bicker with some foreign adviser over a silly UN repeal. That sort of task usually rests with a foreign minister, UN ambassador, diplomat, whatever. Our president only addresses this assembly when he shouldn't; I sincerely hope such is not the case here.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Oh yes, it is "slavery" to prevent people from working themselves to death. Funny, I could've sworn slavery was forcing people to do what they didn't want to do while rules tended to force people not to do what they wanted to do. Funny how one of those is considered a great evil and the other is considered an annoyance.
"Forcing someone to do what they didn't want to do"
You are proposing forcing someone to sit at home twiddling their thumbs, which they don't want to do, because they'd rather be working so they could have enough money to eat.

Fits your definition pretty neatly.

Hmm......if you lived in the same fashion as Gruenberg's poorest right now and the excess was distributed amongst Gruenberg's poorest, I wonder how much money Gruenberg's poorest would be getting.
Wealth redistribution is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Answer my point, which is that if having more free time is desirable, then we should abolish all work.

And if there is a balance to be struck...why is 40 the right number?

Yes, I'm sure a family that can't survive unless the parents work 100 hrs/wk have enough left over for toys and heating in your system. Yes, your system is sooooooo much better. I suppose this would explain the intelligence level that seems to be rather prodominant by your representatives here
Do you have anything other than snide quips about how stupid we are? I want you to give me some way of solving a situation where, no, a family [large, because of Gruenberg's laws on contraception] can't thrive without the father [the mother is too busy popping like a champagne cork] working more than 80 hours a week, or 40 hours because his employer won't pay the overtime. What do we do then?

Keynesian economics are a rather powerful tool. You may wish to consider them. Certainly, they don't allow for your economic peaks to hit as high as they might, but it also prevents the recessions from reaching as low as they might go. Might wish to look into it.
No. If you want to bring evidence to the table, then bring it. Don't ask me to go fetch it for you.

There was a statement I once heard that I'd like to share with the General Assembly. During a debate about raising the minimum wage, one person I knew said "many businesses will close because they can't afford the new rate". The other person responded "the same could be said about ending slavery".
Quite so. I would hope, in time, this Assembly will consider the propriety of Resolution #6.

Yes, businesses will close. Yes, your nation will suffer an economic setback. Yes, the unemployed will increase.
Sorry, but we're going to hang you on that one.

There are thousands of ways to produce a good, productive society. Why should we not stop the most abhorent from continuing?
You still haven't suggested an alternative, amidst all the fine rhetoric. Pick one; after all, there's thousands of them.

Of course
This is my point. You're not even trying to pretend you have any appreciation of the differing systems of UN nations anymore.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

While the economic effects of the resolution can be debated the result in its absence can’t. Through human history employees has been mistreated by employers and we can see no reason why this trend should suddenly change should the repeal pass. For us this resolution not only address abuse, but also sends a wider message to the international community on what is acceptable behaviour. In essence it sets a tone for civilised behaviour.
So prohibit employers making unreasonable demands. Prohibit them from requiring workers to stay at work when they don't want to. Every worker in a UN nation has the right to leave their work given two weeks' notice; they should use it, to find a new one.

But is just as abusive as the situations you decry for a government to prohibit an individual from working hours they are willing and able to work.

There has been some discussion regarding effects on economies, but think for a moment the potential chaos should this repeal. We will go from a regulated labour market to a completely unregulated one overnight and with it economic instability for some members in our opinion. Lets not forget those wealthy nations we so happily throw the book at either directly or indirectly support more developing economies and causing instability here will no doubt filter through to those it support. We seem to have lost sight of the fact this resolution has been in statute for over two years. Significant investment has been made by all member states all of which will be useless on the passing of this repeal.
We will not go to a completely unregulated one, though. Workers still have rights under various UN laws; take particular note of The Right to Form Unions and Workplace Safety Act.

If unions, and if the WSA, are insufficient to prevent abuse, then why is regulation an absolute good anyway?

In short as UN members we have already paid the price in economic terms to have a better more civilised labour policy. No matter what way we look at it regulating labour against abuse must be a priority for this body. All a repeal will do is nullify over two years of investment only to have to pay again once similar legislation is introduced at another date. Telidia for one is not in the business of paying twice, it simply makes no economic sense.
We are fighting for a fairer future. The rigours of the past two years have been tough, but envision a world in which new UN members are not bound by this constricting piece of dictatorial law-Nazism, and in which old ones have recovered. That's a dream worth believing in.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff, Gruenberger UN Office
Security Advisor

Personally I've gotta agree with this resolution, people should have the freedom!

First, they don't have the choice to work more than 80 hours.

Because it is unhealthy for any human being to work more than 50 or 60 hours, if that. People need at least 8 hours of sleep time, they need travel time to and from work, as well as travel time to school, shops, and any recreational events (if any) they choose to attend. So working 80 hours would be impossible as well as unethical.

Second, the "choice" to work more than 40 hours is usually diminished by the fact that employers won't want to pay overtime.

Agreed that industries may not want to pay overtime, and in some cases cannot afford it, but by law they are required to pay overtime to those that have worked over time. If they cannot afford to pay over time, they cut the person's hours or they establish policies that do not allow for over time. However, the majority of industries do not begrudge their hard-working employees their overtime pay, especially if it is well earned.

I note while all the communist anecdotes about the poor workers are given centre-stage, whilst the anecdotes of their opponents are ignored.

This has nothing to do with communism or capitalism, so this point is extraneous and ignored.

We don't have one in Gruenberg.

This is the root of this entire issue. You are suggesting that an entire planet suffer because you refuse to establish a minimum wage in your country. This would also explain why your people are poor, and why you refuse to accept minimum wages. Frankly, I find your choice to bring the rest of the world into economic ruin for personal gain appalling and arrogant. This one statement alone should be enough reason for no one to support your resolution.

You have sums to back that up, I'm hoping, because I don't see how you can say definitively that people will have more than enough money to pay for expensive medical treatments, education, to provide food and housing and increasingly pricey energy for their family, when you don't know:
1. what they're earning;
2. what they cost.

With a nationally established minimum wage, I know exactly what the minimum yearly income should be, and seeing as how the government regulates industry, we should be well aware of costs of products. So you're two points are invalid. Plus, establishing universal healthcare and social welfare systems would help your people to pay for those expensive medical treatments, education, and provide food and housing. Again, you are trying to make the rest of the world suffer because you refuse to enact domestic legislation that would solve the very issue you're trying to solve by repealing a legislated work week. How utterly ridiclous!

So you're saying no one should go into higher education? We should all start working the moment we can - that's the price you're willing to pay for this diktat? We'd rather have some doctors around in 30 years' time, if it's all the same to you.

If you bother to read my post, you'll see I never said anywhere that children should not attend college. Check my posts find where I said it exactly like that. You won't find it. And, in most nations, regardless of the form of government, children that are the age of 16 or older, are eligible to enter the work force (OOC: The US has such legislation in place). This merely allows for the child(ren) to earn their own income, to learn responsibility, and begin to become independent. It is their choice, to begin with, whether they continue onto college, or immediately enter the workforce. That is the way it is established in Tarandella, and I'm sure, in most of the rest of the world.


No no - you just said everyone old enough to work should be doing so, and may need to do so. No time for college.

No, I did not. Re-read my reply to your above quote.

You don't believe CEOs have sufficient bargaining power to negotiate their own working weeks? Your higher-level employees don't? The unions must be in a state in Tarandella.
Since most companies are regulated by both the Federal Government AND a board of stock holders, it is not the CEO that decides his or her salary. And they earn they pay raises with good, honest, high-quality work. As for unions, while my lower income employees have the choice to be in a union, I don't see why those unions would give two flips about a rich CEO, let alone why they'd be in a state about a board of stock holders regulating the company, so long as it is done fairly.


Less time working is desirable, because it allows more time for personal things (work not being permitted to be classed as personal).
Therefore, if no one worked, they'd have loads of time for personal things.

First off, this remark lacks utter logic. Why would my people think they could get a free ride and NOT, especially since their parents would raise them to earn responsibility by starting a part-time job as soon as they are old enough. Secondly, leisure time is desirable as it gives my people a chance to relieve the stress from their work week, it allows them to relax, to spend time with family and friends, to pay their bills on time, and to enjoy life at a much slower pace. As I said, this point has 0 logic.


1. Not all nations have minimum wages.
2. Not all employers are going to be willing to pay overtime. For menial labour, it's probably cost-ineffective: therefore, they simply won't do it. If they were paying at the same rate over 40 hours, though, they might think it worth it.
3. You can't work more than 80 hours. No overtime pay above that.

These are not the fault of Tarandella, nor the UN. They are the fault of a poorly run government, such as Gruenberg's. I sympathsize with the people of your nation, for they have, apparently, no civil rights by your estimation. If anything, the UN should pass more resolutions to support the 40-hr. work week, such as forcing all it's UN members to provide a minimum wage, universal healthcare, government regulated education, etc. Thus, forcing Gruenberg to do what all currently well developed nations have done, rather than trying to bring down an entire planet to make things more equal for you.

What do you think wives are for?

First of all, not all families are heterosexual. Enough said on that.
Secondly, spouses are there to support their spouse and their family. They do this by working their own jobs, as their sacred rights allow them to. Your remark is clearly chauvanistic.

Once again, just in case you didn't hear it: some nations do not have minimum wages.

That is something the UN needs to resolve immediately. Said nations are violating the rights of their people.

I know full well what overtime is. What I'm disputing is that employers will always be willing to pay it. If it will seriously affect profits, then they won't do so: for many occupations (nor thinking so much factory work, but more things like cleaning), there wouldn't be an obvious benefit from employing workers for more money. But if they're able to pay them the same amount past 40 hours, they would be more likely to do so.

If you know what overtime is, then stop acting like it doesn't exist. Also, I do concede that industries have the option not to pay overtime, but in most well developed nations, industries are required to pay overtime when they can afford it. But why do you worry about overtime anyway? You don't even pay your people minimum wage, and you have no legislation to enforce overtime pay. So why even draft up this resolution in the first place? If you want your people working 80+ hours a week with no overtime and no minimum wage, why are you a member of the UN then? Why not leave the UN and enforce these outrageous polices yourself, and leave the rest of us out of it.

Of course it would. If we institute a minimum wage, manufacturing jobs would move to non-UN countries without minimum wages, where they could hire workers for much lower amounts, and thus increase their profits.

Well, if you instituted social welfare programs, scholarships, and the like, you could develop your nation's education system so that it rivels that of all other nations (like mine does). That would, in turn, draw more industries, not to mention better and cleaner ones, to your country. Your people would then be making more money because of a good education. But, since you refuse to establish any liberal legislation in your nation, I can see why you'd want to bring everyone else down to your level.

Um...no. A $10 minimum wage would be significantly higher than factory workers in Gruenberg are presently paid. Why would employers take the massive hit to profits, when they could outsource employment to Gurglestan, and pay them...$2 an hour? Furthermore, that would be driving labour out of UN nations, into places where the Workplace Safety Act, The Right to Form Unions, End Slavery, even The Universal Bill of Rights, doesn't apply. Hardly seems to be in anyone's interests, least of all the mass unemployed at home in Gruenberg. Oh, hang on, I forgot: more free time for them. So they do win.

First of all, it's your own fault that your people are poor, because you don't have minimum wage laws. Secondly, what your proposing would only happen by the cheapest, dirtiest, foulest, industries in each nation. Granted, I wouldn't want to push those kinds of companies onto any other nation, but if they choose to work in a nation that is as poor as yours, and mistreat their employees, like you do, then I wouldn't want to associate with that nation anyway. And it would certainly prevent them from joining the UN should they ever decide to do so.

Taxes do not build industries: industrialists build industries. We don't have a state-run economy in Gruenberg.

Industries require zoning and permits by the local, state, and federal governments before they can even construct their facilities, let alone begin operation. Tax monies would be one way of paying for these via the government. Tax monies would also be used to help regulate said industries so that they can continue to operate in said nations, and grow and expand within the nation, thus making more money, creating more jobs, allowing for higher wages and more available tax monies. As you can see, it's an ever expanding loop. So, industrialists alone do not a company make. And the fact that you lack a state-run economy is not surprising in the least. I mean, you don't even have minimum wage laws or social welfare for crying out loud.

I guess I just don't see freedom as a dangerous thing. Sorry if that offends you.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Spokesman

You sir, have no room to be speaking of freedom. Even though the Republic of Tarandella has a dictator, my people are far more free, and have far more civil rights than your people do. My people have minimum wage, universal healthcare, a state-run economy, a state-run educational system. My country has no crime what so ever. We have nothing but clean industries, lush forests teeming with life. We allow people to express themselves public, ie - BDSM fans are allowed to walk in leather public and on leashes. Freedom doesn't offend my people, nor is it a dangerous thing, because my people are free. Yours are not.

Your resolution undermines everything the UN stands for. You want to bring all the UN-member nations down because you can't bring yourself to enact legislation that would bring your nation up to the standards of all other well-developed UN Nations.

Therefore, the nation of Tarandella votes against this resolution, for the safety of our own people, and for that of our fellow respectable UN-members. If it were possible, I would appeal to the NSUN security council to have Gruenberg removed as a member state for it's total lack of civil rights, and it's attempt to undermine the UN.

At this point, I refuse to argue with you further. If you cannot see, accept, or simply are unable to understand, what you are trying to do is wrong, that is your own problem. But please, do not use the UN to bring down an entire planet.

But is just as abusive as the situations you decry for a government to prohibit an individual from working hours they are willing and able to work.

I doubt anyone would want to work in excess of 80 hours a week. Even over a seven day week this equates to an excess of 11 hrs per day. Quite simply any government which permits this is surely not acting in the best interests of workers.


We will not go to a completely unregulated one, though. Workers still have rights under various UN laws; take particular note of The Right to Form Unions and Workplace Safety Act.

If unions, and if the WSA, are insufficient to prevent abuse, then why is regulation an absolute good anyway?

Lydia smiled when hearing this from the Gruenberg Chief of Staff.

“Interesting how he chose to place a spin on her speech“ thought Lydia. “I must remember this fellow he might be useful sometime.”

We never suggested other legislation does not aid the fight against abuse, though neither deal with working hours which is the focus here.

We are fighting for a fairer future. The rigours of the past two years have been tough, but envision a world in which new UN members are not bound by this constricting piece of dictatorial law-Nazism, and in which old ones have recovered. That's a dream worth believing in.

I doubt this legislation caused difficulties on the scale of the holocaust. In any case all UN legislation is dictatorial and something the Gruenberg delegation has skilfully used to further their agenda. With respect Sir your statement is somewhat hypocritical in our humble opinion.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Because it is unhealthy for any human being to work more than 50 or 60 hours, if that. People need at least 8 hours of sleep time, they need travel time to and from work, as well as travel time to school, shops, and any recreational events (if any) they choose to attend. So working 80 hours would be impossible as well as unethical.
But people do work more than 80 hours a week. Two obvious examples would be high seas fishermen, and lawyers in the major preparation parts of cases. Maybe it's not healthy, for extended periods of time. But this resolution prohibits them from doing so even once.

Furthermore, this isn't your argument, is it. If someone could demonstrate they could work more than 80 hours a week, without risk of health problems, then you'd let them do so?

Agreed that industries may not want to pay overtime, and in some cases cannot afford it, but by law they are required to pay overtime to those that have worked over time. If they cannot afford to pay over time, they cut the person's hours or they establish policies that do not allow for over time. However, the majority of industries do not begrudge their hard-working employees their overtime pay, especially if it is well earned.
This is exactly what I am saying. When you say "they cut the person's hours", you are acknowledging the problem overtime obligations create. If a workers' hours are cut, then you can't at the same time say they're earning more money through overtime: they're earning no overtime.

This has nothing to do with communism or capitalism, so this point is extraneous and ignored.
OOC: You're missing my point. Hack mentioned his desire to work more than 80 hours per week. I haven't seen a satisfactory explanation of why he shouldn't have been allowed to do so. Yet you continue to rely on these examples of poor oppressed workers. If anecdotes are useless, why are you resorting to them?

IC:
This is the root of this entire issue. You are suggesting that an entire planet suffer because you refuse to establish a minimum wage in your country. This would also explain why your people are poor, and why you refuse to accept minimum wages. Frankly, I find your choice to bring the rest of the world into economic ruin for personal gain appalling and arrogant. This one statement alone should be enough reason for no one to support your resolution.
It's not my resolution, it's by Leg-ends. Learn to read.

And all this rhetoric doesn't say why minimum wage laws are inherently good. You're saying Gruenberg is evil for not having them: you're not saying why. Until you do so, spout all the hot air; ain't going to budge anyone's vote.

With a nationally established minimum wage, I know exactly what the minimum yearly income should be, and seeing as how the government regulates industry, we should be well aware of costs of products. So you're two points are invalid.
???What??? I've just said Gruenberg doesn't have a minimum wage. And however much government regulates industry, it doesn't usually set prices. So you don't know the situation of the Gruenberger worker. It's "invalid" in the sense that it's "totally valid".

Plus, establishing universal healthcare and social welfare systems would help your people to pay for those expensive medical treatments, education, and provide food and housing.
No. It'd drain their pockets of taxes to support inefficient systems.

Again, you are trying to make the rest of the world suffer because you refuse to enact domestic legislation that would solve the very issue you're trying to solve by repealing a legislated work week. How utterly ridiclous!
How am I making the rest of the world suffer? This repeal wouldn't cause other nations to disband 40 hour workweeks if they didn't want to.

If you bother to read my post, you'll see I never said anywhere that children should not attend college. Check my posts find where I said it exactly like that. You won't find it. And, in most nations, regardless of the form of government, children that are the age of 16 or older, are eligible to enter the work force (OOC: The US has such legislation in place). This merely allows for the child(ren) to earn their own income, to learn responsibility, and begin to become independent. It is their choice, to begin with, whether they continue onto college, or immediately enter the workforce. That is the way it is established in Tarandella, and I'm sure, in most of the rest of the world.
You said: "if all residents in a home who are legally old enough to work, are working, then there is enough income in that residence to earn a better future."

That would seem to exclude the possibility of full-time education.

Since most companies are regulated by both the Federal Government AND a board of stock holders, it is not the CEO that decides his or her salary. And they earn they pay raises with good, honest, high-quality work. As for unions, while my lower income employees have the choice to be in a union, I don't see why those unions would give two flips about a rich CEO, let alone why they'd be in a state about a board of stock holders regulating the company, so long as it is done fairly.
Don't assume your government system applies to all nations. And most CEOs do determine their own salaries. Furthermore, they usually earn ridiculous amounts - way over the value of their contribution to the company. I find it odd for a leftist to be arguing the millions CEOs pull in for playing golf is "honest", but there it is.

First off, this remark lacks utter logic. Why would my people think they could get a free ride and NOT, especially since their parents would raise them to earn responsibility by starting a part-time job as soon as they are old enough. Secondly, leisure time is desirable as it gives my people a chance to relieve the stress from their work week, it allows them to relax, to spend time with family and friends, to pay their bills on time, and to enjoy life at a much slower pace. As I said, this point has 0 logic.
I quite agree. Bear in mind, it's the point you were making. I was restating it in bold terms, but you were arguing that it is better to have time for personal things than to work. Therefore, the second line follows.

What I'm getting at is: why is 40 the compromise number? Why not 30? Why not 50?

These are not the fault of Tarandella, nor the UN. They are the fault of a poorly run government, such as Gruenberg's. I sympathsize with the people of your nation, for they have, apparently, no civil rights by your estimation. If anything, the UN should pass more resolutions to support the 40-hr. work week, such as forcing all it's UN members to provide a minimum wage, universal healthcare, government regulated education, etc. Thus, forcing Gruenberg to do what all currently well developed nations have done, rather than trying to bring down an entire planet to make things more equal for you.
Once again, you're not showing how enacting domestic legislation is "bring[ing] down an entire planet". You do know what a repeal does, right?

That is something the UN needs to resolve immediately. Said nations are violating the rights of their people.
There is no "right" to a minimum wage.

"Mummy, that man I passed in the street didn't give me enough money to live off! He violated my rights!"

If you know what overtime is, then stop acting like it doesn't exist. Also, I do concede that industries have the option not to pay overtime, but in most well developed nations, industries are required to pay overtime when they can afford it. But why do you worry about overtime anyway? You don't even pay your people minimum wage, and you have no legislation to enforce overtime pay. So why even draft up this resolution in the first place? If you want your people working 80+ hours a week with no overtime and no minimum wage, why are you a member of the UN then? Why not leave the UN and enforce these outrageous polices yourself, and leave the rest of us out of it.
I'm in the UN because the advantages, for now, outweigh the disadvantages. Involvement in international policy is important, and there are benefits in membership of various schemes.

But let's consider this. We could leave the UN, and enforce these policies - and the UN would be powerless to stop us. So why are we so concerned with this resolution, if we admit it's actually impotent against oppression anyway?

Well, if you instituted social welfare programs, scholarships, and the like, you could develop your nation's education system so that it rivels that of all other nations (like mine does). That would, in turn, draw more industries, not to mention better and cleaner ones, to your country. Your people would then be making more money because of a good education. But, since you refuse to establish any liberal legislation in your nation, I can see why you'd want to bring everyone else down to your level.
Ok, you clearly don't know what a repeal does. Let me explain.

A repeal strikes out a resolution, but it does not introduce new legislation. That means, that nations can do what they want on this issue. In this case, the repeal does not abolish the 40 hour workweek; it abolishes the obligation to enforce it. Tarandella, Gruenberg, every nation in the world, could still choose to have a 40 hour workweek.

First of all, it's your own fault that your people are poor, because you don't have minimum wage laws. Secondly, what your proposing would only happen by the cheapest, dirtiest, foulest, industries in each nation. Granted, I wouldn't want to push those kinds of companies onto any other nation, but if they choose to work in a nation that is as poor as yours, and mistreat their employees, like you do, then I wouldn't want to associate with that nation anyway. And it would certainly prevent them from joining the UN should they ever decide to do so.
Actually, software jobs are increasingly moving to developing nations with lower labour standards. I'd hardly call them the "cheapest, dirtiest, foulest,[sic] industries".

And the people of Gruenberg have an average GDP per capita over 8 times that of those of Tarandella (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=gruenberg&nation2=Tarandella&nation3=&nation4=&nation5=&nation6=).

Industries require zoning and permits by the local, state, and federal governments before they can even construct their facilities, let alone begin operation.
In Tarandella, maybe. Don't assume your laws are in place in every nation, however much you'd like that.

Tax monies would be one way of paying for these via the government. Tax monies would also be used to help regulate said industries so that they can continue to operate in said nations, and grow and expand within the nation, thus making more money, creating more jobs, allowing for higher wages and more available tax monies. As you can see, it's an ever expanding loop. So, industrialists alone do not a company make. And the fact that you lack a state-run economy is not surprising in the least. I mean, you don't even have minimum wage laws or social welfare for crying out loud.
There are plenty of fascist states with no minimum wage laws, but a nationalised economy; there are libertarian states with no social welfare, but government monopolies in utilities. I'm failing to see the connection.

Could you maybe provide some evidence for this correlation between tax rates and industrial development? Or some reasoning behind it, beyond fallacious, imperialist assumptions?

You sir, have no room to be speaking of freedom. Even though the Republic of Tarandella has a dictator, my people are far more free, and have far more civil rights than your people do. My people have minimum wage, universal healthcare, a state-run economy, a state-run educational system. My country has no crime what so ever. We have nothing but clean industries, lush forests teeming with life. We allow people to express themselves public, ie - BDSM fans are allowed to walk in leather public and on leashes. Freedom doesn't offend my people, nor is it a dangerous thing, because my people are free. Yours are not.
None of these things are freedoms. They may be "nice", but one is not free because one has access to healthcare. To suggest so is to debase the meaning of the word. Freedom is not an absolute good. In Gruenberg, our citizens do not have the freedom to murder. We're not about to claim that as a "freedom": it's a justified infringement thereof.

What it comes to is: do you believe people have the right to work for as long as they want?

If not, then why is that infringement of freedom justified?

Your resolution undermines everything the UN stands for. You want to bring all the UN-member nations down because you can't bring yourself to enact legislation that would bring your nation up to the standards of all other well-developed UN Nations.
You claim your education system is top-notch, yet you can't read the name atop the repeal.

It's not my resolution.

Therefore, the nation of Tarandella votes against this resolution, for the safety of our own people, and for that of our fellow respectable UN-members. If it were possible, I would appeal to the NSUN security council to have Gruenberg removed as a member state for it's total lack of civil rights, and it's attempt to undermine the UN.
OOC: There is no NSUN security council. Gruenberg has "Very Good" civil rights. UN membership cannot be removed by the UN.

I suggest you reread the FAQ and stickies, to learn how this game works.

IC: How does this resolution affect the safety of your own people? You seem in favour of a 40 hour workweek - why would this repeal therefore harm your people?

At this point, I refuse to argue with you further. If you cannot see, accept, or simply are unable to understand, what you are trying to do is wrong, that is your own problem. But please, do not use the UN to bring down an entire planet.
One final time, I'm not.

But if you're unwilling to defend your beliefs, so be it.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

"Forcing someone to do what they didn't want to do"
You are proposing forcing someone to sit at home twiddling their thumbs, which they don't want to do, because they'd rather be working so they could have enough money to eat.

Fits your definition pretty neatly.

Uh huh.....so the only thing people do when they aren't working is twiddling their thumbs? How delightfully full of crap you are.

Wealth redistribution is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Answer my point, which is that if having more free time is desirable, then we should abolish all work.

I was going to start tossing a bunch of rhetorical questions at you, but then I realized there would be no point because you'd pick the dumb answers.

Anyways, the question is of balance. No, that doesn't mean equal amount of time of free time and work. It means that one should have a balance to their life. Balance is a complex thought and it isn't the same as equal, nor is there necessarily a right answer. Designing a system that forces people to work 80 hrs a week just to have a living wage is pushing the balance too far towards excessive work, while having a system that makes it so people work only 10 hours a week, produce almost nothing, have almost nothing, and implode your economy is too far into the direction of no consideration for society.

Somewhere in between is a place where one can find the balance. Is this resolution best served for evaluating where the balance should be? No. It should exist to deal with nations such as your own which whip people for 80 hrs a week so they can get the morsal of a meal for their family. Should it deal with nations where the expectation is 50 hrs.....perhaps not. However, that isn't what is being argued in the proposal so that's not relevant.

And if there is a balance to be struck...why is 40 the right number?

It isn't, and if a repeal proposal comes along that looks at this area, we'd consider voting for it. This proposal doesn't - it looks at absolutes - it's saying that a balance shouldn't be forced upon it rather than saying 40 isn't necessarily the perfect balance.

Do you have anything other than snide quips about how stupid we are? I want you to give me some way of solving a situation where, no, a family [large, because of Gruenberg's laws on contraception] can't thrive without the father [the mother is too busy popping like a champagne cork] working more than 80 hours a week, or 40 hours because his employer won't pay the overtime. What do we do then?

Spend some time actually putting that gray organ inside your head to work. If you spent half the time trying to find an alternate solution to your problem as you did bitching about how the UN was infringing upon your National Sovereignty, I am SURE you'd be able to come up with some system or another that would work.

Why wouldn't I quip about your intelligence when you show none.

No. If you want to bring evidence to the table, then bring it. Don't ask me to go fetch it for you.

I'm not bringing evidence to the table. I'm merely tossing out known and practiced systems into the debate - ones that I think have excellent value. I'm giving you a bloody fish because I know that if I tried to teach you how to fish, you'd start bitching about my imperialistic tendencies. Instead, I offered a suggestion - it is up to you to take my suggestion or not. However, if you reject it and your system doesn't work still, don't come crying to me.

Quite so. I would hope, in time, this Assembly will consider the propriety of Resolution #6.

Why do I bother? The Wenaists haven't ever had a definition for compassion.

Sorry, but we're going to hang you on that one.

*shrug*

You still haven't suggested an alternative, amidst all the fine rhetoric. Pick one; after all, there's thousands of them.

I've picked. I've offered a suggestion. I'll let you do the research to find one that suits you better - and stays within the rules of the UN.

This is my point. You're not even trying to pretend you have any appreciation of the differing systems of UN nations anymore.

No. I'm not trying to pretend I have any appreciation for YOUR system. Why should I appreciate the greatest evil within the UN. Respect, perhaps. Appreciate, absolutely not.

I doubt anyone would want to work in excess of 80 hours a week. Even over a seven day week this equates to an excess of 11 hrs per day. Quite simply any government which permits this is surely not acting in the best interests of workers.
As my colleague has stated: fishermen often work very long weeks, then have weeks off. The 40 Hour Workweek does not allow for such schedules.

We never suggested other legislation does not aid the fight against abuse, though neither deal with working hours which is the focus here.
True. But then, we don't see long hours as an absolute evil - not in the way of a dangerous workplace. Hours must be adapted to profession. 40 hours in heavy manual labour is cruel. In research, maybe just getting started.

I doubt this legislation caused difficulties on the scale of the holocaust. In any case all UN legislation is dictatorial and something the Gruenberg delegation has skilfully used well to further their agenda. With respect Sir your statement is somewhat hypocritical in our humble opinion.
Well, we are a democracy, of sorts. The point is taken, though: dictatorship is not always bad. Nonetheless, we feel in this particular matter, some respect for national variation and rights is preferable.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor

ooc: And, as a matter of course,
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad42gw.png

FL - I'll reply tomorrow.

Well, there certainly is a lot going on here. I always, without exception, love the debates between Gruen and Forgotten.

Norderia has nothing new to say. Our vote is against.

There is quite obviously no way to reason with the nation of Gruenberg. The delegation is incapable of reasoning or understanding, and has a misguided idea of what logical arguements are.

It's support of this horrendous repeal, furthers the lack of logic and reasoning. And seeing as how the delegation from Gruenberg takes everything that is said to the utmost extreme, it is pointless to continue arguing the matter. If Gruenberg and Leg-ends, and their supporters, want to abuse their workers fine. But let them do it on their own domestic policies, and not that of the UN.

OOC: BTW Greunberg - According to that tracker of yours, my nation is far more diverse than yours is. And considering that you're an older nation, it doesn't surprise me (or anyone) that you would have a higher GDP, because you have had longer to develop it. Had my old nation of RheinsBow, however, not been inactive to the point of removal, I would have the higher GDP, because I would have been the older nation. So, once again, you fail to prove that you're a better nation than me. And as for your constant OOC attacks, I've had enough. You're going on ignore.

As my colleague has stated: fishermen often work very long weeks, then have weeks off. The 40 Hour Workweek does not allow for such schedules

I’m sure the fishery industries in the UN has not ground to halt due to this legislation. Days at sea can mean long days when nothing is found and thus reducing the time worked during a week. Some other days would require very long days. Over a week we would argue the 80 hour maximum should be sufficient.

In addition if the fisherman is self employed he or she can work as long as they wish as they fall outside the scope of the resolution. This pretty much covers most of the smaller coastal fishery economies. For larger corporations employing larger crewed vessels the burden should quite rightly fall on the employer to ensure they have sufficient staff and likely will do.

True. But then, we don't see long hours as an absolute evil - not in the way of a dangerous workplace. Hours must be adapted to profession. 40 hours in heavy manual labour is cruel. In research, maybe just getting started.

Research? In other words working with volatile chemicals or compounds is safe having just pulled a two day 11 hour stint?

Nonetheless, we feel in this particular matter, some respect for national variation and rights is preferable.

As I said in my opening statement. This argument can be used against any resolution on statute and thus becomes somewhat superfluous and if I may, over used.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

*snip*

Guess what we need to fix that.

Oh yes, a bloody minimum wage law

Yes, yes, keep throwing that out there. We can impose a completely arbitrary minimum wage on every nation. Brilliant idea.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

There is quite obviously no way to reason with the nation of Gruenberg. The delegation is incapable of reasoning or understanding, and has a misguided idea of what logical arguements are.

It's support of this horrendous repeal, furthers the lack of logic and reasoning. And seeing as how the delegation from Gruenberg takes everything that is said to the utmost extreme, it is pointless to continue arguing the matter. If Gruenberg and Leg-ends, and their supporters, want to abuse their workers fine. But let them do it on their own domestic policies, and not that of the UN.

And if Tarandella wants to hamstring its workers and businesses, let it do so with its domestic policies and not those of the UN. This resolution needs to go.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: BTW Greunberg - According to that tracker of yours, my nation is far more diverse than yours is. And considering that you're an older nation, it doesn't surprise me (or anyone) that you would have a higher GDP, because you have had longer to develop it. Had my old nation of RheinsBow, however, not been inactive to the point of removal, I would have the higher GDP, because I would have been the older nation. So, once again, you fail to prove that you're a better nation than me. And as for your constant OOC attacks, I've had enough. You're going on ignore.

OOC: Wah-wah, boohoo...the mean man hurt my widdle feewings. :rolleyes:

And if Tarandella wants to hamstring its workers and businesses, let it do so with its domestic policies and not those of the UN. This resolution needs to go.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN



OOC: Wah-wah, boohoo...the mean man hurt my widdle feewings. :rolleyes:

And the Arab nations can keep their inhumane, and barbaric practices to themselves. This resolution stays.

OOC: As for your OOC remark, seeing how immature and childish you are, your comment will be ignored, as you will be.

On a side note, wasn't I talking about minimum wage when I said the quote now sitting in your sig? The comment wasn't really on this resolution (maybe in its debate, sure).


Yes, yes, keep throwing that out there. We can impose a completely arbitrary minimum wage on every nation. Brilliant idea.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You've been here how long and seen how many attempts at a minimum wage law? A while and several times would probably be correct answers.

What in your right fucking mind makes you think it'll be arbitrary. I'll be shocked if it isn't a 500 point formula that would make Max Barry's eyes pop out of his head as he's trying to read it.

Seriously, the serious attempts at a minimum wage law don't go "$10/hr", they go based upon the conditions in the world around the individual.

Now that the Cluichstani ambassador has shown his rust.....

Personally I've gotta agree with this resolution, people should have the freedom!

And when their freedom is to the detriment of themselves and others?

Advisor Lennto from Gruenberg raised an interesting point in relation to rotational work, however, my government still maintains that if a laborer wants to work more than 40-hours, there is nothing in the present language to prevent that worker from getting two completely different jobs from different employers. Admittedly some diplomats may argue that this goes against the spirit of the resolution, however, we are fortunate enough that a represented from the Free Soviets is present ... and my government feels that the original authors should be consulted when a repeal is being discussed.

-Howie T. Katzman

Indeed, there is nothing in the resolution to disallow workers from holding, of their own free will, two or more jobs (full time or otherwise). This was intentional on the part of the various authors of the resolution, as we intended this resolution to protect workers from exploitation, not restrict them in their efforts to provide for themselves and their families.

In fact, the restriction on allowable overtime was also written with this in mind, to help limit the damage of abuses such as mandatory 'voluntary overtime' - where bosses fire, cut hours, or otherwise punish workers who refuse to work additional 'voluntary' hours - by providing an absolute ceiling workers can depend on.

May I point out the major flaw in the repeal to resolution #59 "40 Hour Workweek"?

It lies in the understanding of the original resolution, it does not ban people from working more than 40 hours as paragraph 5 clearly states:

"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."

This paragraph regulates the amount of hours an employer can assign to an employee at the standard pay rate, excess hours are awarded extra pay. I think this is a fair concession, and suitable to modern economies. After all, for an economy to function you need both production and consumption, therefor, you need to give people some time so they can spend their money.

I think I should remind everyone to read the resolution first, then the repeal.

OOC: You know, I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees a problem with this repeal. For awhile there I thought I was going insane.

IC: The President of Tarandella would like to commend his fellow nations for upholding the resolution "40-hr. work week". The rights of the human being must be protected, even in the work place.

Unfortunately, the big supporters of this resolution will not heed to reason. They feel that, since they neglected the social aspect of their nations, all in the name of gaining large populations to man their factories, to produce a high GDP, they are intent on making sure they can further abuse their citizens.

The Delegation from Gruenberg clearly, and repeatedly, stated that they did not enforce minimum wage laws, for fear it would drive off what industry they have. Clearly, the greed of the government outweighs the needs of its people. And I'm sure the same can be said for Leg-ends, the author of this repeal, as well as all the nations that support this repeal.

I propose that, should this repeal win, all the nations actively against it, get together and draw up a new resolution that not only enforces a maximum 40 to 50 hr. work week, but also enforces a universal minimum wage, which can be adjusted based on exchange rates. It is my belief, that to be a member of the UN, there are certain standards that must be maintained, especially since the UN's primary goal is to foster peace among nations, and to resolve the issues that trouble the nations the most. We cannot allow nations to remain in the UN if they have no respect for their own people.

Going after both minimum wage and 40 hr workweek simultaneously is like going after Mt Fuji and Mt Everest simultaneously. They are both subjects of major and draining debate and you lose any ability to get the support of those who like one but don't like the other.

No, stick to workweek.

(replying to a response to my post, this is from page 2)
Forgive me but what's the difference?
If I have to put in more hours than expected, why should I not get overtime?
Because not all workers are - or should be - paid by the hour. Think of salespeople. In most (OOC: RL) cases, they're not paid by the hour they work, but on a commission based on how much they sell.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Ausserland vote has been cast FOR the repeal.

We believe that hours of work is a matter which should be left to people -- represented by their unions, if they choose -- and their employers to decide, based on a whole host of factors which apply to their specific situations. Given the wide variety of social, cultural, and economic conditions that apply in the 30,000 nations of the NSUN, the original resolution stands out as just one more well-meant but thoughtless attempt to cram a one-size-fits-all mandate on everyone.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

http://www.nationstates.net/60416/page=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis

Hey, check out what the drafter of the resolution's real motives are.

I have voted FOR the current repeal. I believe The 40 Hour Workweek restricts individual freedoms, holds back developing economies, and violates national sovereignty.

And the reason I really care is, it's about "workers' rights". Ew.

Yeah corporate slave states!

*sighs* I personally don't see how repealing this resolution help's worker's "rights".

When the industrial revolution began in the late 19th century, working conditions were horrible, the pay was terrible, and many innocent people died. During that time, pay was so lousy that children, CHILDREN, had to work to help make just enough to keep the family afloat.

As a result, laws were enacted that created a minimum wage that would be paid to the workers, as well as worker safety legislation and an age limit to how young a person could be to work.

The minimum wage was increased over time, to keep up with the increasing expenses of living.

The nations that support this resolution, are all nations that do not enforce minimum wage laws. Therefore, they *want* to have the ability to increase the work week, so they can overwork their employees for almost no pay. This is a blatant violation of civil rights, not to mention a spit in the faces of all those that sacrificed their lives so that workers wouldn't have to suffer poor pay.

It's should also be noted that the majority of the nations that support this repeal, all come from the same region.

Going after both minimum wage and 40 hr workweek simultaneously is like going after Mt Fuji and Mt Everest simultaneously. They are both subjects of major and draining debate and you lose any ability to get the support of those who like one but don't like the other.

No, stick to workweek.

You're probably right. But either way, resolutions on both subjects should be drafted.

http://www.nationstates.net/60416/page=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis

Hey, check out what the drafter of the resolution's real motives are.

Yeah corporate slave states!Yo, thanks for pimping for my region, but "the drafter of the resolution" doesn't live with us. His name is Leg-ends, he is the delegate for a completely different region, he is very much not Gruenberg, and in fact, it's his name that's on the stupid proposal, not Gruen's. Have a look.

The "corporate slave states" thing, however, you got absolutely right. Good on you.

*sighs* I personally don't see how repealing this resolution help's worker's "rights".

When the industrial revolution began in the late 19th century, working conditions were horrible, the pay was terrible, and many innocent people died. During that time, pay was so lousy that children, CHILDREN, had to work to help make just enough to keep the family afloat.

As a result, laws were enacted that created a minimum wage that would be paid to the workers, as well as worker safety legislation and an age limit to how young a person could be to work.

The minimum wage was increased over time, to keep up with the increasing expenses of living.

The nations that support this resolution, are all nations that do not enforce minimum wage laws. Therefore, they *want* to have the ability to increase the work week, so they can overwork their employees for almost no pay. This is a blatant violation of civil rights, not to mention a spit in the faces of all those that sacrificed their lives so that workers wouldn't have to suffer poor pay.

It's should also be noted that the majority of the nations that support this repeal, all come from the same region.


Let me give you an example. Let's say there's a small business owner who can afford to hire an employee he needs for his business at $5 an hour and there is a man willing to work for $5 an hour. Both are voluntarily coming together to "scratch each others' back" if you will, or satisfy a need the other has. But let's say the minimum wage is $5.50, which the business owner simply can't pay. He then proceeds to hire no one. So you see, with these minimum wage laws the real choice isn't one wage or a higher wage, but often between work or no work at all.

The market sets wages as well as prices. My labour, your labour, anyone's labour is worth a price that the market works out over time as being a fair wage(if someone pays alot more their business will hurt in lost profits, they pay alot less and their profits will go down due to an overall worse workforce/level of service). Overtime, with the advent of technology, labour of all sorts becomes more valuable and wages go up(a man digging a ditch with a shovel's labour is worth alot less than a man doing it with a steam shovel). However, technology is something invested in with excess capital earned by businesses and that capital is cut down by saddling businesses with laws forcing them to pay their workers more than their labour is worth and thusly the rising tides of wages are retarded.

Anyways enough about minimum wage rates, the whole argument is about the work week, but it's a different principle there, a much broader and more basic principle also implicit in the argument against the minimum wage and that is the distinction between the government forcing you to do something as opposed to an individual or co-op of ageeing, free individuals choosing to do something. The same idea that people use to argue against sodomy laws translates into the economic realm- if a consenting employer and consenting employee agree to trade labour for wages voluntarily, what place is it for the government to come in and tell them both what to do?

The images that statists who claim the only humane thing to do is have the government step in and tell everyone what to do, the dated images of capitalists with monocles and top hats riding the backs of the hard-working proletariat, would be better reversed to the more accurate image of an all-powerful government extending it's power even further over the people it's supposed to keep free.

The nations that support this resolution, are all nations that do not enforce minimum wage laws. Therefore, they *want* to have the ability to increase the work week, so they can overwork their employees for almost no pay. This is a blatant violation of civil rights, not to mention a spit in the faces of all those that sacrificed their lives so that workers wouldn't have to suffer poor pay.


Wrong. My nation has strong minimum wage laws and we support this repeal. We believe workers and employers should determine work hours, based on the economic and social realities of their situations. For centuries, our people have considered the 44-hour work week to be the standard. Now along comes some do-gooder with a fixation on 40 hours and mandates that the last 4 hours have to be paid at time-and-a-half. You want to talk about a violation of civil rights? That's one. You've just taken away the right of our people to decide what their standard work week should be.

The statement that, because we support the repeal, we want to "overwork their employees for almost no pay" is a scurrilous lie and we deeply resent it.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

There is quite obviously no way to reason with the nation of Gruenberg. The delegation is incapable of reasoning or understanding, and has a misguided idea of what logical arguements are.
Then why not show that, by logically deconstructing them? Most of what you say consists of harping on about how minimum wage laws are good (no argument or evidence to support it, just rhetoric), and my nation is bad. I see precious little logic at work there. Nonetheless, I'm not going to accuse you of being incapable of reasoning or understanding: doing so is childish beyond words.

But let them do it on their own domestic policies, and not that of the UN.
I'm going to ask you, yet again, if you know what a repeal is. Because this line makes no sense: by repealing 40HWW, we are trying to do it on our own domestic policies.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

OOC:
According to that tracker of yours, my nation is far more diverse than yours is.
I don't see that ranking...

And considering that you're an older nation, it doesn't surprise me (or anyone) that you would have a higher GDP, because you have had longer to develop it.
How would nation size relate to the figure I used, which was GDP per capita?

And as for your constant OOC attacks, I've had enough. You're going on ignore.
Care to point them out? All I did was try to correct your misunderstandings of how the game works.

I’m sure the fishery industries in the UN has not ground to halt due to this legislation. Days at sea can mean long days when nothing is found and thus reducing the time worked during a week. Some other days would require very long days. Over a week we would argue the 80 hour maximum should be sufficient.
Circumstances at sea mean if you don't work, you drown and your ship sinks.

Nonetheless, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Research? In other words working with volatile chemicals or compounds is safe having just pulled a two day 11 hour stint?
What I mean is, sometimes researchers - I was thinking more those in libraries than labs, but I'd take the latter too - do work very long hours, when required to, but then their work - however important, and mentally taxing, is not very physically demanding. To suggest 40 is a good workweek for all jobs leaves out the differences in the requirements of those jobs. Some flexibility is beneficial.

As I said in my opening statement. This argument can be used against any resolution on statute and thus becomes somewhat superfluous and if I may, over used.
But it's more applicable for some resolutions than for others. For gay rights? There is an overriding human rights issue. For car safety laws? The nature of national variations mean legislation on the subject would be difficult. I think this falls into the latter: no way can such an inflexible resolution account for the subtlties of national employment demographics.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor

Limits on the work week prevent this form of virtual slavery.

The problem with that line of reasoning is they actually don't prevent it at all, they just make it profitable for businesses in UN nations to outsource to non-UN nations where this law doesn't exist.

And since the majority of nations in the UN are developed nations if I recall the stats correctly from last time they were calculated, the net effect actually encourages the establishment of the very things the supporters of the proposal claim it prevents.

If absolutely nobody is prepared to work a >40 hour standard week, no employer will be able to stipulate it as a working condition and still remain solvent, it really is that simple.

Conversely, if no employers are prepared to give workers a 40 hour week, the employees have no choice and have to take the jobs anyway. And when the economy isn't good and there are more workers than jobs, employers can stipulate what they want. They can maximise their profit, which is good for them, but extremely bad for the people. And what's the economy for if not for the welfare of the people who make it up? It's self-defeating if people don't benefit from economic growth, or worse, see their quality of life deteroriate.

The fact that people are prepared to work more than 40 hours a week is what creates the need for laws to prevent them making up their own minds about what contract they sign.

No, it's the fact that employers are prepared to make people work more than 40 hours a week. Not all of them are, but some will do it because of profit motive - see below.

And given the entire resolution can be ignored in the name of 'declared emergencies,' an undefined term, it's easy to sidestep the whole thing just by arbitarily declaring an 'employment emergency.'

So, you have found the secret escape clause. Why is it such a problem for you then? If you really detest this resolution go on and exploit the loophole and let the rest of us suffer under the injustice of only being "allowed" to work 80 hours a week.

It is also unfair to limit the voluntary overtime an employee can work, given the definition of 'voluntary' work is that the employee is not 'forced' to do anything.

Actually, in most places, "voluntary" work means the company requests overtime and if the employee doesn't want to, it has to be for a good reason. "I want to help my son with schoolwork" okay. "I want to watch the World Cup" no.

And you are making the exact opposite assumption, that it is necessarily true that all businesses will instantly try to screw all their employees over if the resolution is repealed even though everyone in their workforce will already on 40-hour contracts anyway.

Actually, economic theory makes that assumption, that businesses will necessarily make employees work as much as possible within the limits of productivity, in order to maximise profit. The problem is that profit maximisation is not compatible with the goal of the economy, which is the welfare of the entire population.

The entire workforce might be at 40 hours only because of the resolution. And if you repeal it chances are the new contract won't be as favourable, especially if worker power is low. The fact is that places where this resolution is needed have few other worker protections because they tend to be right-wing states with, for instance, weak labour unions or employment laws biased towards businesses.

The problem with that line of reasoning is they actually don't prevent it at all, they just make it profitable for businesses in UN nations to outsource to non-UN nations where this law doesn't exist.

And when that happens unemployment skyrockets and the economy collapses, which means the businesses will be shooting themselves in the foot because no one will have money to buy goods from them, meaning they have no revenue and no profit. That's a little simplistic, of course - there'll be a tiny minority who do still have some money - but so is what you said.

Given that the need for such a resolution is largely gauged by the state of the national economy and job market and is not universal, does this perhaps remind you of something that ought to be decided by individual governments rather than blanket-applied regardless of what the job market is like?

The need for the resolution is not gauged by the state of the economy, the job market, etc., because at heart it is a human rights matter. The right to leisure, the right not to be overworked, which carries physical and mental health problems, and the most important thing any of us possess - our time.

In fact, the need for workers' rights resolutions like this can be gauged by how vehement the opposition to it is. The more strongly nations argue against it, the more you need it to protect their people.

The problem with this repeal is that it doesn't protect workers from being forced to work more than 40 hours. The ability to work more than 40 hours a week should be a right, I agree, but this repeal simply does not protect the worker. I'd vote for it only if having to work more than 40 hours is by consent of the employee.

How am I making the rest of the world suffer? This repeal wouldn't cause other nations to disband 40 hour workweeks if they didn't want to.

The point isn't the nations which won't remove the 40 hour work weeks, it's the nations who will.

There is no "right" to a minimum wage.

"Mummy, that man I passed in the street didn't give me enough money to live off! He violated my rights!"

Well, if you worked for that man full time and didn't get enough money to live off, then you might be a bit closer to a proper analogy.

But let's consider this. We could leave the UN, and enforce these policies - and the UN would be powerless to stop us. So why are we so concerned with this resolution, if we admit it's actually impotent against oppression anyway?

You just explained why there is some power against oppression in the UN's human rights resolutions - because nations like yours which otherwise would abuse their people's rights nevertheless want involvement in the international community more.

What it comes to is: do you believe people have the right to work for as long as they want?

No I don't.

If not, then why is that infringement of freedom justified?

This argument is inherently disingenuous because the 40-hour work week is not a restriction on people, it's a restriction on employers. It might be an infringement of freedom for a few, but in the end it upholds the freedom of many, just like all of the other human rights stuff we have on the books, and even the basic domestic criminal laws. By infringing the freedom of nations to subject their people to "torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" (Universal Bill of Rights) we protect the rights of their people. By restricting the freedom of people to commit murder, we uphold the freedom of people who would rather not be murdered. I don't mean to associate people wishing to work over 80 hours a week with murderers, but if you scale it down the logic is the same, and besides I'm sure even they acknowledge that their circumstances won't always be so they want to work over 80 hours.

It's justified because in the end it protects rights far more than it harms them.

no, screw this proposal. Workers and human rights are more important that a wealth of nation. This would only make the maldistribution of wealth bigger.

OOC: I sat down at 11:10 PM and pulled up the latest UN proposal. I spent about three hours reading over the previous posts in this forum {115 in all} and then spent about a half-hour searching through thirty pages of previous resolutions to find #149 which will be posted here for clarity. In all my time on NS no proposal has yet given this much trouble. My mind has changed about eight times and I could still be swayed. It's 2:36 AM as I write this.

IC: We in The Free Land of Nagapura have given this proposal great thought, and have arrived at our current stance only through long deliberation. We support it. Considering the nature of this proposal we feel we must explain our reasoning. 'Greed' has nothing to do with our stance, and any understanding of our ways should make that abundantly clear. We simply feel that Resolution #59 is...in need of repeal.

This limit of forty hours, up to eighty with overtime, is simply unacceptable. As others have observed there are jobs in which this number is prudent and there are jobs where it is laughable. It has also been observed that some people are perfectly willing, and in fact, want to work 84 hour weeks. They must be given that right, and jobs where this law is limiting must not be encumbered by it.

Meanwhile this whole "4. On call hours shall count against the 40 hour limit" thing is ridiculous. The whole point of being "on-call" is that you are there when they need you. When you limit the hours you can be "on-call", you create a situation where you may, or may not be "on-call" at any given time, thus you may or may not be there when they need you, and thus you destroy the point of being "on-call".

Of course there is the threat of exploitation.

The fact is that most UN nations aren't going to have any problem with that, because national laws will be instituted to prevent it. Nagapura will be among those. Here, national law is preferable to international law because it can be tailored to that nations people, rather than being a random number some rich politician pulled out of a hat, and proceeded to enforce on everyone in sight.

But we also understand that not all nations are as worker friendly, and the people of those nations will not have the same government protection as our own. That is where UN Resolution #149 comes in. Pay special attention to the part in bold:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #149

The Right to Form Unions
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Groot Gouda

Description: REGRETTING the repeal of UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions, and wishing to improve the original resolution,

DETERMINED to provide protection for all workers in all UN member nations,

CONVINCED that this is best provided on a national level through the formation of Unions,

FURTHER CONVINCED that Unions will improve the working conditions and with that production,

The NS UN

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the right for every citizen in a UN member nation to form or join Unions for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally,

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike, but it is not a reason to fire a worker,

3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes by personnel of the armed forces;
b. Strikes not authorized by a union;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

4. MANDATES that for the workers who are not allowed to go on strike, independent arbitration is provided whose decision shall be carried out by all parties in the conflict,

5. URGES all national governments to have regular talks with representatives from the Unions to keep wages and working conditions at a fair level,

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs; nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions,

7. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union-membership where employment is concerned: non-members and members should have equal opportunities in being hired, work assignment, promotion and trainings regardless of Union-membership,

8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.

Votes For: 7,577
Votes Against: 5,394

Implemented: Fri Mar 17 2006

Does this not provide adequate protection? The right to form unions which can then negotiate hours and wages, to suite those particular workers and that particular job is certainly preferable to enforcing some arbitrary number. And if all else fails, the right to strike is protected here.

But, this is limited, and won't always work for everyone. That's why we shouldn't stop at repealing #59, but rather should draft a well written and flexible replacement, that can provide the needed protection without the obvious problems of the original.

As always, a sufficiently persuasive arguement could change our mind, but as you can see we have thought this through, and you may have a hard time of it. I restate Nagapura's stance:

FOR

OOC: *Whew* It is now 3:35 AM. Give me a big hand of applause will'ya?

OOC: *Whew* It is now 3:35 AM. Give me a big hand of applause will'ya?

No problem. You deserve it for being able to post so coherently at that horrible time http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Kyronia/emotions9.gif :).

Witchcliff abstains on this vote due to the inability of our UN representatives to agree. The Reformers want the repeal defeated because the 40 hour workweek helps prevent exploitation and abuse, the Preservers support the repeal for economic and soverighty reasons.

After much shouting, hair pulling, and threats, not to mention several fires due to misplaced lightning and fire spells, we have finally agreed to disagree and will sit out the vote on this issue.

Kirin, The Reformers
Panyer, The Preservers
Joint Witchcliff representatives to the UN.

[FONT="Century Gothic"][SIZE="2"]If a small business cannot afford to pay 5.50 an hour for a full week then maybe they should look at hiring someone for less hours. I don't think the intent of a 40 hour week is to make everyone work the full hours, just to ensure that people aren't overworked. There should , however, be a safety net, a minimum wage for full time work.Otherwise we will return to the bad old days where the economic rationalists say that if you want a job this is what you will get paid, the rich will get richer and the rest of the population will get poorer and have to share housing. I also think that house prices should reflect rises in average earnings, not those at the top.
Just thought i would join in.

Does this not provide adequate protection? The right to form unions which can then negotiate hours and wages, to suite those particular workers and that particular job is certainly preferable to enforcing some arbitrary number. And if all else fails, the right to strike is protected here.

It's good, yes, but the more protections, the better. A nation might be in compliance with that, but the labour union intimidation may still be taking place, and then the protection isn't effective. Case in point, efforts by employers such as Wal-Mart to prevent workers unionising like closing branches where the employees set up a union. They did this in Quebec. Governments, especially totalitarian ones, may also use threats of violence to cow their unions. Say, by having the police shoot strikers and claim they were threatening the police officers.

You don't hold off on protecting rights just because something else helps indirectly. It would be like saying there's no need for an anti-genocide resolution because there's already a prohibition on racial discrimination.

EDIT: News story on the Quebec store - http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/02/09/walmart-050209.html

Conversely, if no employers are prepared to give workers a 40 hour week, the employees have no choice and have to take the jobs anyway.

Is that actually likely to happen, though? Most businesses neither need nor want their employees in to the point where they're exhausted and badly motivated, because exhausted and badly motivated people do shoddy work. Why do you think most jobs have hours that are lower that the government-defined maximum?

And when the economy isn't good and there are more workers than jobs, employers can stipulate what they want. They can maximise their profit, which is good for them, but extremely bad for the people.

And then the government can act to stop them. This is why this is a national issue, not an international one.

So, you have found the secret escape clause. Why is it such a problem for you then? If you really detest this resolution go on and exploit the loophole and let the rest of us suffer under the injustice of only being "allowed" to work 80 hours a week.

No, I found the even secreter escape clause where you don't join the UN.

Actually, in most places, "voluntary" work means the company requests overtime and if the employee doesn't want to, it has to be for a good reason. "I want to help my son with schoolwork" okay. "I want to watch the World Cup" no.

That sounds rather more like 'statutory' overtime.

Actually, economic theory makes that assumption, that businesses will necessarily make employees work as much as possible within the limits of productivity, in order to maximise profit. The problem is that profit maximisation is not compatible with the goal of the economy, which is the welfare of the entire population.

The other problem being exhausted workers won't buy as many things or have free time to buy luxury items for, so after a while long hours for all is counter-productive for business sales anyway.

The entire workforce might be at 40 hours only because of the resolution. And if you repeal it chances are the new contract won't be as favourable, especially if worker power is low.

They will still be at 40 hours. The entire economy will be geared up to operate under the pre-existing condition that everyone has a 40-hour contract. Businesses tend to stick with what they know on such fronts.

And when that happens unemployment skyrockets and the economy collapses, which means the businesses will be shooting themselves in the foot because no one will have money to buy goods from them, meaning they have no revenue and no profit.

Interesting...So you believe this business will be unable to find non-domestic markets for its goods? That aside, this is a black / white fallacy; the fact that some [most] labour-intensive work will be outsourced doesn't mean the entire economy will be.

That's a little simplistic, of course - there'll be a tiny minority who do still have some money - but so is what you said.

Yes, the tiny minority of the entire remainder of the world. If you cripple a capitalist nation's ability to compete, business will leave, nobody will have jobs anyway and everyone will get to starve rather than be tired. Which isn't much of an improvement. Well, to exaggerate the point a little.

Oddly, there was a UN-wide recession following the passage of this resolution, [everyone took a big, bad hit to the econo-balls, some dropping 3 levels or more overnight] which suggests what happened was just that.

The need for the resolution is not gauged by the state of the economy, the job market, etc., because at heart it is a human rights matter. The right to leisure, the right not to be overworked, which carries physical and mental health problems, and the most important thing any of us possess - our time.

And removing from people the right to decide what they want to do with that time. If a guy wants to take on extra shifts to pay for a car or a house, this resolution says he can't because then he'd be exploiting himself.

In fact, the need for workers' rights resolutions like this can be gauged by how vehement the opposition to it is. The more strongly nations argue against it, the more you need it to protect their people.

Excellent, the Circumstantial Ad Hominem. You realise the same argument is frequently pulled out in support of teaching creationism in schools, I assume?

Is that actually likely to happen, though? Most businesses neither need nor want their employees in to the point where they're exhausted and badly motivated, because exhausted and badly motivated people do shoddy work. Why do you think most jobs have hours that are lower that the government-defined maximum?

The other problem being exhausted workers won't buy as many things or have free time to buy luxury items for, so after a while long hours for all is counter-productive for business sales anyway.

No, I found the even secreter escape clause where you don't join the UN.

What's the problem with the work week limit then? It doesn't affect you and you don't seem to think anything will change if it gets repealed. So why are you so opposed to it?

And then the government can act to stop them. This is why this is a national issue, not an international one.

I've already said why I regard it as an international issue so we have to agree to disagree on that.

They will still be at 40 hours. The entire economy will be geared up to operate under the pre-existing condition that everyone has a 40-hour contract. Businesses tend to stick with what they know on such fronts.

You're telling me if they analyse their production and find that all things considered, a standard work week over 40 hours gives them a better profit, they won't do it just because it's "what they know"?

Interesting...So you believe this business will be unable to find non-domestic markets for its goods? That aside, this is a black / white fallacy; the fact that some [most] labour-intensive work will be outsourced doesn't mean the entire economy will be.

It doesn't take the entire economy to be outsourced to create an economic crisis, and economic crisis unchecked has a tendency of becoming civil unrest.

Yes, the tiny minority of the entire remainder of the world.

Which means the vast majority of the entire world will have no money...?

If you cripple a capitalist nation's ability to compete, business will leave, nobody will have jobs anyway and everyone will get to starve rather than be tired. Which isn't much of an improvement. Well, to exaggerate the point a little.

So... would it be fair to say that capitalism is the problem then?

Oddly, there was a UN-wide recession following the passage of this resolution, [everyone took a big, bad hit to the econo-balls, some dropping 3 levels or more overnight] which suggests what happened was just that.

Which is the in-game effect of a social justice resolution. The real effect may not be so; the reduced inequality and better working conditions may even be considered a net gain. Furthermore, national income is not a good way to measure the welfare of the people or the success of the economy, it is only one of many measures which have to be analysed together to give an accurate picture. The nations with the highest HDI do not necessarily have the highest economic growth or GDP per capita. High GDP can exist at the same time as widespread socioeconomic inequality and poverty.

And removing from people the right to decide what they want to do with that time. If a guy wants to take on extra shifts to pay for a car or a house, this resolution says he can't because then he'd be exploiting himself.

He can take on extra shifts, and you're perpetuating the false claim made by the repeal that the limit on working hours per week is 40, when it's actually 80. In fact it will probably be more helpful to him in getting the car because he has to be paid at least 1.5 times the normal rate for the overtime.

Excellent, the Circumstantial Ad Hominem. You realise the same argument is frequently pulled out in support of teaching creationism in schools, I assume?

But is it unfair for me to say that, given that those nations most against the 40-hour work week are also the most likely to have a lack of other worker protections?

What's the problem with the work week limit then? It doesn't affect you and you don't seem to think anything will change if it gets repealed. So why are you so opposed to it?

Because it isn't a good resolution and the logical support for it staying in place rather than re-written and re-submitted is kinda lacking.

You're telling me if they analyse their production and find that all things considered, a standard work week over 40 hours gives them a better profit, they won't do it just because it's "what they know"?

But is it necessarily going to do that? It might be true in a stamping plant or a steel mill that employers could conclude more work = better until you get to the point where serious errors are made, but will it work the same for nuclear reactor technicians, draughtsmen or aerospace engineers, where the company stands to lose far more from errors due to exhaustion than they do from slightly less work?

Also, will the company necessarily conclude than an exhausted and unhappy workforce will be a productive and profitable workforce? Would it conclude the short-term expense of re-shuffling and changing the payroll scheme was actually worth the long-term savings, given that companies are notoriously ill-at-ease with things that are supposed to cost now but pay off later?

It doesn't take the entire economy to be outsourced to create an economic crisis, and economic crisis unchecked has a tendency of becoming civil unrest.

To argue from your perspective, why does big business give a damn that some UN nation with unprofitable laws is imploding? They're sitting pretty being profitable and buying out any companies that didn't move out at bargain-basement prices to dismantle their assets and sell them.

Which means the vast majority of the entire world will have no money...?

Why? The most formidable economies in Nationstates aren't in the UN, according to the daily polls. There's your market.

So... would it be fair to say that capitalism is the problem then?

Hardly. The problem is this resolution has one effect that makes no sense and restricts choice [80 hours AND NO MORE], one that's crippling [counting callout as hours] and one so undefined the whole resolution could potentially be sidestepped. And that's not even mentioning the more twinkish sematics that could potentially result in pedants doing stupider stuff like counting an hour as 1/24 of a rotation of Pluto [meaning an employee could be asked to work normal hours of no more than 10.6 days a week] or legislating that a 'working week' is a period exactly 40 hours long [so an employee couldn't be asked to work more than 40 hours every 40 hours].

It's not the messiest of resolutions [that would probably be #80, the infamously dreadful 'Rights of Minorities and Women' where no two consecutive clauses do not directly contradict each other], but if it's up for a repeal, it could use taking down and re-writing.

Which is the in-game effect of a social justice resolution. The real effect may not be so;

Um...The in game effect is the real effect as far as this UN is concerned.

He can take on extra shifts, and you're perpetuating the false claim made by the repeal that the limit on working hours per week is 40, when it's actually 80. In fact it will probably be more helpful to him in getting the car because he has to be paid at least 1.5 times the normal rate for the overtime.

The number '40' did not appear anywhere in that quote, actually. Neither did it appear in what I quoted. The issue here is that there is a hard limit beyond which it is dictated a citizen has no right to decide if he works or not. That should be his freedom to decide, not someone else's.

But is it unfair for me to say that, given that those nations most against the 40-hour work week are also the most likely to have a lack of other worker protections?

Yes, given that it has been demonstrated this is untrue and numerous of your opponents have self-imposed minimum wage laws and such.

Because it isn't a good resolution and the logical support for it staying in place rather than re-written and re-submitted is kinda lacking.

It's not the messiest of resolutions [that would probably be #80, the infamously dreadful 'Rights of Minorities and Women' where no two consecutive clauses do not directly contradict each other], but if it's up for a repeal, it could use taking down and re-writing.

I don't necessarily disagree here, but you don't seem to be arguing for a re-write as much as that you don't think there should be a resolution on working hours in the first place.

The resolution accomplishes what it's meant to accomplish pretty well. There are always going to be flaws and loopholes. Clearly opinions differ, but I don't think they sink the ship here.

But is it necessarily going to do that? It might be true in a stamping plant or a steel mill that employers could conclude more work = better until you get to the point where serious errors are made...

You are dodging the question. Do you mean to say that a company which takes all those factors into account and decides that it would be more profitable, overall, for them to increase working hours, will not do so because they'll think "but we're so used to 40 hours..."

It seems strange to me that you clearly recognise the problems for both employer and employee from overwork and still maintain your opposition to the 40-hour work week.

To argue from your perspective, why does big business give a damn that some UN nation with unprofitable laws is imploding? They're sitting pretty being profitable and buying out any companies that didn't move out at bargain-basement prices to dismantle their assets and sell them.

So... uh... on the one hand you seem to say businesses would still keep things the same and you go on to say they will desert the UN and cause massive global economic collapse? Hold on, that should be past tense. The 40-hour work week has been in force for quite a while, and that didn't happen.

Why? The most formidable economies in Nationstates aren't in the UN, according to the daily polls. There's your market.

How on earth did we get from there to here? I pointed out a problem with your statement. I'm not sure what you think you're replying to here.

Um...The in game effect is the real effect as far as this UN is concerned.

Well, after reading up, it also puts in welfare/healthcare spending increases, which has an income redistributive effect. With all this, overall there's no reason that peoples' welfare would not increase. That would be the real effect as well, right? I could point out that before 40HWW passed my economy was "Good" and since then it's improved to "Strong" but that's not a very good argument, especially since ICly I have a 40-hour work week anyway. Still, that's my real in-game effect, which is real as far as this UN is concerned.

The number '40' did not appear anywhere in that quote, actually. Neither did it appear in what I quoted. The issue here is that there is a hard limit beyond which it is dictated a citizen has no right to decide if he works or not. That should be his freedom to decide, not someone else's.

No, you said he can't take on extra shifts because the resolution prevents it. I interpret that to mean he can't do overtime - which is defined as work over 40 hours a week.

The right to work as long as you want is in fact better protected by the resolution, unless you mean to say that everyone is just dying to work for over half the entire week. The freedom to work long hours is nowhere near as important as the freedom not to have to work long hours.

Yes, given that it has been demonstrated this is untrue and numerous of your opponents have self-imposed minimum wage laws and such.

Yes, but generally these are the moderates. I'm saying the extreme right (which may not necessarily be represented in this discussion) is probably more opposed to this because of their economic philosophy, and as a consequence of their economic philosophy they are less likely to have worker protections. The further right you go, the opposition is likely stronger and the worker protections likely weaker. Is that unreasonable?

I don't necessarily disagree here, but you don't seem to be arguing for a re-write as much as that you don't think there should be a resolution on working hours in the first place.

Correct. Minus any doomsday scenario of businesses migrating in droves from the UN [which you claim hasn't happened], there's no actual need for one.

You are dodging the question. Do you mean to say that a company which takes all those factors into account and decides that it would be more profitable, overall, for them to increase working hours, will not do so because they'll think "but we're so used to 40 hours..."

The fact that there are still businesses trading in UN nations implies that it is not significantly more profitable to exceed 40 hours, or that they outsource everything to stay solvent and the NS economy figures are made up by nuclear-powered Tibetan monks.

It seems strange to me that you clearly recognise the problems for both employer and employee from overwork and still maintain your opposition to the 40-hour work week.

I maintain my opposition to it because it's not likely to become an issue in the vast majority of nations, and therefore isn't worthy of being an international law.

So... uh... on the one hand you seem to say businesses would still keep things the same and you go on to say they will desert the UN and cause massive global economic collapse? Hold on, that should be past tense. The 40-hour work week has been in force for quite a while, and that didn't happen.

On the one hand I am pointing out that the arguments for keeping the resolution tend to hinge on Very Bad Things happening if it were removed.

On the other, I am addressing the logical conclusion of the Very Bad Things you claim would happen, and pointing out the Very Bad Things would only be moved elsewhere, to nations with no laws against Very Bad Things; they would not vanish. If it were truly more profitable to give all your workers horrendous hours, then by now businesses would have utterly deserted UN nations for more profitable non-UN states. They haven't, so your nightmare scenarios cannot possibly be correct; the difference must be at best too minimal to allow foreign companies a significant advantage over those of UN nations.

How on earth did we get from there to here? I pointed out a problem with your statement. I'm not sure what you think you're replying to here.

I have no idea. It's clear that the vast majority of the NS world does have a lot of money . You are setting up an argument with one premise that fourty-hour work weeks are not profitable. This means, necessarily, that no business in the UN can compete with one outside the UN. It doesn't mean nobody would have any money outside the UN, I don't know where you got that from.

No, you said he can't take on extra shifts because the resolution prevents it. I interpret that to mean he can't do overtime - which is defined as work over 40 hours a week.

I meant extra shifts over 80 hours. It doesn't really matter if it's 40, 80 or 100, it should be the choice of the worker if he wishes to do more work and his employer actually has more work available for him to do, not an international agency trying to stop him exploiting himself.

The right to work as long as you want is in fact better protected by the resolution, unless you mean to say that everyone is just dying to work for over half the entire week. The freedom to work long hours is nowhere near as important as the freedom [i]not to have to work long hours.

The 80 hour limit is on voluntary overtime, not mandatory working hours. Nobody has to work voluntary overtime, that's what the word voluntary means. Nobody's freedom not to have to work long hours is taken away by Joe Bloggs working a 96-hour week because he's close to the release deadline for the videogame he's making and wants to get the final checks done.

If you can explain how a law saying individuals can choose to do something equates to everyone being forced to do it, please go right ahead.

is probably more opposed to this because of their economic philosophy

[Life Of Brian] 'You're just GUESSING!' [/Life of Brian]

We the People of Evak are shocked that this resolution has reached the U.N. floor and finds such strong support. What is most shocking is that this resolution is cloaked under the guise of bringing MORE FREEDOM by repealing the 40 hour work week, supposedly giving more determination to people's lives.

Such a proposal is as odious as it is an incredible misunderstanding of the worker's situation and the meaning of freedom.

What does the 40 hour work week do?

The 40 hour work week PROTECTS the labor force from exploitation at the hands of industry

The 40 hour work week REINFORCES safety in the work place

The 40 hour work week PROMOTES workplace efficiency

The 40 hour work week ENCOURAGES STRONGER FAMILIES

What would happen without the 40 hour work week?

Without it, industry would quickly EXPLOIT those most at risk in the work force who already lack freedom of self-determination in their work by the very poverty that enslaves them - rather than give workers more freedom, repealing the 40 hour work week would make the work force less free, captive to the caprice of industry and capital. Since most nations have a surplus of poor laborers, industry would have no difficulty firing those who refused to work 80 or more hours a week because they could always find some other impoverished individual to take their place. Those already at risk in the work force would only become more enslaved by it.

What else would we lose? Making people work longer work weeks increases mistakes made, lowers workplace efficiency, lowers moral, increases accidents, and generally wears out the work force. In addition we keep workers away from their families, promoting instability and leading to higher levels of depression and workplace disatisfaction.

The Nation of Evak urges the U.N.: Do not forget those workers most at risk in our communities. Repealing the 40 hour work week will not make them more free.

Peace

The Peoples' Republic of Evak

I feel like my question never got answered. In many countries, with poor economies, poor infrastructure, internal strife, etc. there are few employers, and they pay their employees the minimum required to keep them alive. If you allow those companies to force their employees to work more hours, they will cut their wages, and effectively require said employees to work more hours to stay alive.

Thats what a sweatshop is, and it seems to me the purpose of the workweek regulation is to help prevent it.

I have not read every post on this thread, but in general it seems that most people are see this as a human rights issue. We, the people of Kethland, see Resolution #59 as another encrochment of the UN on the sovranty of the individual nations. :headbang: As I've stated in the past, the UN should be conserned with the relations between nations not taking the power to govern away from the nations.

The 40 hour work week exists for one reason: To prevent the exploitation of workers by their employers and to ensure that these said workers have had ample family time as well.

It's been said in support of the repeal of the 40 hour work week that it will prevent workers from being over-worked, which is simply not true. Without certain restrictions an employer is free to work an employee for up to 80 hours a week. This takes valuable time away from their family. The resolution says it encurages workers and their employers to work out their time on their own, but I can see how a negotiation would end up in "You either work these hours, or you're fired."

Besides, as it has been said, this isn't really an international affair. It affects only sovereign nations and not their relations with other nations.

The arguements have been said for and against this Repeal. Do not be blinded by the rhetoric.

The Holy Empire of Vastalon is in agreement with those that see this Repeal as a way to open up the exploitation of workers in poorer nations. Until we have assurances that a revision of Resolution #59 will be proposed, we will encourage all those to vote as we have in regards to this Repeal.

On behalf of the workers of Vastalon and the Hierophant, I vote AGAINST.

Aedon Denares
First Councillor of Vastalon

Do you know how many hours there are in a week?

OOC; For the French Revolutionary calendar, which was used for a few years in RL and theoretically [i]could be in use somewhere in NS now, the answer is '240'...

If you want to help your people to earn more money, how about establishing a minimum wage resolution that sets minimum wage at $10.00 per hour, instead of increasing the work week.

OOC: Defining "$" as what, in terms of NS?
Ignoring all of the differences between different nations' economic strengths & typical costs of living?

What I mean is, sometimes researchers - I was thinking more those in libraries than labs, but I'd take the latter too - do work very long hours, when required to, but then their work - however important, and mentally taxing, is not very physically demanding. To suggest 40 is a good workweek for all jobs leaves out the differences in the requirements of those jobs. Some flexibility is beneficial.


But it's more applicable for some resolutions than for others. For gay rights? There is an overriding human rights issue. For car safety laws? The nature of national variations mean legislation on the subject would be difficult. I think this falls into the latter: no way can such an inflexible resolution account for the subtlties of national employment demographics.

Noting the comments would the Gruenberg delegation then be in favour of a rewrite? Can I assume from the responses above the delegation does not specifically have concerns with the UN regulating working hours per se, but rather this legislation itself?


And since the majority of nations in the UN are developed nations if I recall the stats correctly from last time they were calculated, the net effect actually encourages the establishment of the very things the supporters of the proposal claim it prevents.

The economic statistics in the game is in no way complicated enough to deduce this line of reasoning in our humble opinion. The model simply is not sophisticated enough to account for changes in the labour market alone nor the real effects on nations should this repeal. The two year investment of members to meet compliancy and forming a uniform labour market is not taken into account and will be thrown in turmoil overnight. We would argue repealing legislation with such far reaching and immediate effects could hamper member economies.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Uh huh.....so the only thing people do when they aren't working is twiddling their thumbs? How delightfully full of crap you are.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying: it makes a mockery of your supposed devotion to "rights" and "freedoms" to suggest that the government can forcibly restrict someone from working. I had no idea fascism was so prevalent in Forgottenlands.

I was going to start tossing a bunch of rhetorical questions at you, but then I realized there would be no point because you'd pick the dumb answers.
OOC: Lol.

Anyways, the question is of balance. No, that doesn't mean equal amount of time of free time and work. It means that one should have a balance to their life. Balance is a complex thought and it isn't the same as equal, nor is there necessarily a right answer. Designing a system that forces people to work 80 hrs a week just to have a living wage is pushing the balance too far towards excessive work, while having a system that makes it so people work only 10 hours a week, produce almost nothing, have almost nothing, and implode your economy is too far into the direction of no consideration for society.
Right, now this is what I'm getting at. I agree with all of this. But, I disagree with the conclusion that the 40 hour workweek is best.

1. Why 40? Why not 30, or 50, or 80? You're saying 40 is the balance number - why? You tried to bluff it off earlier - but you're defending the resolution. Why?
2. "Balance is a complex thought" - quite. And yet, you'd abide by a system that unrealistically imposes this 'balance' on all sectors, regardless of the circumstances thereof, which clearly makes no sense. Making a heavy labourer work 60 hours a week? Cruel. An office job? Less so. And yet, Resolution #59 does not accommodate this. It is not a balance.

Spend some time actually putting that gray organ inside your head to work. If you spent half the time trying to find an alternate solution to your problem as you did bitching about how the UN was infringing upon your National Sovereignty, I am SURE you'd be able to come up with some system or another that would work.
I've got nothing (other than bypassing the resolution through a state of emergency - but that doesn't answer the point about a restricted week in general).

Over to you.

I'm not bringing evidence to the table. I'm merely tossing out known and practiced systems into the debate - ones that I think have excellent value. I'm giving you a bloody fish because I know that if I tried to teach you how to fish, you'd start bitching about my imperialistic tendencies. Instead, I offered a suggestion - it is up to you to take my suggestion or not. However, if you reject it and your system doesn't work still, don't come crying to me.
No no. What I mean is: if you're going to cite Keynesian theory, then actually cite it. Don't simply report what you infer it to mean, and expect us all to buy it.

Why do I bother? The Wenaists haven't ever had a definition for compassion.
Oh? Then why do so many Gruenberger charities flourish? Perhaps because our definition of compassion does not include "having money taken from you by force so the unemployed can sit around taking heroin and eating caviar", leaving us with sufficient funds to donate, charitably. Seems pretty compassionate to me.

OOC: Dammit why did this UN ranking have to come up today...

I've picked. I've offered a suggestion. I'll let you do the research to find one that suits you better - and stays within the rules of the UN.
No, you haven't. You haven't given a solution to the problem above. You didn't even suggest social welfare - which I thought you were going to. You just said "go read Keynes". Well, I have. What else you got?

No. I'm not trying to pretend I have any appreciation for YOUR system. Why should I appreciate the greatest evil within the UN. Respect, perhaps. Appreciate, absolutely not.
Heh-heh. Very well. But surely there are other, "non-evil" countries, who also have different economic systems. Why not think of them?

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

Noting the comments would the Gruenberg delegation then be in favour of a rewrite? Can I assume from the responses above the delegation does not specifically have concerns with the UN regulating working hours per se, but rather this legislation itself?
Actually, I don't. I have admitted as such elsewhere. The Gruenberger UN Office believes trade is an international matter. So while we're slashing tariffs and suchlike, we admit other aspects of trade are also fair game: transboundary environmental affairs, nuclear proliferation, and some aspects of trade regulation. In terms of national sovereignty, we feel national working weeks in solely domestic industries are national issues; for those engaged in international trade, they're theoretically international issues.

But, as distinct from national sovereignty, there's a complexity issue. Employment demographics are too complex, too variable, for UN legislation. I couldn't write anything in under 3500 characters that took into account every possible situation, without being vague, open to abuse, impractical, or overly restrictive. As such, I think it's best we compromise, and trust nations on the issue. Something mild on the subject, I would not oppose.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Running between various meetings, Ambassador MacDougall was able to state one thing

1. Why 40? Why not 30, or 50, or 80? You're saying 40 is the balance number - why? You tried to bluff it off earlier - but you're defending the resolution. Why?

I'm not defending the resolution, I'm opposing the repeal while defending the spirit of the resolution. I believe I've said this resolution is flawed. I have also said, and you'll recall agreeing with me, that the message is something to consider along with the effect. I dislike the message. I dislike how it chooses to single out developing nations and saying they should have the power to decide their own fates when developing nations have some of the most flagrant worker debates. I think the first line is bogus. I think there are tons of problems with the repeal that makes it so it cannot be supported. However, I also support the intent of the resolution - perhaps the number is not 40, but a limit should surely be put in place so we don't get people working 80 hours a week every week of the year. Yes, we have to find ways to make any future proposal much more extensive, but the intent, the spirit of this resolution was good. A lot of its supporters, including yourself, glaze over than intent and complain about problems that could be fixed using other means.

Blaa blaa. Quality of life is the important thing for the people inside a country or under the influence of any government. From this research you can see that the Nordic Countries, which have a 37.5-40 hour week, high taxes and so on, are all in the top 10. The 40 hour week is not just a economic question, but also a health, family, life expectancy ext. issue. If countries fulfill their duty the people should not only be very productive but also happy and content in being productive.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

I'm not defending the resolution, I'm opposing the repeal while defending the spirit of the resolution. I believe I've said this resolution is flawed. I have also said, and you'll recall agreeing with me, that the message is something to consider along with the effect. I dislike the message. I dislike how it chooses to single out developing nations and saying they should have the power to decide their own fates when developing nations have some of the most flagrant worker debates. I think the first line is bogus. I think there are tons of problems with the repeal that makes it so it cannot be supported. However, I also support the intent of the resolution - perhaps the number is not 40, but a limit should surely be put in place so we don't get people working 80 hours a week every week of the year. Yes, we have to find ways to make any future proposal much more extensive, but the intent, the spirit of this resolution was good. A lot of its supporters, including yourself, glaze over than intent and complain about problems that could be fixed using other means.
Ok, that is actually eminently reasonable. Thank you for your explanation.

Doesn't make you any less of a freedom-hating commie though.

Have fun at your meetings.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

OOC: Is MacDougall male or female?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying: it makes a mockery of your supposed devotion to "rights" and "freedoms" to suggest that the government can forcibly restrict someone from working. I had no idea fascism was so prevalent in Forgottenlands.

Citizens work because they have to, either for contractual or fiscal reasons. Given that not working for many could mean immediate starvation or financial impediment there’s little real choice in the matter. Employers already have the upper hand and considering this we doubt workers would willingly want to work in excess of 80 hours per week. Whatever remains in our humble opinion will be a very marginal amount and taken as a whole pretty much nullify this line of reasoning.

Actually, I don't. I have admitted as such elsewhere. The Gruenberger UN Office believes trade is an international matter. So while we're slashing tariffs and suchlike, we admit other aspects of trade are also fair game: transboundary environmental affairs, nuclear proliferation, and some aspects of trade regulation. In terms of national sovereignty, we feel national working weeks in solely domestic industries are national issues; for those engaged in international trade, they're theoretically international issues.

But, as distinct from national sovereignty, there's a complexity issue. Employment demographics are too complex, too variable, for UN legislation. I couldn't write anything in under 3500 characters that took into account every possible situation, without being vague, open to abuse, impractical, or overly restrictive. As such, I think it's best we compromise, and trust nations on the issue. Something mild on the subject, I would not oppose.

I see, Gruenberg has an ideological opposition with this legislation. Regrettably ideological positions are invariably fixed.

As for the complexity issue this can be applied to every piece of UN legislation. Just because the system does not allow lengthy pieces of legislation it does not in itself disqualify writing a particular type of legislation.

We are gratified however the Gruenberg delegation would consider a ‘mild’ proposal on the matter.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Ok, that is actually eminently reasonable. Thank you for your explanation.

Doesn't make you any less of a freedom-hating commie though.

Have fun at your meetings.

~Lurs Lennto
Environmental Advisor

OOC: Is MacDougall male or female?

Female

Female

OOC:
Oops I think Lydia called her a he in the past.

OOC:
Oops I think Lydia called her a he in the past.
OOC: I think Bob might have too.

OOC: Thanks.

IC: Actually, we would not classify our opposition as "ideological". We have admitted that, for us, sovereignty is no major issue. Furthermore, the broadly free market policies of Gruenberg do not preclude some support for protection of workers - such as the Workplace Safety Act, which we voted FOR. In fact, we would say our opposition is pragmatic in nature - based on the reality of the way employment works in Gruenberg, however ideologically undesirable may be.

This commonwealth believes that the 40 hour workweek should be repealed in light of other citizens wanting to work and earn money too. Simply letting one person work 80 hours per week is depriving someone else wanting to make ends meet and earn money. It also probably infringes on family relationships if the husband or wife is at the office more than at home. If they don't like their spouse, get rid of him/her or work it out. I'd suggest work it out because they're probably too damned lazy anyway. But restricting how much a citizen can work can allow citizens to be at home with family and not have businesses dictating hours and it will allow an increase of workforce meaning less unemployment.

Comrades! I must oppose this! It is going to be used by the capitalist scum! They wish to repeal this resolution so that they can stomp upon the rights of the worker! By reducing wages, they will be able to get more labour for the same amount of money, because the hours are longer. Average workers will not be able to spend time with those they cherish, because they will have to work longer for an already depressing existence at the hands of the capitalists! We must not let them win and repress the masses! If any nation should wish to step upon their workers, then I would urge a Revolution for freedom from the chains of capitalism. Workers of All Countries, Unite! You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Chains!

Are you voting for the repeal ie no 40 hour workweek or voting against the repeal ie having a 40 hour or more workweek? or have I gotten the voting wrong.......lol.

Are you voting for the repeal ie no 40 hour workweek or voting against the repeal ie having a 40 hour or more workweek? or have I gotten the voting wrong.......lol.

The 40 hour week resolution was passed two years ago. We (the UN members) are currently voting on whether this should be repealed.

Welcome to the UN.

Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of the UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Teldia

Are you voting for the repeal ie no 40 hour workweek or voting against the repeal ie having a 40 hour or more workweek? or have I gotten the voting wrong.......lol.
If you vote for the repeal, your nation can choose between a 40 hour workweek, and not having one (or having an alternate system).

If you vote against the repeal, your nation must have a 40 hour workweek.

Then the Commonwealth will change it's vote to against. I don't want our citizens working 80 hours per week when someone else who wants money can work those 40 hours.

Then the Commonwealth will change it's vote to against. I don't want our citizens working 80 hours per week when someone else who wants money can work those 40 hours.
I'm not sure you still understand. A repeal doesn't abolish laws in your nation, insofar as if this passes, you can keep your 40 hour workweek in place.

OOC:
Oops I think Lydia called her a he in the past.

OOC: Though one of my best friends is a female Jamie, most of the Jamie's I've met have been guys.

IC:
My government appreciates the article cited by the ambassador from Roccoliina. Are we correct in assuming that the Roccoliinans (?) are voting against this repeal?

This simply makes no sense. I don't see a need for a repeal on the resolution "40-Hour Work Week". It makes perfect sense, and those who choose to work more hours, may do so as they please. Nothing is wrong with the original resolution. So, tell me, does the UN come up with repeals when no other topic can be thought of? I'd also like to ask, does everyone who voted understand what the issue is on?? Was it read correctly? I cannot see why so many nations want this more than don't.

I'm not sure you still understand. A repeal doesn't abolish laws in your nation, insofar as if this passes, you can keep your 40 hour workweek in place.

I agree completely. Why is it that other counties must constantly push their values on others? The best time of my life was when I worked 50+ hour work weeks. Yes, I was younger and had less responsibility, but the values of a person in France, for example, should not affect a person in the Allied States of Kethland. I realize this proposition allows a person to work more that 40 if they choose but it seems to be forcing an arbitrary number of hours on other peoples based on nothing more than what a few countries believe to be true. You choose you way, I’ll choose mine, but I don’t believe I need to held accountable for a difference of opinion.

I agree completely. Why is it that other counties must constantly push their values on others? The best time of my life was when I worked 50+ hour work weeks. Yes, I was younger and had less responsibility, but the values of a person in France, for example, should not affect a person in the Allied States of Kethland. I realize this proposition allows a person to work more that 40 if they choose but it seems to be forcing an arbitrary number of hours on other peoples based on nothing more than what a few countries believe to be true. You choose you way, I’ll choose mine, but I don’t believe I need to held accountable for a difference of opinion.

40 isn't an arbitrary number. There have been countless studies, and there is a strong corrolation between public health and working hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

It's good, yes, but the more protections, the better. A nation might be in compliance with that, but the labour union intimidation may still be taking place, and then the protection isn't effective. Case in point, efforts by employers such as Wal-Mart to prevent workers unionising like closing branches where the employees set up a union. They did this in Quebec. Governments, especially totalitarian ones, may also use threats of violence to cow their unions. Say, by having the police shoot strikers and claim they were threatening the police officers.

You don't hold off on protecting rights just because something else helps indirectly. It would be like saying there's no need for an anti-genocide resolution because there's already a prohibition on racial discrimination.

EDIT: News story on the Quebec store - http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/02/09/walmart-050209.html

I agree completely. I'm sorry if I sputtered out a bit at the end. Allow me to clarify. My support for this repeal comes from the belief that resolution #59 is terribly flawed. My reasons for this belief have already been stated. This resolution must be repealed to clear the way for a better, more flexible replacement. I believe my point in presenting #149 was to show that while we are working on a replacement for 59, the sky won't be falling.

We need a law along the lines of #59, but 59 is simply not it.

No problem. You deserve it for being able to post so coherently at that horrible time http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../emotions9.gif .

*takes a bow* Thank you, thank you very much!

I agree completely. I'm sorry if I sputtered out a bit at the end. Allow me to clarify. My support for this repeal comes from the belief that resolution #59 is terribly flawed. My reasons for this belief have already been stated. This resolution must be repealed to clear the way for a better, more flexible replacement. I believe my point in presenting #149 was to show that while we are working on a replacement for 59, the sky won't be falling.

We need a law along the lines of #59, but 59 is simply not it.


Insert my usual speech about means-to-an-end repeal voting.

Correct. Minus any doomsday scenario of businesses migrating in droves from the UN [which you claim hasn't happened], there's no actual need for one.

So don't go arguing in favour of a repeal saying you think it needs to be rewritten when you actually want the repeal because you don't want it at all.

The fact that there are still businesses trading in UN nations implies that it is not significantly more profitable to exceed 40 hours, or that they outsource everything to stay solvent and the NS economy figures are made up by nuclear-powered Tibetan monks.

That isn't my point. I'm saying what if a company with this limit removed finds that going to, say, 45 hours standard work week is more profitable for them, all factors taken into consideration? Do you really think they won't do it? And, with the resolution still intact, if they can accept the reduced profit of 40 hours instead of 45 hours, why incur all the costs of moving elsewhere? You were the one who said that businesses tend to stick to what they know, right?

I maintain my opposition to it because it's not likely to become an issue in the vast majority of nations, and therefore isn't worthy of being an international law.

Working hours are in fact a major international issue. International bodies such as the European Union have considered this. The real UN has an agency called the International Labour Organisation which considers issues such as this. Think again.

On the one hand I am pointing out that the arguments for keeping the resolution tend to hinge on Very Bad Things happening if it were removed.

On the other, I am addressing the logical conclusion of the Very Bad Things you claim would happen, and pointing out the Very Bad Things would only be moved elsewhere, to nations with no laws against Very Bad Things; they would not vanish.

The Very Bad Things I say will happen are that companies in nations without similar laws of their own will now be free to demand longer working hours. Perhaps without even overtime pay, which the 40HWW also guarentees.

You say no, things will remain as they are.

Then I said, but I have reason to believe that is not so, and here's why. (ongoing in 2nd para) I'm still waiting for you to properly address that instead of going in a big circle around it. Is everything being outsourced to non-UN members or not? You've got a lot of confused doublethink going on, it seems to me.

If it were truly more profitable to give all your workers horrendous hours, then by now businesses would have utterly deserted UN nations for more profitable non-UN states. They haven't, so your nightmare scenarios cannot possibly be correct; the difference must be at best too minimal to allow foreign companies a significant advantage over those of UN nations.

First, you're the one tossing the nightmare scenarios around. You're the one who started saying everything will end up (has ended up) getting outsourced, I'm telling you why it wouldn't happen - and hasn't. I've shown why I believe VBTs will happen with the repeal, but you just toss out scenarios which should've happened already but haven't, and somehow I'm the doomsayer.

I have no idea. It's clear that the vast majority of the NS world does have a lot of money . You are setting up an argument with one premise that fourty-hour work weeks are not profitable.

How on earth do you get that from what I'm saying? 40-hour work weeks are profitable for companies. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most profitable. Economic theory makes a reasonable assumption that in a capitalist economy companies will try to maximise profit. Relating to the 45-hours-is-most-profitable example above, that company has its workers doing 40-hour weeks only because of the resolution. That doesn't mean it's unprofitable. But they can increase profit by going to 45 hours. Again, if you don't restrict them from doing that, do you honestly think it won't be done?

This means, necessarily, that no business in the UN can compete with one outside the UN. It doesn't mean nobody would have any [i]money outside the UN, I don't know where you got that from.

I got that from you. I'm pointing out a flaw in what you said, in reference to my statement that in case of economic crisis stemming from unemployment caused by massive outsourcing, that there would be only a tiny minority with the money, that it was "a tiny minority of the rest of the world". And I'm pointing out that what you're saying there also means the vast majority will therefore have no money. If only 1% of people have money, 99% do not have money.

I meant extra shifts over 80 hours. It doesn't really matter if it's 40, 80 or 100, it should be the choice of the worker if he wishes to do more work and his employer actually has more work available for him to do, not an international agency trying to stop him exploiting himself.

If you're really arguing for worker choice, you'd be arguing against the repeal. Repealing creates the potential condition where workers won't have a choice but to work more, which is more harmful for everyone involved than a few people wanting to work more hours but aren't allowed to because of the evil and oppressive 40-hour work week.

As for the point about "exploiting himself", most nations have laws which protect people from themselves, such as requiring helmets on motorbikes, for people to have a driving licence before driving on the roads, not allowing minors to purchase things like alcohol, tobacco, or porn, etc., all for your own good, or for the good of the people around you. Work-time regulations fit the bill - it's common knowledge that overwork leads to stress and its attendant medical problems like high blood pressure, heart problems, mental problems, among many other things. Not only does the resolution stop employers inflicting this upon their workers in their pursuit of profit, it also stops people doing it to themselves.

Now, of course, I don't necessarily agree and there is a point where it's overly intrusive. As in all things, there's a balance to be struck. And if to significantly protect the rights of the very many, I must infringe a little onto the rights of the very few who anyway will probably be glad of work-time restrictions at another point in their lives, it's a huge net gain for human rights and employee rights.

The 80 hour limit is on voluntary overtime, not mandatory working hours. Nobody has to work voluntary overtime, that's what the word voluntary means. Nobody's freedom not to have to work long hours is taken away by Joe Bloggs working a 96-hour week because he's close to the release deadline for the videogame he's making and wants to get the final checks done.

If you can explain how a law saying individuals can choose to do something equates to everyone being forced to do it, please go right ahead.

Haven't I already explained it? It's simply because this isn't a law saying people can't do something, it's a law saying people can't be made to do something. You're crossing the line from a different persepective on 40HWW to a mischaracterisation of it. And if you'll kindly show why you think employers won't increase working hours without this protection if it's profitable to, thus forcing its employees work longer, we can make headway on this point.

[Life Of Brian] 'You're just GUESSING!' [/Life of Brian]

So if a country argues strongly against labour and employee rights your immediate thought would be that they must have and believe in extensive workers' rights protections? I'm not guessing, it's based on a very logical conclusion.

Well, it all looks pretty gloomy for supporters of the original resolution. I would like to contest a couple of assertions made:

And since the majority of nations in the UN are developed nations if I recall the stats correctly from last time they were calculated, the net effect actually encourages the establishment of the very things the supporters of the proposal claim it prevents.

It's clear that the vast majority of the NS world does have a lot of money [IIRC the average economy is 'thriving'].
I don't think it's possible to make a strong claim for the majority of NS being 'developed' or wealthy. From following the UN surveys, it seems to me that the Economy rating is a measure of economic growth, not wealth or advancement. It therefore follows (assuming I'm correct) that a developing nation (e.g. Ecopoeia) may have a Strong economy, for instance.

Now, I appreciate that this argument is in no way on firm footing, given that other surveys strongly link industry strength with the Economy rating. So perhaps what this goes to show is that one cannot make assumptions of the kind quoted above, given that the indicators are unreliable and often contradictory.

So don't go arguing in favour of a repeal saying you think it needs to be rewritten when you actually want the repeal because you don't want it at all.

Black / white fallacy again. I don't think there needs to be a resolution at all, but even if there does it shouldn't be this one.

That isn't my point. I'm saying what if a company with this limit removed finds that going to, say, 45 hours standard work week is more profitable for them, all factors taken into consideration? Do you really think they won't do it?

Our survey says no. Businesses have remained in UN nations, ergo, the 45-hour week logically cannot be significantly more profitable.

And, with the resolution still intact, if they can accept the reduced profit of 40 hours instead of 45 hours, why incur all the costs of moving elsewhere?

Because they're getting nailed by the competition, according to your premise that >40 hours must be more profitable.

Working hours are in fact a major international issue. International bodies such as the European Union have considered this. The real UN has an agency called the International Labour Organisation which considers issues such as this. Think again.

Appeal to authority. The fact that there are real-life bodies that do it doesn't mean our UN here should follow.

You say no, things will remain as they are.

Which, as a rule, they would.

Is everything being outsourced to non-UN members or not? You've got a lot of confused doublethink going on, it seems to me.

According to your argument for keeping the resolution, everything should be outsourced because a 40-hour work week is unprofitable and therefore companies forced to have one will not be profitable either. Since the economies of every UN nation have in fact not collapsed, a >40 hour work week cannot possibly be significantly more profitable. There is cast-iron in-game evidence of the impossibly of your argument.

First, you're the one tossing the nightmare scenarios around. You're the one who started saying everything will end up (has ended up) getting outsourced, I'm telling you why it wouldn't happen - and hasn't.

Which means a >40 hour work week isn't significantly more profitable, yes.

Relating to the 45-hours-is-most-profitable example above, that company has its workers doing 40-hour weeks only because of the resolution. That doesn't mean it's unprofitable. But they can increase profit by going to 45 hours. Again, if you don't restrict them from doing that, do you honestly think it won't be done?

Again, our evidence says that non-UN companies haven't used the nonexistence of this law in their nations to asset-strip your unprofitable businesses, so no, it won't be done because there's no pressing reason to bother doing it.

that it was "a tiny minority of the rest of the world".

A tiny minority of 750 quadrillion people is still quite a lot of people, you realise?

If you're really arguing for worker choice, you'd be arguing against the repeal. Repealing creates the potential condition where workers won't have a choice but to work more, which is more harmful for everyone involved than a few people wanting to work more hours but aren't allowed to because of the evil and oppressive 40-hour work week.

No, it creates the prospect of a better resolution with fewer loopholes and vague points for those who support it, too. Everyone should want this one repealed.

As for the point about "exploiting himself", most nations have laws which protect people from themselves, such as requiring helmets on motorbikes, for people to have a driving licence before driving on the roads, not allowing minors to purchase things like alcohol, tobacco, or porn, etc., all for your own good, or for the good of the people around you.

Does the UN legistlate against tobacco, alcohol or porn on behalf of all nations, though? Does it make laws about riding motorbikes without a helmet? No, because these are national level decisions.

Not only does the resolution stop employers inflicting this upon their workers in their pursuit of profit, it also stops people doing it to themselves.

Would you also support a resolution to ban mountain biking or skiing on the same basis?

Haven't I already explained it? It's simply because this isn't a law saying people can't do something, it's a law saying people can't be made to do something.

No, it says you can't work more than 80 hours a week even if you volunteer to do so. That is saying they can't do something.

So if a country argues strongly against labour and employee rights your immediate thought would be that they must have and believe in extensive workers' rights protections? I'm not guessing, it's based on a very logical conclusion.

No, it's based on an irrational belief that anyone who opposes this resolution must be a corporate state with no regard for workers' rights.

I don't think it's possible to make a strong claim for the majority of NS being 'developed' or wealthy. From following the UN surveys, it seems to me that the Economy rating is a measure of economic growth, not wealth or advancement.

No, there's much more stuff used to calculate it than that. It's a measure of the quality of the entire economy, not just growth or industry.

As delegate for the Lands of Storm and Darkness, my official stance is to refuse to vote on this topic. You mortals can vote all you like - for, against, it doesn't matter. After the apocalypse Storm and Darkness shall spread across the world, and you - our minions - will work forty hours a DAY and be grateful!

Note to self: need to redefine length of day to forty hours or risk looking silly.

*makes note on piece of parchment, writing in his own blood using a quill*

Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

And again the Commonwealth of Mushat will change their vote to voting for and the advisors will one day get it right as well as it's Cardinal. Don't you just wonder whether this attitude really exists in the UN or any government.

Anyway. This government likes to put people first and money second, we have a government here that is tasked to look after the well being of it's people.

The people are selfish in regards to this resolution; Selfish, Because they want to work more than 40 hours and hence not allowing others to get on the working attitude and get their fair share of something.

For the country, this means that the same working people will have to pick up after those that don't work in forms of paying taxes so that the common unemployed person can go to an office to collect 'free' money, go back home and watch the televisions 24 hours a day 7 days a week. If everyone worked, then the government can collect taxes at a lower rate and use that money to provide services or improve existing services. For the company, they wouldn't have to grant time and half to double time wages because someone wants to work 50 hours. They can pay the same value of wages to someone else because that would be part of the contract.

What the government doesn't want to see is companies dictating what hours employees should work whether it is 40 hours, 50 hours, 80 hours or even 1 hour. It isn't as much as the individual dictating what time they should work, there are more elements that goes with this.

a) If the individual is in a job that they don't like but will have to be there to get the money - Then they may even hide from work (hence not really working 40 hours a week), claim illness (hence getting sickpay).

b) The company making them work extra hours.

As much as my fellow member nations would like to think that you might be doing those a favour and letting them work extra hours. This would be more of a targetting a group of individuals rather than targetting a wider society.

There are those that would like to work but can't find any,
there are those that don't want to work at all and sit their lazy asses in front of the television,
there are those that would quite happily work for the set hours and go home,
there are those,
there are those that would like to work extra hours to gain something,

I want some team work from the people, not selfishness and the people of today are looking out for their own. But not only will limiting the workweek to 40 hours, the employers can recruit more people, more people will get reduced tax rate (ie the more working, the more tax I get, the less I have to spend on the needy and divert to other services) and since they have a job, the likelyhood of them turning to crime to get money is reduced as they have regular money coming in and not stealing from others. Unfortunately the people never believes at how so simple things are when they're said but then again what makes it harder is when it is implemented as people don't like being told what to do either. You tell mister lazyass to go to work, he/she will say no, I'm happy going to the dole office and getting free money without a care as to who is paying them. That is another issue, the government can always make them join the military. :upyours:

No, there's much more stuff used to calculate it than that. It's a measure of the quality of the entire economy, not just growth or industry.
Interesting. I may need to go and tank my economy now...

... though the growth survey tallies remarkably with the Economy rating, which is a little disappointing. Don't suppose there's a chance this could be tweaked?

Sorry, this is getting off-topic. We can discuss elsewhere if you prefer.

Black / white fallacy again. I don't think there needs to be a resolution at all, but even if there does it shouldn't be this one.

Then don't go on like this:

No, it creates the prospect of a better resolution with fewer loopholes and vague points for those who support it, too. Everyone should want this one repealed.

Don't pretend you want a better resolution with fewer loopholes if you don't want one at all.

Our survey says no. Businesses have remained in UN nations, ergo, the 45-hour week logically cannot be significantly more profitable.

It just means they can't do it. There are numerous reasons a business doesn't want to relocate to another country entirely and decides to live with the maximum profit under the regulations instead.

Because they're getting nailed by the competition, according to your premise that >40 hours must be more profitable.

Which is part of why Kelssek embargoes all non-IFTA members as an additional protection of our people. You may also have heard of things like "protectionism" and "trade policy" before. Even right-wing nations use them.

Appeal to authority. The fact that there are real-life bodies that do it doesn't mean our UN here should follow.

It does mean that working hours are widely considered as an international issue. That the resolution got to the floor in the first place also means that the NSUN considers it an international issue. And why on earth should we take it to authority (the mods I assume)? If the question of "worthy of UN attention" wasn't raised before this is hardly the time to do so.

Which, as a rule, they would.

This is a summary of how I see this line of argument, and the entire exchange in general, as going.

Me: It would change and this is why: blah blah blah

You: No it won't.

Me: Yes it will, because blah blah blah.

You: No.

Me: Why?

You: It won't.

According to your argument for keeping the resolution, everything should be outsourced because a 40-hour work week is unprofitable and therefore companies forced to have one will not be profitable either. Since the economies of every UN nation have in fact not collapsed, a >40 hour work week cannot possibly be significantly more profitable.

You either didn't read or understand my point properly, or you're deliberately mischaracterising my argument.

There is cast-iron in-game evidence of the impossibly of your argument.

So if what happens in-game is "evidence", then given that my economy rating improved since the 40HWW passed, it must be tremendously beneficial for economies.

Which means a >40 hour work week isn't significantly more profitable, yes.

So then the 40HWW isn't that bad for business is it?

Again, our evidence says that non-UN companies haven't used the nonexistence of this law in their nations to asset-strip your unprofitable businesses, so no, it won't be done because there's no pressing reason to bother doing it.

This doesn't make any sense at all. You jump from working hours... to companies being bought up?

A tiny minority of 750 quadrillion people is still quite a lot of people, you realise?

You do realise it also means a vast majority, say 74250 quadrillion people, are in poverty? Who cares if you have 750 quadrillion rich people if it means 99 times that number starving to death? That's exactly the problem with your continued statements to this effect and you don't seem to realise it. How many times do I have to point this out?

Does the UN legistlate against tobacco, alcohol or porn on behalf of all nations, though? Does it make laws about riding motorbikes without a helmet? No, because these are national level decisions.

Would you also support a resolution to ban mountain biking or skiing on the same basis?

1. Are you aware of what an "example" is? Or what the point I was trying to make was? Doesn't seem like it.

2. The answer to that can be found in the previous post:

Now, of course, I don't necessarily agree and there is a point where it's overly intrusive. As in all things, there's a balance to be struck. And if to significantly protect the rights of the very many, I must infringe a little onto the rights of the very few who anyway will probably be glad of work-time restrictions at another point in their lives, it's a huge net gain for human rights and employee rights.

No, it says you can't work more than 80 hours a week even if you volunteer to do so. That is saying they can't do something.

This is getting nowhere. I've already answered this point.

No, it's based on an irrational belief that anyone who opposes this resolution must be a corporate state with no regard for workers' rights.

And when did I say that I think that? Why are you constantly making these mischaracterisations? You're calling me irrational and that's close to a personal attack here.

No, there's much more stuff used to calculate it than that. It's a measure of the quality of the entire economy, not just growth or industry.

Assuming it uses the conventional measure of GDP, that isn't necessarily the case - I've already explained why. Furthermore, it's impossble for it to be a measure on the "quality" of the entire economy because different nations define it differently. If you want to give more details on this? Oh, why bother. You aren't answering my questions anyway.

AGAINST

I would only vote for if:

1. A minimum wage law proposal was introduced
2. A refined work week proposal were introduced covering the minor flaws of this one.

If we were to repeal this proposal at present coorporations could in effect make them all slaves, especially if there is no communication between national governments and the coorporations.

1. A minimum wage law proposal was introduced
2. A refined work week proposal were introduced covering the minor flaws of this one.Which would, of course, be illegal as this is a Repeal and thus no new law can be introduced with it.

Which would, of course, be illegal as this is a Repeal and thus no new law can be introduced with it.



If they introduced these proposals before the repeal, and then repealed resolution #59, I would vote for.

So I vote against... Duh...

I still believe that a standardized 40 hour work week is impractical. I don't have time at this moment to justify my claim but I propose seting a number of hours a person can work in a year based off the 40 hour work week. must go TY.

Which is part of why Kelssek embargoes all non-IFTA members as an additional protection of our people. You may also have heard of things like "protectionism" and "trade policy" before. Even right-wing nations use them.


Woah, how does one join the IFTA then?

Discoraversalism, click the IFTA link in my sig to get to the forums. Have a read, then if you'd like to join, register on the boards and post an application thread summarising your compliance, etc. There are plenty of examples to follow (Herzunterbrecher, Compadria, Hirota).

WOW The UN is Starting to bug me a little They should leave the law makeing to the leaders of the countrys.

WOW The UN is Starting to bug me a little They should leave the law makeing to the leaders of the countrys.

Or, hey, here's a novel idea.

Don't be in the UN. That would... Well that would (shucks!) leave the law making to the leaders of your country! I mean, what did you think the UN was for?

If you wanna be a Sovereigntist, learn how to argue like the real Sovereigntists. Don't whine about the UN making laws, cuz that's what it's supposed to do.

It's should also be noted that the majority of the nations that support this repeal, all come from the same region.

Really?!?

Votes For: 6306

Don't whine about the UN making laws, cuz that's what it's supposed to do.

My government does not agree with the Norderia OPINION on the nature of the role of the United Nations.

The people of Mikitivity have remained active and supportative of this body's efforts to foster international cooperation and peace, and view UN resolutions has opinion statements adopted by a simple majority of voting members. If the UN were to focus more on humanitarian affairs and similar issues, my government firmly believes that in most cases our domestic law making policies (which predate the UN in some cases by hundreds of years) will continue to surpass the ability of strangers to come in and legislate when it is a proper time to drink beer.

I'll reaffirm that my government supports the original resolution. It was an admirable statement, and accordingly we've voted against this repeal. However, we also respect the right of other nations to change their position and should this resolution be repealed, we'll continue to honor the spirit of the original resolution regardless of what other nations might do -- because the basic statement has already been made and nothing in Mikitivity has changed since this resolution was adopted two years ago.

Howie T. Katzman

It's should also be noted that the majority of the nations that support this repeal, all come from the same region.Really?!? Votes For: 6306
Interesting argument, given that the UN page records only a single vote for any given region (that of the Delegate), and that all other regional voting is hidden from mods, players, and quite possibly admins.

If he means that the largest single block comes from a feeder delegate who support the repeal, that might be correct. It's certainly not a majority.

After much deliberation by the newly liberated Allied Councils of Member States, the governing body of the West Atlantic Bloc, has voted AGAINST the current resolution before the NSUN.

As we believe that a repeal of Resolution #59 would lead to exploitation en masse by the capitalist imperial structure that dominates the many underdeveloped nations of the world, we cannot support any move by the General Assembly of the NSUN to endanger the freedom, health, and happiness of said people.

Our Councillors have also further passed resolution uninanimously through both houses to urge delegates of regions not yet decided on the matter to please vote against a repeal. We urge you to think internationally, to think of the people who will be subject to virtual slavery were this to pass.

~Husam al Din al-Filastini
Senior Councillor of Diplomatic Affairs

You can be a sovereignist and still be part of the UN. The UN needs capitalist nations to vote for a repeal of #59, or who else would? Besides it looks like the majority are voting to repeal this ill thought up law anyway.

Also head over to Capitalist Paradise and you will find many developed nations that are also capitalist nations. I guess some nations just believe in hard work and success.

Veracusse

I guess some nations just believe in hard work and success.

So only capitalists believe in hard work and success, eh?

So only capitalists believe in hard work and success, eh?

Yeah. None of our people believe in hard work and success. In fact... I'm going back to my office to drink and stare at the ceiling. Yeah. Stop working on the Repeal of the PRA.

ho-hum

The Federation of Methusela is casting its vote in favor of this resolution.

Have I posted in this thread yet? Hmmm, I don't think so...


If they introduced these proposals before the repeal, and then repealed resolution #59, I would vote for.

So I vote against... Duh...
That would also be illegal because it would be a duplication. Repeals must be passed before any replacements are submitted. Duh...


So, ummm... FOR

Have a nice day!

The Nationstates Communist Party has voted overwhelmingly Against this resolution by Against:[11][100.00%] to For:[0][0%]. The reasons: It goes against Workers' Rights, therefore it has been declared, un-socialist and un-communist.

General BenjaminA/Comrade Benjamin
General Secretary of The Nationstates Communist Party

Have I posted in this thread yet? Hmmm, I don't think so...



That would also be illegal because it would be a duplication. Repeals must be passed before any replacements are submitted. Duh...


So, ummm... FOR

Have a nice day!

The replacement could be drafted already, have a thread devoted to it, and it could be discussed, right?

The replacement could be drafted already, have a thread devoted to it, and it could be discussed, right?
Is it? I didn't see it.


I was just letting Roos Union know that you can't submit a replacement before a repeal passes. You can draft and talk about it sure, just not submit it.

Don't pretend you want a better resolution with fewer loopholes if you don't want one at all.

I want a better resolution if having no resolution turns out to not be an option. Where's the 'pretending' in that?

It just means they can't do it. There are numerous reasons a business doesn't want to relocate to another country entirely and decides to live with the maximum profit under the regulations instead.

But this provides no reason why those unprofitable businesses continue to exist. Not everyone has the kind of systems of protectionism and subsidies in place that would be needed to keep a comparitively unprofitable business sector competitive.

You may also have heard of things like "protectionism" and "trade policy" before. Even right-wing nations use them.

These are issue choices, though. And in many cases, nations don't use them. You can't generalise that all nations must be issuing subsidies or levying massive import taxes when they aren't.

It does mean that working hours are widely considered as an international issue. That the resolution got to the floor in the first place also means that the NSUN considers it an international issue.

That doesn't mean it should necessarily continue to be one, however.

And why on earth should we take it to authority (the mods I assume)?

Appeal to authority is the name of a formal logical fallacy; namely, stating that because an authority of some sort believes X to be true, X must be true, regardless of the status or relevence of the authority in question. The fact that the real-life UN does something doesn't immediately mean it is a good idea for our UN to follow, because the real-life UN is not an authority on the NS political situation, labour movements or any such matters.

This is a summary of how I see this line of argument, and the entire exchange in general, as going.

Maybe you should try reading the parts where I justified my points on the basis of the actual game stats rather than vague assumptions that disagree with them or require we assume nations which don't have protectionist policies do?

You either didn't read or understand my point properly, or you're deliberately mischaracterising my argument.

No, I am demonstrating that what inevitably leads from your argument does not happen, therefore your argument cannot be valid.

So if what happens in-game is "evidence", then given that my economy rating improved since the 40HWW passed, it must be tremendously beneficial for economies.

As long as you ignore all the other factors that could be involved, sure. You economy has improved in spite of the resolution's known and documented negative effect, not because of it. False Cause fallacy, there.

So then the 40HWW isn't that bad for business is it?

Which means it is, in fact, pointless to legislate on it since business has no reason whatsoever to exceed 40 hours anyway.

This doesn't make any sense at all. You jump from working hours... to companies being bought up?

If a company is made unprofitable by this resolution, it will get bought up by one that hasn't, as a rule. It's a big tank'o sharks out there.

But this has not happened, so businesses cannot possibly have any significant reason to desire to increase working hours and this resolution is unnecessary.

You do realise it also means a vast majority, say 74250 quadrillion people, are in poverty? Who cares if you have 750 quadrillion rich people if it means 99 times that number starving to death? That's exactly the problem with your continued statements to this effect and you don't seem to realise it. How many times do I have to point this out?

Until you explain why you believe the vast majority of people outside the UN will be in poverty even though the game stats don't agree with you, or why on earth people outside the UN should be in poverty at all just because nations inside the UN are operating in an unprofitable manner.

This is getting nowhere. I've already answered this point.

No, you haven't. You thought I was talking about 40 hours and answered this point on that basis.

And when did I say that I think that? Why are you constantly making these mischaracterisations? You're calling me irrational and that's close to a personal attack here.

No, I called your argument irrational, because it is. You have no statistical proof of your claims that 'most people who oppose this resolution are of type X,' therefore your claim is irrational.

40 isn't an arbitrary number. There have been countless studies, and there is a strong corrolation between public health and working hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

And all of those studies were conducted on humans, so why should the same limit have to be automatically applied to the sapient non-humans that exist within some nations' workforces too?

It seems that the United Nations is dominated by people with a serious lack of ecomnomics and politics. Such leaders are the ones who support the new resolution to repeal the 40 hour workweek. Apparently, some explanation is needed.
A 40 hour workweek was created for a single purpose. This purpose is NOT to give the working people more free time, it is NOT to give them breaks from work. It's purpose is to PROTECT the employees rights from abyse by employers. It is basic economic sence that companies will violate worker's rights without such laws as maximum working week and minimum wage. Here is how:
Imagine you are an employee earning 1000 per week. You work for 40 hours which means you earn 25 per hour. After the 40 hour workweek is repealed your situation will worsen dramatically. Why? Because the only reason why businesses, corporations etc. exist is to make money. And the only reason you work there is to make them money. Of cource if you will be working more you will be making more money for your boss, but there is a catch. With the disappearance of the 40 hour workweek employees will not be paid on a per hour basis anymore. Instead they will be paid on a per week, per month or per year basis. The reason for that is that businesses will make much more money out of this. So if before you were a worker earning 25 per hour, 1000 per week (40 hours) and 4000 per month, you will now be earning 1000 per week or 4000 per month without the set hours. The effect is that you will work more than 40 hours for the same money. It will be 50 or even 60 hours.
If you think that this is impossible then you are too naive. The new resolution gives businesses the power to decide the amount of hours employees work. The workers never had that power but a just government is there to make sure that people are not EXPLOITED by the business. Thats why 40 hour work week exists. If corporations will decide on the amount of hours then we might as well bring back SLAVERY.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some crazy all out Marxist, I understand that the market and the corporations bring progress and development, but it is the governments that have to make sure that ANARCHY is not created instead of PROSPERITY.
So to all who are for freedom and economic well-being, vote NO.

The Democratic Republic of Tugarin is strongly against the resolution and will resign in protrest if needed. If there are some comments or, maybe some people can proove me wrong, please send me a message.
Thanks for your time

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/5525/crad8hi.png

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/5525/crad8hi.png

OOC: That's a fantastic card! :D

Maybe you should try reading the parts where I justified my points on the basis of the actual game stats rather than vague assumptions that disagree with them or require we assume nations which don't have protectionist policies do?

First, game stats are among the weakest forms of evidence you could produce. They're simplistic, difficult to compile, and it's simply impossible to argue complexities, especially the inherently complex natures of macroeconomics, if we slavishly stick to them. Second, regardless, you can use stats to prove anything you want. Third, where do I assume that? Just because I say they can use them, and many do, doesn't mean everyone does.

As long as you ignore all the other factors that could be involved, sure. You economy has improved in spite of the resolution's known and documented negative effect, not because of it. False Cause fallacy, there.

How come your interpretation of the stats is correct and mine is a "fallacy"?

No, I am demonstrating that what inevitably leads from your argument does not happen, therefore your argument cannot be valid.

Since you like to throw around terms like these, perhaps you'll know what a "straw man argument" is. That is what you're doing. You're pretending my argument is what you want it to be and saying you've disproved it when what you've actually disproved is an argument I wasn't making in the first place. And it's not just here, your replies are full of these straw man arguments. And in particular you're saying I'm making assumptions that I am not making. Like here:

These are issue choices, though. And in many cases, nations don't use them. You can't generalise that all nations must be issuing subsidies or levying massive import taxes when they aren't.

Which means it is, in fact, pointless to legislate on it since business has no reason whatsoever to exceed 40 hours anyway.

So are all those sweatshops we're always hearing about and the numerous reports of employee rights abuses just figments of our collective imagination? And it's completely impossible that the economic assumption of firms being profit-maximising-at-all-costs entities might be no more than a convenient assumption?

If a company is made unprofitable by this resolution, it will get bought up by one that hasn't, as a rule. It's a big tank'o sharks out there.

And I'm the one making the crazy assumptions?

But this has not happened, so businesses cannot possibly have any significant reason to desire to increase working hours and this resolution is unnecessary.

...and the illogical conclusions?

Until you explain why you believe the vast majority of people outside the UN will be in poverty even though the game stats don't agree with you, or why on earth people outside the UN should be in poverty at all just because nations inside the UN are operating in an unprofitable manner.

Okay, find me an economist who thinks mass outsourcing (which you said would happen, at the same time you said it wouldn't) will not lead to large-scale structural unemployment and that large-scale structural unemployment will not usually lead to huge income disparities and economic crisis. Also, you apparently agree that only "a tiny minority of the rest of the world" will have money so you've got explaining to do as well.

No, you haven't. You thought I was talking about 40 hours and answered this point on that basis.

It's irrelevant now. Fine, he can't work extra shifts over 80 hours (though you are wrong to imply he can't work extra shifts, period). But in the end the 40HWW protects the freedom of choice for people much more than it restricts it. Look, I'm repeating this for the second time since you don't seem to have read it:

Now, of course, I don't necessarily agree and there is a point where it's overly intrusive. As in all things, there's a balance to be struck. And if to significantly protect the rights of the very many, I must infringe a little onto the rights of the very few who anyway will probably be glad of work-time restrictions at another point in their lives, it's a huge net gain for human rights and employee rights.

No, I called your argument irrational, because it is. You have no statistical proof of your claims that 'most people who oppose this resolution are of type X,' therefore your claim is irrational.

It's irrational to think that a nation arguing against workers' rights is probably a right-wing one? This repeal is authored by the Alliance of Capitalists, Conservatives and Economic Libertarians, after all. Oh, hold on, that's just coincidence and linking economic liberatarians with promoting economic liberalism is probably a logical fallacy with a fancy name of some kind.

The replacement could be drafted already, have a thread devoted to it, and it could be discussed, right?

Good point. Though my government is happy even if there is a serious, though still crude draft proposal that could be refined following the conclusion of the repeal debate.

In this case, opponents to this resolution don't seem to be interested in a replacement or refinement of this resolution, but are essentially taking a position that they don't like limits on their businesses (opinions on the impacts to working populations will vary depending upon our respective points of view, so I don't want to get bogged down in that argument).

At this point, it looks as though the repeal will not only pass, but by a significant majority. In the past when a well liked resolution was repealed by a slim majority a better version of the resolution was resubmitted. My question to opponents to this repeal and/or proponents of the original "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution is there any effort currently underway to replace this resolution should it be repealed?

Thank you,
-Howie T. Katzman

And all of those studies were conducted on humans, so why should the same limit have to be automatically applied to the sapient non-humans that exist within some nations' workforces too?

The NSUN seems to ignore sapient non-humans. In fighting other resolutions I have repeatedly tried to bring up why the resolution only works if you assume all UN nations are composed of standard industrial age humans. It appears most legislation sponsors would like to pretend the whole world is like them.

Is it? I didn't see it.


I was just letting Roos Union know that you can't submit a replacement before a repeal passes. You can draft and talk about it sure, just not submit it.

It's hard for me to take someone serious when they say they wish to reform legislation if they are not offering an alternative. I'd like to replace some recent legislation, but I don't intend to work on the repeal until the replacement has been drafted.

The NSUN seems to ignore sapient non-humans. In fighting other resolutions I have repeatedly tried to bring up why the resolution only works if you assume all UN nations are composed of standard industrial age humans. It appears most legislation sponsors would like to pretend the whole world is like them.

The NSUN was designed with human beings in mind ... as evidence I point to our "Human Rights" proposal category, which is in reality a means for this organization to promote civil rights.

In the past a number of nations (including human societies) have supported the idea of changing the language of previous resolutions and drafting new proposed ones to emphasis the diversity of races in NationStates, however, it is my office's experience that communication problems have contributed to the failure of these efforts.

-Howie T. Katzman


OOC: Just watched Batman Begins for the first time last night ... OMG, what an amazing film!

The NSUN seems to ignore sapient non-humans. In fighting other resolutions I have repeatedly tried to bring up why the resolution only works if you assume all UN nations are composed of standard industrial age humans. It appears most legislation sponsors would like to pretend the whole world is like them.

Using this kind of argument is just silly. You have to assume everyone is human. If people are allowed to say this kind of stuff nothing could be passed. For example the resolution on child labour. You could say something like but the *random name* grow up instantly. Or if someone was passing a resolution on healthcare - "our people are invicible".

Maybe I should say that my people all commit suicide whenever something is repealed. :D Then I could claim everyone who was making a repeal was endangering all of my nation.

You can't pass anything without assuming people are close to the average technology. (Of course people who do not have rich nations need to be concidered) If you start doing that then people can say things like why do we need gun control we don't need guns. Or why do we need schools we don't know how to talk.

My government does not agree with the Norderia OPINION on the nature of the role of the United Nations.

Alright, I concede, and agree. The UN ought to be concentrating on expanding and securing human rights. Law-making is a part of that though, and that was what I meant. If people don't want the UN to make laws for them, they should not be in the UN. The case is not, if people don't want the UN to make laws for them, the UN should not make laws.

The laws we make are intended to ensure the quality of life for humanity.

==================
And about the human/non-human wording in legislation stuffs, that issue was already addressed somewhere (I forget where, forgive me) in an answer that said that the UN lawmakers have to be given a little bit of lee-way, as a vast majority of the UN members are human, and the variations where they exist are too complex that trying to include them all in the wording would make Resolutions much too convoluted and impractical. And of course if we mention other non-human species, everyone who doesn't have a non-human species would try getting their species' name into the Resolutions. "Humans, vampires, zergs, and marclargs must be allowed blah blah blish." You'll have the leader of the Golem nation saying "and what about Golems, are Golems not allowed to blah blah blish?" And then you have to list off everything and it's like starting the human genome project all over again.

So when we say "humans" it's understood to be every species of peoples in the UN. If you want to RP your species, fine, but we're not about to list them all for the purposes of Resolutions. When it comes to the lifespan and such of other species, it gets a little trickier, as often there are those that last on average shorter or longer than humans. Generally there are given variations in Resolutions, as in Ceorana's Copyrighting Resolution.

As it pertains to 40 hour work-weeks... Well, I'm not going to touch that one.

Oh, hold on, that's just coincidence and linking economic liberatarians with promoting economic liberalism is probably a logical fallacy with a fancy name of some kind.
Delegates sitting close to the Ecopoeian declaration watch with alarm as Lata Chakrabarti is nearly overcome with convulsive laughter.

My question to opponents to this repeal and/or proponents of the original "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution is there any effort currently underway to replace this resolution should it be repealed?
Not from the ACA or CACE. We're all pretty much retired. I don't think much should be changed - drop the 80 hour limit and fudge for on-call hours, perhaps.

As for the whole human vs non-human issue... bugger it. Assume non-humans, other planets, etc are covered in qualifying appendices or something. Life's too short to worry about such nonsense.

When it comes to the lifespan and such of other species, it gets a little trickier, as often there are those that last on average shorter or longer than humans. Generally there are given variations in Resolutions, as in Ceorana's Copyrighting Resolution.

As it pertains to 40 hour work-weeks... Well, I'm not going to touch that one.

One thing to keep in mind is, even for humans, there can be considerable variation. For example, in Razat very few people die of old age. There are few enough people over 50 that they attract attention. Though we had a famous general who was still active well into his 60's, that is the exception. Some human nations have people who are in their 70's, 80's, and even 90's, hard as that is for most Razatians to imagine. I agree that EVERY unusual case cannot be considered, but I think this body DOES need to recognize that there are differences, and what might work well for one nation could be a disaster for another.

The replacement could be drafted already, have a thread devoted to it, and it could be discussed, right?Potentially, sure, but I don't think the Proposal author had any desire to see it replaced.

First, game stats are among the weakest forms of evidence you could produce. They're simplistic, difficult to compile, and it's simply impossible to argue complexities, especially the inherently complex natures of macroeconomics, if we slavishly stick to them.

They are also the reality of this game. Like it or not, what happens in the game is the game.

Second, regardless, you can use stats to prove anything you want.

Really? Can you demonstrate the truth of this assertation by using Lithuania's birth statistics in 1997-2003 to prove Abraham Lincoln was a cat, please?

Third, where do I assume that? Just because I say they can use them, and many do, doesn't mean everyone does.

You assume because [presumably] you bought this up attempting to explain why a resolution forcing companies to behave unprofitably [according to you, since you assume there must be a profit motive encouraging longer shifts than 40 hours] hasn't bankrupted them. I see no other reason why you'd bring it up at all.

How come your interpretation of the stats is correct and mine is a "fallacy"?

Because yours requires that you ignore that issues exist, and assumes instead that your current economic strength must be as a result of the resolution merely because the resolution happened before it. This is obviously untrue; the resolution itself had a documented negative effect on the economy stat, so any current economic strength you have must be due to issues, not due to the resolution.

Since you like to throw around terms like these, perhaps you'll know what a "straw man argument" is. That is what you're doing. You're pretending my argument is what you want it to be and saying you've disproved it when what you've actually disproved is an argument I wasn't making in the first place.

Perhaps you should learn what 'reductio ad absurdum' is. That's what I'm doing; by demonstrating your opponent's logic naturally leads to an unacceptable conclusion if fully applied, you demonstrate the argument itself is fundamentally flawed.

And it's not just here, your replies are full of these straw man arguments. And in particular you're saying I'm making assumptions that I am not making. Like here:

There I was assuming you were bringing up subsidies and import duties as the reason that UN nations hadn't experienced continued massive economic fallout from this resolution, with 'even right wing nations use them' at the end a suggestion that this applied to the entire UN. If that wasn't the reason you bought it up, why did you bring it up?

So are all those sweatshops we're always hearing about and the numerous reports of employee rights abuses just figments of our collective imagination?

The sweatshops are presumably either unprofitable or not more profitable than regular business, or are only profitable because their workers are paid lower wages and have far fewer benefits, which has nothing to do with working hours. Take what the game gives you, not what you want to have; game stats don't support the idea that longer hours = profit.

And it's completely impossible that the economic assumption of firms being profit-maximising-at-all-costs entities might be no more than a convenient assumption?

If you can find a way the game stats actually support your assertation that companies which are not compelled to have a 40 hour work week are more profitable [and therefore all companies outside the UN are more profitable than those inside], show me.

And I'm the one making the crazy assumptions?

You believe unprofitable companies will not be bought out, barring major government intervention?

...and the illogical conclusions?

If you can demonstrate my conclusion is illogical, feel free to do so.

Okay, find me an economist who thinks mass outsourcing (which you said would happen, at the same time you said it wouldn't) will not lead to large-scale structural unemployment and that large-scale structural unemployment will not usually lead to huge income disparities and economic crisis.

Cart before the horse. Find me an economist who says that a law encouraging massive outsourcing by making it unprofitable to employ citizens would have zero persistant negative effect on a capitalist economy. The effect you require for your point to be true cannot exist in the game because UN resolutions can't have a continuous negative effect, so what you are saying happens cannot happen either. It must still be profitable to employ citizens in UN nations despite the legislated 40 hours, unless you take your own ideas about economics as higher proof than the game itself.

Also, you apparently agree that only "a tiny minority of the rest of the world" will have money so you've got explaining to do as well.

Nope, I don't believe that at all. I was using the size of the NS world to demonstrate that a 'tiny minority of the world' on NS is still a ridiculously huge market, I didn't agree that only a tiny minority of the world would have money.

It's irrelevant now. Fine, he can't work extra shifts over 80 hours (though you are wrong to imply he can't work extra shifts, period).

I never implied that. I said he couldn't work extra shifts in addition to the maximum the resolution mandates.

But in the end the 40HWW protects the freedom of choice for people much more than it restricts it. Look, I'm repeating this for the second time since you don't seem to have read it:

You have still failed to explain why limiting voluntary overtime is necessary to protect the 'needs of the many.' You appear to at least concede that section is unfair, therefore you should support a repeal and resubmission.

It's irrational to think that a nation arguing against workers' rights is probably a right-wing one?

'Complex question.' The question assumes the answer to an unstated question of whether this is a workers' right, rather than a superfluous law protecting something that doesn't need protecting. Much like the classic loaded questions 'have you stopped beating your wife?' or 'where did you hide the money you stole?' by answering this at all I would have to answer an initial question affirmatively when that question is still disputed.

In addition, without any kind of proof that the majors supporters of this repeal are right-wing your argument is based purely on your own belief this must be so. It's entirely possible for a left-wing nation to oppose this for any number of reasons; flaws in the text, the belief this is not an international matter, the issues with on-call hours, the belief that 40 hours is too many...

It's also worthy of note that not every left-winger through history has favoured workers' rights by any means; for example, as outlined in The Communist Manifesto, Marx approved of child labour and wished to see schooling combined with factory work.

This repeal is authored by the Alliance of Capitalists, Conservatives and Economic Libertarians, after all.

Does that mean the eight thousand seven hundred votes in favour must equally be from right-wing nations?

Oh, hold on, that's just coincidence and linking economic liberatarians with promoting economic liberalism is probably a logical fallacy with a fancy name of some kind.

No. Claiming the proposal author and everyone who voted for the proposal [or argued in favour of it] must share the same motives is, however, it's a sweeping generalisation.

GMC, you appear to not be sure of how RPing works in the UN forum. Given how many people post both IC and OOC here, I'm personally not surprised. As with any group over a period of time, various conventions have gradually been established. The ones that govern RP in the UN forum are quite different to those in NS or II, mainly because different people frequent this forum.

From an RPed IC perspective, issues don't exist. To refer to them is to bring yourself out of the game.

From what I have pbserved, you appear to regard Daily Issues as the main part of the game. Fair enough, that's how the game began. But they're not the only thing the game has to offer. Many people RP nations entirely different to their choices in the Daily Issues. Some people do not even bother answering issues, preferring to focus on their RP.

To say that the UN forum is not an RP forum is to ignore the truth. The Strangers' Bar was set up by Enodia. Ambassadors, Consuls, Presidents and Monarchs are constantly putting in messages from their nations. TMGH has his own UN persona, Doctor Dennis Leary (apologies if I've mis-spelt that).

The game statistics are not always the be-all and end-all of the game, and in the UN are rarely considered to be anything like.

Please note that I am not trying to be condescending or insulting, instead trying to let you know of reasons for behaviour you might find bizarre. Simply pointing to the game stats doesn't mean much for a lot of people.

TMGH has his own UN persona, Doctor Dennis Leary (apologies if I've mis-spelt that)."Denis"; close enough.

Simply pointing to the game stats doesn't mean much for a lot of people.To be fair, Kelssek seems to be arguing OOC.

"Denis"; close enough.
Knew it was something like that.

To be fair, Kelssek seems to be arguing OOC.
I just thought GMC would like to know that. Some of GMC's posts appeared to be ignoring IC considerations completely. Though yes, Kelssek does look to be OOC here.

They are also the reality of this game. Like it or not, what happens in the game is the game.

If what you're saying is that only things which affect game stats have happened, then that also means the entirety of the roleplaying that players have been doing all hasn't happened. In any case I don't think you'll find many poeple who disagree that real reality applies to game reality. Perhaps this is the fundamental problem we're having, you seem to believe that there's a difference when I'm of the perspective that game reality is based on reality and the rules of the real world necessarily apply. Hence anything in-game which is not realistic (or put into a realistic framework as with science fiction and the like) should be overruled by reality. And if you interpret in-game stats and reach unrealistic conclusions, your conclusion is probably incorrect.

Really? Can you demonstrate the truth of this assertation by using Lithuania's birth statistics in 1997-2003 to prove Abraham Lincoln was a cat, please?

You know what I meant when I said that and don't pretend you do not.

You assume because [presumably] you bought this up attempting to explain why a resolution forcing companies to behave unprofitably [according to you, since you assume there must be a profit motive encouraging longer shifts than 40 hours] hasn't bankrupted them. I see no other reason why you'd bring it up at all.

Did I say everyone was doing it?

Because yours requires that you ignore that issues exist, and assumes instead that your current economic strength must be as a result of the resolution merely because the resolution happened before it. This is obviously untrue; the resolution itself had a documented negative effect on the economy stat, so any current economic strength you have must be due to issues, not due to the resolution.

Fair enough. But your interpretation is absurd and unrealistic as well, perhaps because of aforementioned perspective difference.

Perhaps you should learn what 'reductio ad absurdum' is. That's what I'm doing; by demonstrating your opponent's logic naturally leads to an unacceptable conclusion if fully applied, you demonstrate the argument itself is fundamentally flawed.

But you aren't demonstrating that my argument is illogical or flawed, because you aren't dealing with my arguments at all, only what you like to think it is.

There I was assuming you were bringing up subsidies and import duties as the reason that UN nations hadn't experienced continued massive economic fallout from this resolution, with 'even right wing nations use them' at the end a suggestion that this applied to the entire UN. If that wasn't the reason you bought it up, why did you bring it up?

That is the reason I brought it up. Where you get the suggestion that it applies to the entire UN is beyond me. Either that or it's the straw man again.

The sweatshops are presumably either unprofitable or not more profitable than regular business, or are only profitable because their workers are paid lower wages and have far fewer benefits, which has nothing to do with working hours. Take what the game gives you, not what you want to have; game stats don't support the idea that longer hours = profit.

And how on earth can you derive that idea from game stats which just say things like "Economy: Good"?

If you can find a way the game stats actually support your assertation that companies which are not compelled to have a 40 hour work week are more profitable [and therefore all companies outside the UN are more profitable than those inside], show me.

I did not assert that. You're strawmanning again. What I did assert was that some companies, having analysed things, may conclude that

You believe unprofitable companies will not be bought out, barring major government intervention?

You answered your own question there. Yes, I'm thinking governments may intervene to prevent their domestic economy from being taken over by foreigners, or may enact capital controls, or other such measures. Incidentally, you're doing just what you accuse me of doing - making black and white generalisations. There are different degrees of profitability; just because a company isn't making maximum profit doesn't mean it's unprofitable.

If you can demonstrate my conclusion is illogical, feel free to do so.

You're basing it on unrealistic conditions. It may be logical based on what you have to work with, that doesn't mean you're correct.

If a company is made unprofitable by this resolution, it will get bought up by one that hasn't, as a rule. It's a big tank'o sharks out there.

But this has not happened, so businesses cannot possibly have any significant reason to desire to increase working hours and this resolution is unnecessary.

Clearly, this is unrealistic. First, because as I've already said, because a company isn't at max profit doesn't mean it's unprofitable. Most companies are not because of the various laws and regulations needed to make economies function.

Economic theory (which has its own assumptions which we can argue about if you so wish, though I doubt it) holds that maximum profit for a firm is when marginal revenue equals marginal cost, i.e. any further increase in cost (say, increasing the working week and thus the wage bill by 1 hour) will be greater than the consequent increase in revenue, while a decrease in cost (say, reducing the working week and thus the quantity produced) will decrease revenue by more than the reduction in cost. But in practice, the MC=MR point is not going to be achieved exactly because it's difficult to calculate and is constantly changing anyway, because of things like the price of raw materials, changing demand for the good being produced, etc. So no company really is at maximum profit, but they do try to get there.

Maybe you understand what I mean now. Let's go into a scenario where a company is in a nation with no other restrictions than what the UN has imposed. Being a law-abiding company, it adheres to the 40-hour work week, paying employees overtime up to 80 hours and refusing to allow them to work beyond that lest the authorities audit the records and fine them (generally, the method of enforcement in the real world).

Now you remove the 40-hour work week. This changes its marginal cost curve. Now it doesn't have to pay overtime, neither are regulators going to come down to inspect employee time cards. Assuming the demand is there, the firm looks at the situation, gets some number crunchers working, and realises it can now get more production, more revenue, and more profit by increasing the regular non-working hours because the costs have changed, there's no law holding them back and their MC=MR profit maximisation point has changed because of the removal of the need to pay overtime. Economic theory, backed by common sense, says they will increase working hours to achieve increased profit.

That is why you have sweatshops, and that is why businesses protest when governments implement work-time regulations.

Cart before the horse. Find me an economist who says that a law encouraging massive outsourcing by making it unprofitable to employ citizens would have zero persistant negative effect on a capitalist economy. The effect you require for your point to be true cannot exist in the game because UN resolutions can't have a continuous negative effect, so what you are saying happens cannot happen either. It must still be profitable to employ citizens in UN nations despite the legislated 40 hours,

See above. It's not unprofitable, just less profitable. And the rest stems from our fundamental problem outlined in the start of this post.

unless you take your own ideas about economics as higher proof than the game itself.

Yes, I do. But they aren't "my" ideas. Credit must go to all the economists from past to present who made this stuff up. Real world > game, because game is based on real world. And if you're going to tell me the opposite is true I doubt many people will agree with you. In fact they'll probably think you've lost your grip on reality entirely.

Nope, I don't believe that at all. I was using the size of the NS world to demonstrate that a 'tiny minority of the world' on NS is still a ridiculously huge market, I didn't agree that only a tiny minority of the world would have money.

Fine, but a tiny minority is still a tiny minority, no matter how big it is in terms of numbers.

I never implied that. I said he couldn't work extra shifts in addition to the maximum the resolution mandates.

Fine, but so what? Oh no! He can't work over half of the entire week and has to go home and have enforced leisure time instead! That's so sad!

You have still failed to explain why limiting voluntary overtime is necessary to protect the 'needs of the many.' You appear to at least concede that section is unfair, therefore you should support a repeal and resubmission.

I've explained. Clearly you don't agree.

'Complex question.' The question assumes the answer to an unstated question of whether this is a workers' right, rather than a superfluous law protecting something that doesn't need protecting. Much like the classic loaded questions 'have you stopped beating your wife?' or 'where did you hide the money you stole?' by answering this at all I would have to answer an initial question affirmatively when that question is still disputed.

So you're saying a cap on working hours isn't an issue of workers' rights?

In addition, without any kind of proof that the majors supporters of this repeal are right-wing

If the Alliance of Capitalists, Conservatives and Economic Libertarians isn't right wing, then what is?

your argument is based purely on your own belief this must be so. It's entirely possible for a left-wing nation to oppose this for any number of reasons; flaws in the text, the belief this is not an international matter, the issues with on-call hours, the belief that 40 hours is too many...

Accepted, but what I'm pointing to are trends and likelihoods. Left wing nations in opposition are not likely to be strongly opposed. Right wing nations on the other hand, are not as likely to support. If you can prove to me that the opposition to the repeal is primarily right wing, or conversely that support for the repeal is primarily left wing, then I'll accept my assertion that the strength of opposition argues in favour of the need for a 40-hour work week is wrong. But just a cursory glance at this thread reveals that supporters of the repeal are generally capitalist economies with varying economic positions from moderate to extreme right, which opponents of the repeal are generally ranging from moderate to left wing, which is as expected.

Does that mean the eight thousand seven hundred votes in favour must equally be from right-wing nations?...

No. Claiming the proposal author and everyone who voted for the proposal [or argued in favour of it] must share the same motives is, however, it's a sweeping generalisation.

Great, except I didn't claim that. All I said was that the stronger the opposition, the more the need for the 40-hour work week, which is in any case a personal value-judgement opinion based on what I believe to be correct.

Oh, since it came up while I was typing up that last post:

Yes, I'm arguing OOC and I usually do so in the UN forum. Which is also to say that I argue based on real-world conditions, which to me are the only real form of evidence because the game is necessarily simplistic and like I said, all kinds of interpretations can be made from the simple stats.

In my view the game is meant to mimic reality. Even when it's in IC roleplay, to me things in-game have to be intepreted reasonably and realistically, which I'm sure is the convention in most forums anyway.

I don't want to step on GMC's toes; he can argue against you just fine. I did want to point out something about this statement, though:

First, because as I've already said, because a company isn't at max profit doesn't mean it's unprofitable.This isn't entirely correct. The company I work at recently saw that their profits were in the neighborhood of 2.25 billion. Unfortunately, they expected 2.5 billion. Despite ridiculous profit, this was viewed as a loss of 250 million.

People were fired over this.

I would wager that most companies view anything short of maximum profit as failure.

I'm speaking in economic terms, though. What I'm referring to is the theoretical point of profit maximsation which isn't actually achievable because the theory assumes conditions which don't exist in practice. Profit and loss in terms of economics as I learn it are very simply whether the firm's revenue exceeds its costs or not. To me "unprofitable" means it's making a loss, i.e. costs > revenue.

I remember being told that accountants have different definitions for some things, and that could be the thing we've got here. It's true that some large firms regard profit not meeting the forecast as failing, since it affects the stock price, and I could go on and on about the problems with that, but that's for another time. Suffice to say that what is really meant in that context is maximum profit, under the circumstances.

If what you're saying is that only things which affect game stats have happened, then that also means the entirety of the roleplaying that players have been doing all hasn't happened.

Players base their roleplaying on game stats, or they are generally regarded as twinks. False dilemma.

In any case I don't think you'll find many poeple who disagree that real reality applies to game reality. Perhaps this is the fundamental problem we're having, you seem to believe that there's a difference when I'm of the perspective that game reality is based on reality and the rules of the real world necessarily apply.

The rules of the game world apply first and foremost, with 'real' rules applying where they do not conflict; if the game stats conflict with each other some fluffing is allowed. If you're going to ignore the fundamental stats the game gives you, you are not playing as part of Nationstates at all.

Hence anything in-game which is not realistic (or put into a realistic framework as with science fiction and the like) should be overruled by reality.

No, it should not. If you ignore the game stats, what's the point of having them?

And if you interpret in-game stats and reach unrealistic conclusions, your conclusion is probably incorrect.

Again, no. The game stats show that a 40-hour work week cannot be unprofitable, and this overrides any subjective interpretations of real-life data. It therefore need not be enforced by anything.

Did I say everyone was doing it?

Why bother bringing it up if it doesn't help explain the ones who aren't?

Fair enough. But your interpretation is absurd and unrealistic as well, perhaps because of aforementioned perspective difference.

You mean because I foolishly assume that NS stats are more relevant to NS nations that stats of nations that don't exist in NS? Honestly, you could argue this in reverse just as easily, that the real-life data is unrealistic in terms of NS because the nations there aren't from the game.

But you aren't demonstrating that my argument is illogical or flawed, because you aren't dealing with my arguments at all, only what you like to think it is.

No, with what their logical conclusion is.

That is the reason I brought it up. Where you get the suggestion that it applies to the entire UN is beyond me. Either that or it's the straw man again.

Because if it does not explain even one capitalist nation which has a strong economy but does not have protectionist policies, it fails as an explanation.

And how on earth can you derive that idea from game stats which just say things like "Economy: Good"?

Because I can see the entire nation statblocks which can contain dozens or even hundreds of statistics which are used to calculate things like 'economy: good.'

And also through basic logic. If sweatshops aren't profitable because of long hours but still exist, there must be a reason. There are other reasons that they might be profitable, like low pay or lack of benefits, therefore it must be one of those reasons. Suspension of disbelief demands that the last option is 'the game is wrong.'

I did not assert that. You're strawmanning again. What I did assert was that some companies, having analysed things, may conclude that

So we have a UN resolution which you admit is based on an utterly hypothetical scenario that may not occur at all? Thanks, you've proved beyond a doubt that this isn't worthy of the UN's time.

You answered your own question there. Yes, I'm thinking governments may intervene to prevent their domestic economy from being taken over by foreigners, or may enact capital controls, or other such measures.

Or they may not do any such thing. You can't assume they have since protectionism is an issue choice, and a lot of liberal capitalist nations don't have any truck with it at all.

Incidentally, you're doing just what you accuse me of doing - making black and white generalisations. There are different degrees of profitability; just because a company isn't making maximum profit doesn't mean it's unprofitable.

Actually, it does. If a company is forbidden from doing something the competition can do and that thing is profitable, it will not be able to be as profitable as a company which does that thing.

You're basing it on unrealistic conditions. It may be logical based on what you have to work with, that doesn't mean you're correct.

It does, actually, since the unrealistic conditions happen to be the game you're playing. This is like arguing that a plastic cannon can't invade Africa just because you're losing at Risk.

Clearly, this is unrealistic. First, because as I've already said, because a company isn't at max profit doesn't mean it's unprofitable. Most companies are not because of the various laws and regulations needed to make economies function.

Irrelevant. You are saying that a profit-motivated company would take course of action X, but would be disallowed by this resolution. Therefore, it cannot ever be as profitable as a company following all the same rules except the one that prohibits course of action X.

Economic theory, backed by common sense, says they will increase working hours to achieve increased profit.

But the game you are playing disagrees. The game you are playing wins. Arguing anything else is as pointless as trying to argue that the boss in a videogame should be easier to shoot down because the engineering behind it should result in a more fragile machine.

Yes, I do. But they aren't "my" ideas. Credit must go to all the economists from past to present who made this stuff up. Real world > game, because game is based on real world.

No, this game is marginally based on the real world with a great deal of exaggeration for fun. The real world loses in case of conflict with the mechanics of the game. Seriously, this is on the same level with people pretending to be star empires saying the game should break because it's 'unrealistic' for a star empire not to have a population of trillions.

Fine, but so what? Oh no! He can't work over half of the entire week and has to go home and have enforced leisure time instead! That's so sad!

Yes, it's a violation of his right to choose what to do with his time.

So you're saying a cap on working hours isn't an issue of workers' rights?

No, I think it isn't necessarily a right to have such a cap, or to have it at 40 hours. That's purely your own belief.

If the Alliance of Capitalists, Conservatives and Economic Libertarians isn't right wing, then what is?

I'm not a member of that, or even tangentially associated with it. You said 'those who argue strongly against it,' not just the authors of the proposal itself.

If you can prove to me that the opposition to the repeal is primarily right wing, or conversely that support for the repeal is primarily left wing, then I'll accept my assertion that the strength of opposition argues in favour of the need for a 40-hour work week is wrong.

I don't have to, I just need to demonstrate your assertion has no real logical backing and is purely an assumption.

But just a cursory glance at this thread reveals that supporters of the repeal are generally capitalist economies with varying economic positions from moderate to extreme right, which opponents of the repeal are generally ranging from moderate to left wing, which is as expected.

My 'capitalist' nation here with a 100% tax rate? That's a new one.

Great, except I didn't claim that. All I said was that the stronger the opposition, the more the need for the 40-hour work week, which is in any case a personal value-judgement opinion based on what I believe to be correct.

Which is, again, an argument familiar to those who've debated creationists. Strong opposition can also mean something is wrong

Players base their roleplaying on game stats, or they are generally regarded as twinks. False dilemma.
I disagree. Many players choose to ignore the population stat, for instance, on account of it being absurd. Do they generally get regarded as "twinks"? Not in my experience. And 100% tax rates? Also often ignored, I suspect. And the Economy rating? Some roleplay high ratings as indicating developing nations with growing economies.

The game stats are a loose guide; there are too many inconsistencies and absurdities for me to pay too much attention to them.

I disagree. Many players choose to ignore the population stat, for instance, on account of it being absurd. Do they generally get regarded as "twinks"?

Yes, but only by scaling it downwards. If you call in an arbitary advantage by going upwards to trillions like some spacedy nations, you do indeed get called a twink. If you fiddle the stats for advantage it's bad.

Much like if your entire argument for keeping a UN resolution is based on ignoring the game stats, you're not standing on very firm ground at all with regards to that resolution's place in NS.

Some roleplay high ratings as indicating developing nations with growing economies.

Matter of interpretation, not of taking real-life over NS.

Much like if your entire argument for keeping a UN resolution is based on ignoring the game stats, you're not standing on very firm ground at all with regards to that resolution's place in NS.

I think it would be fair to say that most of the regulars have come to this point. Considering "stat-wanking" is often tossed out as an insult.......

Seriously, I have never seen this long of a stat debate on the UN forums. Just about all of our debates revolve around fantasical RPs of what our nations are with minimal reference to our actual nations. In my entire time on the UN forums, I've checked only two actual nation pages. Why? Because we seem to not care what those pages say in our debates. Yes, you see the odd person come along complaining about stats, but for the most part, they're ignored.

No, it should not. If you ignore the game stats, what's the point of having them?

In my experience very few people care greatly about them and in all RPs I've done, mostly in the East Pacific but a few here, they were indeed all but ignored.

Again, no. The game stats show that a 40-hour work week cannot be unprofitable, and this overrides any subjective interpretations of real-life data. It therefore need not be enforced by anything.

So this argues in favour of the 40-hour work week, doesn't it?

No, with what their logical conclusion is.

And you don't even seem to understand what I'm arguing so how can you claim to have reached their "logical conclusion"?

Because if it does not explain even one capitalist nation which has a strong economy but does not have protectionist policies, it fails as an explanation.

And why is that? Care to elaborate?

Because I can see the entire nation statblocks which can contain dozens or even hundreds of statistics which are used to calculate things like 'economy: good.'

Once again, care to elaborate? Something only mods can see, I presume.

It does, actually, since the unrealistic conditions happen to be the game you're playing. This is like arguing that a plastic cannon can't invade Africa just because you're losing at Risk.

Most people simply don't see the game in those terms. And it's completely useless arguing over these points if you won't step out of your fantasyland into the real world, which to me is the only way you can really weigh the merits of a resolution. It seems your entire argument is based on a slavish devotion to in-game stats, so there's really no point in me continuing to rebutt you point-by-point because we're operating on completely different terms here and going on like this will be fustrating and pointless for the both of us.

Irrelevant. You are saying that a profit-motivated company would take course of action X, but would be disallowed by this resolution. Therefore, it cannot ever be as profitable as a company following all the same rules except the one that prohibits course of action X.

Yes. So what? In the context I've been using, which I've just explained, that does not mean the law-abiding company is unprofitable. In the EU countries, work-time limits have not... argh. The hell with it.

Yes, it's a violation of his right to choose what to do with his time.

But that right will be violated to an even greater extent should his employer find increased working hours more profitable and demand them. And you aren't convincing anyone by saying in-game stats proves it won't happen, because very few people will buy that when reality says otherwise, as I think the response so far has shown.

No, I think it isn't necessarily a right to have such a cap, or to have it at 40 hours. That's purely your own belief.

And yours likewise. Except I've shown why I think what I think, while you have just... uh. Refer to what I just said regarding in-game versus reality.

I'm not a member of that, or even tangentially associated with it. You said 'those who argue strongly against it,' not just the authors of the proposal itself.

The authors of the repeal won't argue for their own resolution?

I don't have to, I just need to demonstrate your assertion has no real logical backing and is purely an assumption.

No evidence is necessary, just logical-seeming conjectures? Whatever you say. I'll stick with my illogical assumptions that the right wing is against economic regulation and the left wing is for government intervention in the economy, thank you.

Which is, again, an argument familiar to those who've debated creationists. Strong opposition can also mean something is wrong

There's a difference here, because creationism/evolution is a matter of facts versus fiction, while economic debates like these are simply different views. When I say "oh look these capitalist pigs hate the workers and we have to enforce 40-hour work weeks on them!" it's no more correct than a right-wing counterpart going "these evil commies want to destroy our markets by imposing restrictions!" and we can yell at each other for hours on end without a satisfactory conclusion and each thinking they've proven their point. On the other hand, someone actively denying scientific fact can be proven wrong by hard evidence. The creationist is wrong, however, the rightist simply has a different view which the opposing side of the spectrum thinks is wrong. Obviously I think I'm right, but that doesn't make it so.



If you obstinately insist on debating everything based on in-game stats and denial of reality, then there really isn't any point in continuing. What's it gonna be?

There's a lot of bickering here and what we need is a debate about the issues, not necessarily about who's right and who's wrong. What we're doing is setting the laws and regulations for those who are and aren't in the UN. There is no "you have the right/wrong idea" here. This is more about what will benefit more. So, this is what I have put together for you to look at. I hope it is acceptable to you all. and I hope we all vote for what we think is right for the nations of our game world.

I admit I have not read every page here. However, my decisions in the UN are all based off of assumptions from real life. I would assume many of us would agree that what we want is for the people of our nations to be happy and able to live the way they see fit for themselves inside the law. So I take real life experiences and apply them to how I vote.

The way I see this issue is this: sometimes, people need to work more than the 40 hours. I, in real life, have a friend who needs to pay for her college education, rent, and food. She works all the time. She has two jobs and is looking for another. People who have to work more than two jobs, like my friend, need longer work hours. They scramble for the hours they get and apply them to their other jobs. If the UN allowed for longer work hours, it would beneficial to the people of our nations who need those hours.

However, I may assume wrong on the intention of this committee. The UN, as I understood it, was to work for the benefit of all nations. Those nations are made up of the people within them. Game or not, if we are making decisions, we must think of the people within that decision. This is about making the right decision for the game citizens of our game world. We still need to think about their needs.

In my experience very few people care greatly about them and in all RPs I've done, mostly in the East Pacific but a few here, they were indeed all but ignored.

OOC: I'd like to chime in. I've been reading your exchanges with GMC, and frankly I think you've made the stronger point. In 2.5 years here, I've noticed that the majority of players that come to the forums and/or that participate on the off-site forums *mostly* ignore the game stats. Most of us can atest to the fact that we've seen plenty of complaints that the issues and the way they change our flavour text are unrealistic ... and here in the UN (a body that GMC rarely participates in) a much more frequent complaint that many UN active players have voiced is how many of the proposal categories themselves are unrealistic. I've not even got into the fact that populations only go UP and never down and that tax rates are completely unrealistic.

To base an argument in *this* forum on game stats is exceptionally weak, given that the game stats themselves are flawed.

The game was originally designed to sell a book. We *all* know that. It wasn't designed for people to play long-term.

That said, the fact that daily issues and UN resolutions bump our nations' classifications and big stats around *is* interesting at first. It is the draw to bring in new players. And they do pay attention at first. But people eventually get tired and ignore that.

If you look at NSWiki, many of us who really get into *documenting* our imaginary realms totally ignore most of the game engine mechanics.

I've always felt that people whom are relying upon game engine debates in their UN Roleplay simply are avoiding the *text* of the resolution ... and the text is much more interesting. If not, we should simply just talk about game stats and add one line. "Co-written by [X]" and focus on the game engine debates.

Seconds ago: The resolution Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek" was passed 9,494 votes to 3,854.

OOC: Here's how I play my nation. When I created Razat, I had a general idea what kind of nation I wanted, and I answered my issues accordingly. For the most part, I kept the stats fairly close to what I intended for my nation. There are always unintended consequences, but Razat is a fairly extreme country anyway. If there is a difference, I play Razat as it exists in my mind, not the game stats (though I try to keep them as close as possible).

One significant difference is the population. I planned Razat as an underdog, willing to fight against larger nations with terrorist/guerilla tactics, but it's hard to think of a nearly 500M pop nation as an underdog. So I've decided that Razat is a fragmented nation. The entire population might be nearly 500M, but only 70-80 million of those are really Razatians. So, I get my way, and the game gets its way.

For this 40 hour workweek, I don't really care about what it does to my stats. I don't even care how I feel IRL living in an unnamed rich first-world RL nation. I just care how a Razatian UN repesentitive would feel about having a 40 hour work week in a rough, poor nation where people are expected to work hard for the benefit of Razat. And perhaps how a Razatian citizen might feel knowing that those extra hours might make a difference in how well they eat that night.

This will now make it easier for people of all nations to persue a better life for themselves.
However socialist states will most likely have a problem with this new law.
Well done UN.

As much as this is seen as a game. This isn't a game for the PS2 boys and girls that think they're playing Command & Conquer. You have to use an amount of intelligence and your morals when you play this. As much as we are citizens in the gaming world; the assumptions we make shouldn't be based too much on the real world. Because in the real world, there are still people that are unhappy, there are still people that want to do better and can't. As much as someone needs to work two jobs to get something. There are those that want the same job but can't get it either because of transport costs, time, or even education. People can't even up and leave their home to move to the job nor can the job move to them.

In RL, in this case America, they're out to make a fast buck at every opportunity, pay for healthcare, pay for this pay for that; you don't have a job, you don't have a home and so you're out on the street. In the UK, college students get a student loan, do their education, work a crummy job if need be and a 40 hour week job would be a god send for them as they would even struggle to find a job for 40 hours, if you don't have a job, then you'd still have a home and be on unemployment benefit and still trying to pay off the loan.

We elect a government to look after our interests and not give everyone else grief. Example Korean war - North Korea invading south Korea; World War I and II, Germany wanting to own all of Europe; Rome - Roman Empire; Cyprus and Turkey, Cyprus causes conflict in Turkey, Turkey gives warning, Cyprus does it again, Turkey gives another warning, Cyprus does it again, Turkey invades Cyprus and imprisons all the cypriots. UN steps in, green line seperating the Turkish cypriots from the Greek Cypriots is formed and every country has to police it from time to time. Those people in those conflicting countries probably didn't want their country to go to war but it was some evil leader that forced the issue. To that end, needless people died and it was a simple waste of life, time and money. This is what the real world get up to, in the gaming world, it would be nice to live the dream, run your virtual country the way you want it rather than try and copy real life. You copy real life then you'd be copying the stupidity that exists today in the real world. Debt, terrorism, organised crime, drugs, guns and many more.

I'm happy that this law has been repealed. It means that the citizens of Mushat can go home and be with their family at a resonable time. In turn I hope that achieves the following:-

Lower divorce rates;
Lower unemployment;
Lower crime;
and Lower taxes (in time).

Companies wont try to manipulate their workers into working long hours but would employ a second or third workforce to do the work they require.

I'm happy that this law has been repealed. It means that the citizens of Mushat can go home and be with their family at a resonable time. In turn I hope that achieves the following:

Lower divorce rates;
Lower unemployment;
Lower crime;
and Lower taxes (in time).

Companies wont try to manipulate their workers into working long hours but would employ a second or third workforce to do the work they require.

You seem to have that confused. People do not go home at an earlier time because this is repealed. That makes no sense. This being repealed means that companies CAN manipulate there workers to work late.

I have no Idea what crime has to do with this.

This's effect on taxs is a very complicated thing to know and would likly depend on the country. Though I think it would be small.

Agreed and I voted wrong and even then it made no difference to the overall decision. I thought it was to repeal the resolution for having long hours.

To answer the question as to what crime has to do with it, well common sense suggests that if you have no work, you either fend off someone else, try to get another source of income ie finding a different job or turning to the life of crime. So if you live in an area where most of the good jobs are taken and you're having problems then you'll find that the easiest option would be the life of crime in the eyes of some people. Therefore dealing in drugs, robbing a bank etc etc is easy money with some risk of getting jailed along with it. This is what people do but if they were all employed, then they wouldn't be committing any crime, in turn, they'd have a family to consider thereby decreasing any likleyhood of turning to crime. This now means that the government will now have to fund these people through taxing those that do work for a living. If the population is higher than the work then the people will have to be funded; if the work was higher than the population then there is enough employment to go around and I would fully support the working more than 40 hours a week but that is never the case. The thing is that we'll be back to this on some other issue probably abortion, parental licensing or population control.

So we allow people to work more than 40 hours a week thereby depriving someone else of some much needed cash. So while Joe public is working his ass off to make a living, realises he's not making enough because of the governmental taxes that is taken off him to fund the guy that wants to work but will have to spend extra time looking for something else to do and may get that impatient, that hard working Joe Public will spend most of his pay funding himself and someone he doesn't even know. That's why probably people will have two, three jobs, does this on the side, does that because the government will take taxes off you to fund something else because of the choice that was made. You voted to pass longer working hours and that means something has to be done about those that can't find the same job as you. Now it means I'd have to pass legslation that will govern the working practices of these companies and give some leverage to the employee to govern his own work hours after the 40 hour cap and make it harder for the company to have employees working passed 40 hours ie overtime pay paid at the rate of triple time, if the company can afford it.

This will now make it easier for people of all nations to persue a better life for themselves.
However socialist states will most likely have a problem with this new law.
Well done UN.

There is no new law. This only removed a law.

In my experience very few people care greatly about them and in all RPs I've done, mostly in the East Pacific but a few here, they were indeed all but ignored.

I have the opposite experience. People who ignore their economy stat being low and make it high or people who ignore their population stat and wank it up to trillions are regarded as twinks. They can be regarded as a framework or outline, but ignoring them completely when they don't agree with you is generally regarded as unacceptable, especially when you do it to support yourself as here.

So this argues in favour of the 40-hour work week, doesn't it?

No, as said, it argues that there is no need to enforce it with international law. It's like enforcing the 'duty to respire' or 'duty to eat food occasionally.' If everyone does something anyway, a law enforcing it is utterly superfluous and entirely unworthy of the UN's attention.

And you don't even seem to understand what I'm arguing so how can you claim to have reached their "logical conclusion"?

I do understand what you're arguing, thank you. You are arguing there is a higher profit to be had by doing X. This necessarily means nations where X is impossible will have less profitable companies than nations where X is allowed, all other factors being equal. This means we should see companies fleeing those nations so they can be more profitable, if you premise that all companies will try to maximise profit is correct. They have not, so your argument is false.

And why is that? Care to elaborate?

Because it does not explain all cases.

Once again, care to elaborate? Something only mods can see, I presume.

Yes.

Most people simply don't see the game in those terms. And it's completely useless arguing over these points if you won't step out of your fantasyland into the real world, which to me is the only way you can really weigh the merits of a resolution.

Merits maybe, effects no. The resolution has certain mechanical effects on the game and does not have certain others. If the resolution's wording is far too strong for the mechanical effect it has [as you claim], it is illegal anyway.

It seems your entire argument is based on a slavish devotion to in-game stats, so there's really no point in me continuing to rebutt you point-by-point because we're operating on completely different terms here and going on like this will be fustrating and pointless for the both of us.

No, my argument is based on the idea that the only data we have about what the actual resolution did in the game comes from the game, so arguing that this data is incorrect severely damages the applicability of your argument to the actual game.

Yes. So what? In the context I've been using, which I've just explained, that does not mean the law-abiding company is unprofitable.

It means, all other factors being equal, it is less profitable.

But that right will be violated to an even greater extent should his employer find increased working hours more profitable and demand them.

That right is entirely independent of his actual contractual working hours. Red herring.

And you aren't convincing anyone by saying in-game stats proves it won't happen, because very few people will buy that when reality says otherwise, as I think the response so far has shown.

Two people other than yourself shows that 'very few people' will agree with my point? Out of tens of thousands of players?

And yours likewise. Except I've shown why I think what I think, while you have just... uh. Refer to what I just said regarding in-game versus reality.

I've shown actual in-game support for my opinion, whereas you've resorted to trying to ignore it rather than explain it, because you can't explain it. That means your position is vastly weaker with regard to the game.

The authors of the repeal won't argue for their own resolution?

The authors of the repeal are the only people who have ever strongly argued in favour of it?

No evidence is necessary, just logical-seeming conjectures?

'Burden of proof' demands that the person making the positive assertion [you, the assertion that 'reality,' by which you mean your own subjective interpretation thereof, is superior to the game stats] has to provide a compelling argument for its truth, and that the negative case is assumed otherwise.

Whatever you say. I'll stick with my illogical assumptions that the right wing is against economic regulation and the left wing is for government intervention in the economy, thank you.

And government intervention in the economy is always good for workers' rights, and a lack of regulation always bad? That's a hell of an assumption; if the government made laws about exactly when you have toilet breaks, would that be good for workers' rights? Would the removal of a law saying you could only do so once every four hours be bad for workers' rights?

If you obstinately insist on debating everything based on in-game stats and denial of reality, then there really isn't any point in continuing. What's it gonna be?

'Denial of reality' is a ridiculous way of putting it; the game stats are part of reality too, after all. I am simply pointing out you are appealing to evidence which has no in-game support and therefore making the resolution's effects massively further-reaching than a UN resolution's legal effects can ever actually be. You are arguing against the legality of the proposal itself, and providing another reason for it to be removed, as it has been.

If you think the wording of a resolution supports a far-reaching, persistently negative effect on capitalist economies without having the same effect on non-capitalist economies, you are arguing the resolution is both too strong to be legal and has a divided effect, making it illegal two times over. The resolution has a transient negative effect [equivalent to difficulties with companies adapting to the new law] and then no further negative effect. If you ignore what UN resolutions actually do, what's the point of having a UN?

Maybe you understand what I mean now. Let's go into a scenario where a company is in a nation with no other restrictions than what the UN has imposed. Being a law-abiding company, it adheres to the 40-hour work week, paying employees overtime up to 80 hours and refusing to allow them to work beyond that lest the authorities audit the records and fine them (generally, the method of enforcement in the real world).

But even with the now-repealed resolution in place that company could have set its wages so low that its employees had to work a lot of overtime in order to earn enough to live on...

GMC: this repeal had an effect. It improved economies slightly, raised economic freedoms slightly (I think) and reduced "basic welfare" - I'm guessing SW and Health - slightly. There may have been other effects, relating to tax rate, healthiness, etc. - I don't know, because I can't see the game stats.

So how does the appeal to game stats as the absolute basis of judgment work in this case?

If you ignore what UN resolutions actually do, what's the point of having a UN?
We can't see the stats - it is difficult for us to know what resolutions "actually do". We can, however, read the text of them - is working off that so unreasonable?

I have the opposite experience. People who ignore their economy stat being low and make it high or people who ignore their population stat and wank it up to trillions are regarded as twinks. They can be regarded as a framework or outline, but ignoring them completely when they don't agree with you is generally regarded as unacceptable, especially when you do it to support yourself as here.

You're talking of godmodding and the comparison simply doesn't apply because I'm not doing that and this isn't an RP.

No, as said, it argues that there is no need to enforce it with international law. It's like enforcing the 'duty to respire' or 'duty to eat food occasionally.' If everyone does something anyway, a law enforcing it is utterly superfluous and entirely unworthy of the UN's attention.

But I have already shown, and it's just simple common sense, that not everyone has a statutory 40-hour work week and overtime with a limit of 80 hours.

I do understand what you're arguing, thank you. You are arguing there is a higher profit to be had by doing X. This necessarily means nations where X is impossible will have less profitable companies than nations where X is allowed, all other factors being equal. This means we should see companies fleeing those nations so they can be more profitable, if you premise that all companies will try to maximise profit is correct. They have not, so your argument is false.

Opportunity cost of "fleeing", implying a complete alteration of the way the business operates and complete relocation of offices, factories, etc. is potentially much greater than the benefit. Furthermore, the backlash from consumers and the people of the nation it's fleeing can destroy its reputation and business. There's plenty of very good reasons the company doesn't flee. In fact "fleeing" is likely in most cases to negatively impact profit.

Because it does not explain all cases.

You try then, with a reasonable, realistic explanation.

No, my argument is based on the idea that the only data we have about what the actual resolution did in the game comes from the game, so arguing that this data is incorrect severely damages the applicability of your argument to the actual game.

People can decide for themselves if arguments based on real-world principles are more applicable than blind adherence to simplistic stats from a game intended to mimic the real world anyway. And I think the general consensus is that real-world based stuff is very applicable.

It means, all other factors being equal, it is less profitable.

Finally you get it! Have a gold star.

That right is entirely independent of his actual contractual working hours. Red herring.

You know what, I'm not going to even bother with this one because you'll pull some kind of proof of a time-warp making it possible for someone to be both at leisure and working simultaneously from the game stats.

Two people other than yourself shows that 'very few people' will agree with my point? Out of tens of thousands of players?

Of those who have stated their opinion on this matter, who in turn are citing their own experience of RP, there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for your view on this. In fact it appears you're the only one claiming that the game overrules reality in case of any conflict.

I've shown actual in-game support for my opinion, whereas you've resorted to trying to ignore it rather than explain it, because you can't explain it. That means your position is vastly weaker with regard to the game.

And vastly stronger with regard to real life. If it's a choice between the two I'd rather it be stronger and more applicable to the real world, because I don't live in the game.

'Burden of proof' demands that the person making the positive assertion [you, the assertion that 'reality,' by which you mean your own subjective interpretation thereof, is superior to the game stats] has to provide a compelling argument for its truth, and that the negative case is assumed otherwise.

Actually, to me, you are the one asserting that the game overrules reality, so you have to compel that. And yours is not a view which is finding much support among those who have cared to voice their opinion, or from my experience of RP based on this game.

The authors of the repeal are the only people who have ever strongly argued in favour of it?

And government intervention in the economy is always good for workers' rights, and a lack of regulation always bad? That's a hell of an assumption; if the government made laws about exactly when you have toilet breaks, would that be good for workers' rights? Would the removal of a law saying you could only do so once every four hours be bad for workers' rights?

Again with the strawmanning, and saying I assume things I don't assume? Are you deliberately trying to make me blow up or something?

If you think the wording of a resolution supports a far-reaching, persistently negative effect on capitalist economies without having the same effect on non-capitalist economies, you are arguing the resolution is both too strong to be legal and has a divided effect, making it illegal two times over. The resolution has a transient negative effect [equivalent to difficulties with companies adapting to the new law] and then no further negative effect. If you ignore what UN resolutions actually do, what's the point of having a UN?

And, as someone else said already, if all UN resolutions are reduced to "This has [effect]", what's the point of discussing anything in the UN forums? The entire UN forum is about debating the resolution itself, not its effects.

But even with the now-repealed resolution in place that company could have set its wages so low that its employees had to work a lot of overtime in order to earn enough to live on...

That's an argument for a living-wage resolution, not against the 40-hour work week.

But I have already shown, and it's just simple common sense, that not everyone has a statutory 40-hour work week and overtime with a limit of 80 hours.

And I have already shown no business would have any concievable interest in a work week longer than 40 hours according to the stats UN resolutions are based on. The resolution was therefore pointless.

Opportunity cost of "fleeing", implying a complete alteration of the way the business operates and complete relocation of offices, factories, etc. is potentially much greater than the benefit.

In which case they'd get bought out and dismantled by foreign interests instead. Either way, bad for them.

You try then, with a reasonable, realistic explanation.

I have, thank you. I've demonstrated several times that there is no support whatsoever for your position in the game.

People can decide for themselves if arguments based on real-world principles are more applicable than blind adherence to simplistic stats from a game intended to mimic the real world anyway. And I think the general consensus is that real-world based stuff is very applicable.

Not if the game unequivically says it isn't applicable by the stats it lays down. That severely undermines the 'reality' of your position since the stats happen to exist in reality too.

Finally you get it! Have a gold star.

How does this support you, then? If all things are equal, companies outside the UN will be more profitable if there is profit to be had in longer hours. That's what I've been saying since the word go, your attempts to redefine my argument to something more conveniant aside.

Of those who have stated their opinion on this matter, who in turn are citing their own experience of RP, there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for your view on this. In fact it appears you're the only one claiming that the game overrules reality in case of any conflict.

I'm not claiming that, I'm claiming that a position which opposes what the game says is a very, very weak one when you're trying to apply it to said game. If you can't support your position on the game you're playing with the game you're playing, your position is weak, just like the example of arguing that a plastic cannon can't conquer Africa.

And vastly stronger with regard to real life. If it's a choice between the two I'd rather it be stronger and more applicable to the real world, because I don't live in the game.

And you're not playing the real world when you're here, you're playing the game. If you want to play the real world, which enforces its rules with things like pain, death and sudden audits, the traditional first step is to turn off your computer.

Actually, to me, you are the one asserting that the game overrules reality, so you have to compel that. And yours is not a view which is finding much support among those who have cared to voice their opinion, or from my experience of RP based on this game.

So why bother with the game-coded structure of the UN if the game is less relevant than reality? Should we dismantle it entirely and turn this into a political debate forum with a sticky about the resolutions most people have agreed on?

Again with the strawmanning, and saying I assume things I don't assume? Are you deliberately trying to make me blow up or something?

You swung over from arguments about people who were 'most vocial' about arguing against the resolution to the people who proposed it and from whether it was an issue of workers' rights to 'left is in favour of regulation.' I'm sorry for assuming these points were somehow connected.

And, as someone else said already, if all UN resolutions are reduced to "This has [effect]", what's the point of discussing anything in the UN forums? The entire UN forum is about debating the resolution itself, not its effects.

Nice. Reverse that, why isn't the UN a debating club if you're going to ignore the mechanical effects resolutions have? Why are there rules on writing UN proposals within the game mechanics if the mechanics themselves are to be considered irrelevences?

GMC: this repeal had an effect. It improved economies slightly, raised economic freedoms slightly (I think) and reduced "basic welfare" - I'm guessing SW and Health - slightly. There may have been other effects, relating to tax rate, healthiness, etc. - I don't know, because I can't see the game stats.

So how does the appeal to game stats as the absolute basis of judgment work in this case?


We can't see the stats - it is difficult for us to know what resolutions "actually do". We can, however, read the text of them - is working off that so unreasonable?

Agreed!

I think the argument that we should be judging resolutions by a set of BROKEN game stat impacts that we don't exactly know is STUPID. Not the people, the idea <-- I want to make that point clear.

If all we wanted to do was to debate game-stat related changes, there would be absolutely zero need for body text in resolutions. Fortunately, in the past several years the UN forum has really focused on discussing the text and ignoring stat-wanking.

As far as I'm concerned IC the resolution was repealed based on the merit of the repeal relative to the merit of the original resolution ... not because thousands of NS players were stat-wanking. I'm sure that was some of the issue, but the two previous attempts to repeal this resolution failed, and I think it should be pointed out that this could suggest that this time the text of the repeal is what mattered the most.

That's an argument for a living-wage resolution, not against the 40-hour work week.

Has someone tried to write a living-wage resolution? I can't conceive of a practical implementaiton.

The way I see this issue is this: sometimes, people need to work more than the 40 hours. I, in real life, have a friend who needs to pay for her college education, rent, and food. She works all the time. She has two jobs and is looking for another. People who have to work more than two jobs, like my friend, need longer work hours. They scramble for the hours they get and apply them to their other jobs. If the UN allowed for longer work hours, it would beneficial to the people of our nations who need those hours.

I think a lot of people have been misled by the wording of the repeal. The resolution just repealed in no way prevented anyone from working more then 40 hours. It didn't even prevent people from working more then 80 as long they have 2 employers, (or are self employed).

Is someone going to make a new overtime resolution, without a hard cap at 80, (we can just mandate double pay over 80) and not limiting on call hours at all? I've also forgotten, did the prior resolution limit government employees? Aren't soldiers in a fire fight basically on call until the firefight ends?

I think a lot of people have been misled by the wording of the repeal. The resolution just repealed in no way prevented anyone from working more then 40 hours. It didn't even prevent people from working more then 80 as long they have 2 employers, (or are self employed).

Is someone going to make a new overtime resolution, without a hard cap at 80, (we can just mandate double pay over 80) and not limiting on call hours at all? I've also forgotten, did the prior resolution limit government employees? Aren't soldiers in a fire fight basically on call until the firefight ends?

Actually, a number of supporters of the original resolution likely found 80 hours to be a compromise number and a bit high. If a replacement is submitted, I would rather it keep many of the provisions of the original resolution, but simply stress that individuals that are self-employeed are not subject to the constraints of this resolution and that this resolution is designed to focus on employers and does not prohibit individuals from taking a second job.

The military issue is probably the only argument against the resolution that my government recognized as having any sort of serious merit, and should also be addressed in a replacement.

That said, I'd like to suggest that we do not try to immediately replace the original resolution for a few months, but instead focus on many of the other topics that are scheduled for our agenda.

Howie T. Katzman

Is someone going to make a new overtime resolution, without a hard cap at 80, (we can just mandate double pay over 80) and not limiting on call hours at all? I've also forgotten, did the prior resolution limit government employees? Aren't soldiers in a fire fight basically on call until the firefight ends?You missed the original debate. A good number of people thought that overtime should kick in for over 35 or even 32 hours, and many wanted the cap to be lower than 80 (some wanted as low as 60, I believe). As awful as the Resolution was, it was a compromise. Getting the on call provision removed and a double-time mandate for 80+ might very well be impossible.

As for your earlier question about minimum wage, they usually fail miserably. Exchange rates are a real bitch across 30,000 nations, and it's impossibly difficult to create a one-size-fits-all rate for such wildly different nations. A "living wage" for a 3rd world nation of dirt farmers is considerably different than for a nation like mine. Oddly enough, a maximum wage Proposal almost hit the queue once.


As an aside, any attempts to replace this thing will be argued by Ambassador Leary as unnecessary as there's already right to unions, heh.

I think the argument that we should be judging resolutions by a set of BROKEN game stat impacts that we don't exactly know is STUPID.That may be, but Kelssek was willing to engage in an argument about game-stats with someone who can see not only every nations' stats, but also the stats of every Resolution. When reminded that he was horribly outgunned in that department (as he doesn't have said access), he switched tactics. Reread the debate. You can see the change.

As far as I'm concerned IC the resolution was repealed based on the merit of the repeal relative to the merit of the original resolutionThey're having an OOC discussion; your IC viewpoint is, no offence, irrelevent.


And, really, it's gone even more esoteric at this point. Kinda going in circles, really. Still entertaining, though. Personally, I'd just kick back and watch. Or, stop reading the thread. Either works, I suppose.

The point I had to change tactics, actually, was when I realised GMC was actually taking the game stats completely seriously, as in "they prove my point" serious. That forced me to challenge their use as evidence.

I'm not going to continue, though. It's impossible since clearly neither of us are willing to argue on each others' terms, I feel I've made my points very clearly, and things have reached an impasse.

The IFTA has a living wage definition which every nation has to calculate itself given a basic formula. Perhaps it can be made into a proposal, but that'll be on the to do list for the evil left wing conspiracy to take over the UN; my own resolution is next to vote and I'm probably going to have to post "It very clearly says you do NOT have to change your emergency number" several times.

Later.

The point I had to change tactics, actually, was when I realised GMC was actually taking the game stats completely seriously, as in "they prove my point" serious. That forced me to challenge their use as evidence.

You sorta failed to explain why, if the game mechanics don't matter, the UN should continue to exist as a game entity, since it gives a status to passed UN resolutions no higher than a locked, stickied forum thread has. It's quite clear that this combined with there being rules about what the words in a UN resolution can say relative to the mechanical functions that resolution performs means that the mechanics of the resolution in the game are important.

Therefore, since the effect of a resolution is important, arguing it can have an effect it isn't legally allowed to have [persistantly negative on only some types of nation] is horrendously flawed, since mechanically the resolution simply isn't allowed to do that. You can argue 'realism' all you like, and I could counter by pointing out, for example, that 'realism' would also dictate there shouldn't be a large voting bloc of anti-capitalist nations in the UN because no such voting bloc exists in real life.

Your argument that realism always trumps game can also be used to argue for the deletion of several entire regions, and, indeed, for the deletion of almost every nation in the game, since having 104,000 nations is also unrealistic. This is generally a bad thing.

Context... Context... you're taking my stuff out of context. That in general sums up why you are so infuriating to argue with.

Context... Context... you're taking my stuff out of context.

You can say that all you like, but without demonstrating there is some 'context' your repeated claims that reality should override game is being taken out of, it's so much hot air.

It seems what you actually meant was that under certain circumstances, determined by you as conveniant, the game must give in to your particular definition of 'realism,' but when 'realism' is inconveniant, the game can override it. This sort of ad-hoc application of 'realism' is, in the end, just as unrealistic as the game's economy stats, and leaves you in no position to argue against their application.

Okay, well, I've talked this over with other more experienced RPers than myself, and so far I haven't had anyone say the game stats trump real considerations. One said that RP is based off real life, and not actually the game, i.e. the game isn't even part of RP, just that everyone accepts it as a basis. And in the UN forum I think it's safe to say you can't refute real economic theory using game stats as you've tried. That's simply not how we do it, I've been on the UN forums for over two years and this is the first time I've ever had a sustained argument where game stats were used as evidence.

I'll state that it's my belief game stats don't trump reality, but still I concede that reality isn't enforced strictly. I retract any previous statements that reality always trumps game stats. We've got suspension of disbelief working which allows us to accept the situation of 104k nations, space empires, etc., but no matter what you still have to put it into a realistic framework; that's what everyone seems to agree on. If you use game stats to say you have an uber-army, people still tend to consider it godmodding.

Therefore, since the effect of a resolution is important, arguing it can have an effect it isn't legally allowed to have [persistantly negative on only some types of nation] is horrendously flawed, since mechanically the resolution simply isn't allowed to do that.
So how do you explain the mechanical effect of a repeal, which at the same time cannot introduce any new legislation?

And in the UN forum I think it's safe to say you can't refute real economic theory using game stats as you've tried.

Why not? They're part of the game just as much as populations and numbers of nations are. If your reasoning for not repealing a proposal cannot include game stats, it's flawed. You haven't even tried to include them in your arguments, or to explain them, and they are therefore a severe weakness in your position.

If you use game stats to say you have an uber-army, people still tend to consider it godmodding.

And if you use game stats to say 'hold on, what you say is happening here isn't happening here,' it speaks ill of your opponent's position to neither be able to explain or incorporate those stats. A firm position in NS is one which respects the game and realism, not one that chooses which one seems nicer for this particular debate.

So how do you explain the mechanical effect of a repeal, which at the same time cannot introduce any new legislation?

Outside this discussion, but it can be explained as the reversion of things to the way they were before the resolution. Since the resolution has effect +X, logically the removal will have effect -X to return to the 0 state things were at before there was a resolution. For example, if there was a resolution to ban cars, there would be the effect of 'no cars,' and were that resolution repealed, there would be cars again. It won't always have an absolutely realistic explanation, which is another reason not to treat realism as an absolute goal. In much the same way, if a nation has already banned cars, a 'ban cars' UN resolution should have no initial effect, but it does.

Outside this discussion, but it can be explained as the reversion of things to the way they were before the resolution. Since the resolution has effect +X, logically the removal will have effect -X to return to the 0 state things were at before there was a resolution.
As an aside: this is not what repeals do. For resolution effect +X, a repeal has effect -X/2. (Don't know the actual numbers - it may not be a half, but a third or two-thirds or whatever. In any case, a repeal has a less pronounced effect than a resolution.) There is not the logical reversion you say there should be - and I agree with you, insofar as one could reasonably expect that to happen.

For example, if there was a resolution to ban cars, there would be the effect of 'no cars,' and were that resolution repealed, there would be cars again. It won't always have an absolutely realistic explanation, which is another reason not to treat realism as an absolute goal. In much the same way, if a nation has already banned cars, a 'ban cars' UN resolution should have no initial effect, but it does.
I don't understand. Firstly, "there would be cars again" does not follow. A repeal only removes a law: it makes no new law. Repeal "Ban Cars" would permit nations to have cars; it would not force them to have them. It is possible, then, though obviously improbable*, that all nations would retain bans on cars. And certainly, it is unlikely that every nation would reinstate cars to the exact extent as prior to the resolution immediately (which could be used to justify the actual effect of a repeal).

Secondly, you say "but it does". That's it? Where's your justification for that? A resolution banning cars should have no effect on a nation without cars (except by proxy - but that could be used to argue around any mechanical effect). That "it does" seems to me more an inherent - and, provided we don't take too seriously what is of course a game, perfectly understandable, and very minor - flaw in the game mechanics of the NSUN.

* Bear in mind, though, resolutions such as Abortion Rights. Plenty of nations who wanted to keep its every provision in national law voted for its repeal, because they felt it was an issue for national government.

I don't understand. Firstly, "there would be cars again" does not follow. A repeal only removes a law: it makes no new law. Repeal "Ban Cars" would permit nations to have cars; it would not force them to have them.

Yes, but 'ban cars' would also not ban cars in nations that already have banned cars, so it works in both directions.

That "it does" seems to me more an inherent - and, provided we don't take too seriously what is of course a game, perfectly understandable, and very minor - flaw in the game mechanics of the NSUN.

Indeed. The fact that we can use the mechanics to make certain conclusions about what's going on with regards to a particular resolution neither renders them perfect nor non-contradictory. If a mechanical effect can be explained in a rational manner [as with noting that >40 hour work weeks cannot be significantly more profitable because this doesn't match what we see in NS] then fine and good, though.

Even in the case of a nation which had banned cars but saw an effect on the auto industry anyway, you could argue that the effect is damage to their sales to other nations; after all, banning cars in nation A doesn't mean they can't export cars, car parts or gasoline to nation B. If all UN nations have no cars, this nation will see problems despite no domestic vehicle ownership because of the damage to their export markets. In the same way, the repeal might not allow cars back, but could return the markets for auto parts, synthetics, gasoline and so on and thus boost industry without cars actually coming back.

In the case of abortion rights, the negative effect could be argued to indicate the removal of the right of a UN citizen to seek an abortion in a UN nation; while they might have such rights retained in their own nation, they may lose such rights in another. These would be the same rights 'gained' by abortion rights being applied to nations which already had them.