NationStates Jolt Archive

Individual Working Freedoms
A resolution to develop industry around the world.
Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Labor Deregulation
Proposed by: Gruenberg

Description: The United Nations,

Steadfastly reaffirming its commitment to individual liberty,

Believing that individuals should be free of undue government interference in making decisions governing their personal lives, where possible,

Convinced that the issues of when, how often, and for how long an individual works should remain an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee,

Equally standing against all forms of slavery and oppression of workers' rights, and to this end recognising Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions", as an effective means through which workers can negotiate fair time schedules and contractual obligations,

Recalling the repeal of Resolution #59, "The 40 Hour Workweek", and the reasons therein given for the weaknesses of the prior document,

Dissenting from the view that one standard working week can be determined as a universal diktat, given the diversity of national economies, the particulars of industries working on cyclical, seasonal or other irregular working patterns, and the varying conditions, demographic, environmental, developmental, and otherwise, of member nations,

Considering any attempt to impose a "one size fits all" manacle of working time constriction as a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms,

Desirous of reaching a sensible compromise on the issue:

1. Requests that nations grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, and respect the rights of individuals to negotiate contracts privately;

2. Supports the removal of regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

3. Declares it the right of nations to set reasonable restrictions on workweeks, working schedules and overtime arrangements, and equally to choose to delegate such decisions to a more local, or preferably to the individual, level;

4. Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making.

It is time to stand up for individual rights.
To do so, endorse it here: http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=freedoms
Pleeease.

Thank you.

Ehhh, I got no big complaints. I'm also not reading too critically, I'll save an approval for later, after I've gone over it again.

Ehhh, I got no big complaints. I'm also not reading too critically, I'll save an approval for later, after I've gone over it again.
*removes from TG spam list*

However, please do approve it, or FEEL THE WRATH OF SHEKNU.

While the government of Telidia appreciates and respects the sentiment of the honourable from member Sheknu we maintain there is place for international regulation with regard to working hours. As such we can regrettably not support article three.

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

It is such a shame that a nation which brought forth the GTT and made excellent effort at trying to replace the repealed Ban Chemical Weapons resolution has now fallen so greatly as to work alongside the Wenaist Zealots of Gruenberg in bringing forth this disgraceful proposal - claiming to promote "individual's rights" while removing the protections granted to individuals to prevent the abuse of all employers while casting a "isn't that a shame" glance in the direction of all the attrocities committed. What evil must've possessed the Sheknu delegation to consider such a choice puts a chill in our spine.

Dissenting from the view that one standard working week can be determined as a universal diktat, given the diversity of national economies, the particulars of industries working on cyclical, seasonal or other irregular working patterns, and the varying conditions, demographic, environmental, developmental, and otherwise, of member nations,
Other than a question on the use of 'diktat' here we find no problems with this one... As believe the word desired it 'dictate' in place of what you have.

As far as other comments on clause three we fully agree with that clause as only individual nations know what is a proper work schedule for it citizens.. As not all nations run on a 24 hour 7 day week 52 week year 12 month year 365 day year... due to the natural rotation of the planet their nation happens to be on as well as the seasonal changes on that planet. Thus to set something like a 40 hour work 'week' as standard would not work for all as stated in this. Thus the reason this is needed to prevent abuse of a nations rights to have it citizens working on an effective schedule.

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

OOC: Holy Crap! I haven't seen a quintuple post since the move to Jolt.

Best multiple post string EVER. 4 is the longest I've seen. I wonder if I should click "Submit reply" as fast as I can...

claiming to promote "individual's rights" while removing the protections granted to individuals to prevent the abuse of all employers while casting a "isn't that a shame" glance in the direction of all the attrocities committed.Isn't protecting the rights of workers the entire point of unions? The UN forces nations to accept unions, it shouldn't need to do anything else. If a union can't protect a worker's rights, what the fuck good are they?

Sorry to see you arguing for a repeal of the Right to Form Unions. Never would have expected that from you.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Isn't protecting the rights of workers the entire point of unions? The UN forces nations to accept unions, it shouldn't need to do anything else. If a union can't protect a worker's rights, what the fuck good are they?

Sorry to see you arguing for a repeal of the Right to Form Unions. Never would have expected that from you.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Why is there an assumption that one form of protection is all that is needed? Why is it assumed that unions are the end all solution to all the problems in the UN and all the worker abuses? Why is it that a single tong in the problem is seen as the solution to everything.

Unions are a necessary evil simply because they provide a rallying point. However, they are useless as a permanent solution for they are no less susceptable to corruption than any other body. There is a necessity in their ability to be formed, but there is also a necessity for there to be other means of having a decent treatment from an employer.

I can't recall whether I actually voted on Right to Form Labor Unions, now that I think about it.

It is such a shame that a nation which brought forth the GTT and made excellent effort at trying to replace the repealed Ban Chemical Weapons resolution has now fallen so greatly as to work alongside the Wenaist Zealots of Gruenberg in bringing forth this disgraceful proposal -
It would appear that Wenaist elements have insinuated themselves into the government of Sheknu. The First Chief Directorate of the Yeldan Committee for State Security has expressed an interest in this development and will be making inquiries.

I have some thoughts on this, which I'll post here later today.

OOC: I'm having my breakfast and it's too damned early to discuss this in detail.

OOC: I'm having my breakfast and it's too damned early to discuss this in detail.

Jeez... I should get to bed.

Jeez... I should get to bed.Shit. Me too. Right after "The Daily Show."

Now then ... the Federal Republic maintains its utmost confidence in the government and leadership of Sheknu. And that's not just because there's a specter of a giant goat-woman standing over my shoulder, telling me what to say ... er ... What was that, Your Goddessness? ... I'm tellin' 'em, I'm tellin' 'em! ... Don't know why I'm letting you boss me around, anyway; I don't subscribe to your religion. As Homer Simpson would say, we came to our senses and now worship a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago! ... er ...

We love Sheknu. We love workers. We love freedom. We love this proposal. :fluffle:

Why is there an assumption that one form of protection is all that is needed? Why is it assumed that unions are the end all solution to all the problems in the UN and all the worker abuses? Why is it that a single tong in the problem is seen as the solution to everything.If unions don't provide these protections, why do they exist? If a union doesn't make sure that their workers receive overtime and have good working situations, then why are we bothering with them? Why are workers paying dues to entities that don't fulfill their obligations?

Or, let's turn this around.

If we have UN laws mandating working hours, working safety, hourly wages, etc. then why do we need unions?

So, yes, when that "one form of protection" is supposed to, by definition, protect all rights, everything else is superfluous. Or do you like redundant legislation? More jobs for the Compliance Ministry, I guess.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

It is time to stand up for individual rights.Okey dokey, lets see how this goes...Steadfastly reaffirming its commitment to individual liberty,

Believing that individuals should be free of undue government interference in making decisions governing their personal lives, where possible,Pretty much okay.Convinced that the issues of when, how often, and for how long an individual works should remain an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee,I'd perhaps add "their representitives" as a nod to #149, rather than cite #149 directly. But that's personal taste.Equally standing against all forms of slavery and oppression of workers' rights, and to this end recognising Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions", as an effective means through which workers can negotiate fair time schedules and contractual obligations,Meh.Recalling the repeal of Resolution #59, "The 40 Hour Workweek", and the reasons therein given for the weaknesses of the prior document,Meh.Dissenting from the view that one standard working week can be determined as a universal diktat, given the diversity of national economies, the particulars of industries working on cyclical, seasonal or other irregular working patterns, and the varying conditions, demographic, environmental, developmental, and otherwise, of member nations,Fair enough.Considering any attempt to impose a "one size fits all" manacle of working time constriction as a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms,Quite right too.

I think the preamble could do with recognising the importance of a healthy work-life balance, and perhaps how excessive work is an undermining force in the integrity of family life, which is the most fundamental form of association. Or something like that. :)Desirous of reaching a sensible compromise on the issue:
1. Requests that nations grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, and respect the rights of individuals to negotiate contracts privately;Yup fair enough.2. Supports the removal of regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;Yup.3. Declares it the right of nations to set reasonable restrictions on workweeks, working schedules and overtime arrangements, and equally to choose to delegate such decisions to a more local, or preferably to the individual, level;This seems mostly fine for me. I'd like to see something else added though along the lines of "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."

(that's shamelessly ripped straight out of the RL Universal Declaration of Human Rights)4. Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making.Yup.

IN it's present form, I'd probably vote for. If those changes were considered, I would certainly vote for.

I'd like to see something else added though along the lines of "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."
I omitted this, as I am aware of another delegation preparing something on holidays, and didn't want to tread on their toes/redundantly up the word count.

So, I think your concerns will be covered - in a separate proposal.

As to the other comments: if it does not reach quorum, I'll consider including them. However, the main focus of this proposal is on economic liberty: that restrictions on that can be beneficial for health and productivity is relevant, but only partially so.

So, I think your concerns will be covered - in a separate proposal.
I like the gist of the proposal, if not its exact wording, but I would never count on a promise like this.

I omitted this, as I am aware of another delegation preparing something on holidays, and didn't want to tread on their toes/redundantly up the word count.

So, I think your concerns will be covered - in a separate proposal.

As to the other comments: if it does not reach quorum, I'll consider including them. However, the main focus of this proposal is on economic liberty: that restrictions on that can be beneficial for health and productivity is relevant, but only partially so.That's fair enough, thank you.

OOC: Although it does put me in the quandry of hoping this might fail, so that the comments I've made might be acted upon.

I like the gist of the proposal, if not its exact wording, but I would never count on a promise like this.
Oh, it's not a promise. I'm not saying I will cover that material - I won't. But I have seen another proposal draft on holiday/leave, so I'm not going to concern myself with it.

The Democratic Republic of Daisetta will support this proposal if it reaches quorum, seeing in it nothing offensive to our sensibilities of individual freedom of any description nor in any direction.

If we have UN laws mandating working hours, working safety, hourly wages, etc. then why do we need unions?

You'd have to ask someone that likes unions. I would rather the UN mandate laws on working hours, working safety and hourly wages in exchange for losing our Right to Unions.

Does this proposal DO anything? It is not a blocker because stronger mesures could be put in place without repealing this. It does not protect human rights... This seems to be just a way of saying haha we repealed the "40 hour workweek" .

Does this proposal DO anything?
Yes. In general, the Gruenberger UN Office follows standard legislative practice, and numbers operative clauses.

To find out what it does, read the numbered clauses.

It is not a blocker because stronger mesures could be put in place without repealing this.
Give me an example.

It does not protect human rights...
Pity I submitted it in the Human Rights category then.




















OH WAIT

This seems to be just a way of saying haha we repealed the "40 hour workweek" .
haha we did?

All this stuff is pretty good in theory as in theroy it will improve individual freedoms. Love and esterel had always supported individual freedoms and it's why in a pure utopian situation we would support this proposal.

But we had also always supported sensible regulation in case of abuses and the work market place is full of abuses from both sides.

Instead of promoting a balanced clause between individual freedoms and prevention of abuses, this proposal is pure utopia, and promote anarchy.

Instead of promoting a balanced clause between individual freedoms and prevention of abuses, this proposal is pure utopia, and promote anarchy.
No. Anarchy would also entail social freedoms. And we don't like those, at all.

Well about my last post here I made a mistake that lead me to make a pretty stupid reply. I looked over it and missed the declares(request may count also) I thought it was just the stuff like supports recals... Because it says declares now it is just a blocker and it will be deleted(or should).

sorry about that stupid mistake...

Because it says declares now it is just a blocker and it will be deleted(or should).
I would be interested to see why you think it should be deleted. Presuming to speak for the mods doesn't count as justification in my view.

You'd have to ask someone that likes unions. I would rather the UN mandate laws on working hours, working safety and hourly wages in exchange for losing our Right to Unions.Dammit, you're no fun. I thought all you filthy fluffies liked unions. Piss.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Mutter Mutter Grumble Grumble
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Dammit, you're no fun. I thought all you filthy fluffies liked unions. Piss.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Mutter Mutter Grumble Grumble
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

That's like saying all conservatives hate gays.

I've been reading this proposal over and over trying to find the catch. Authored by the representative from Gruenberg, I figured there has to be one. He just wouldn't write a reasonable sounding proposal without a bloody catch :p.

Well, I couldn't find one. That means it doesn't exist or is very carefully hidden. Now for what could come as a shock to some, I like this proposal. Yes, I know it is a blocker, but because it is carefully targetted and only affects working hours, I don't have a problem with that. I also like the fact it is pushing nations to allow the individual to have as much say in their working hours as possible, instead of the usual blocker speak of "let nations decide".

This is one of the few subjects where I do agree that a one size fits all proposal just wouldn't work, and I'm judging that from the posts people wrote in the repeal thread. This effort is, to my mind, a good compromise. I would like to see clause 2 strengthened up a bit though. It deals with unfair practices, so could be a bit stronger to emphasise that without violating nat sov, which I know you won't do. Strongly supports or something like that perhaps?

I hope this gets to quorum/vote soon. Sent my rights loving co-representative down to the basement of the UN building for some lightbulbs when I saw this in the list, because she would no doubt oppose it. Considering what is down there she probably won't be back for a few weeks at least.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

We thank the representative of Witchcliff for their comments. Yours was one nation whose views we were keen to hear on this proposal.

With regards to strengthening clause 2, it's not so much national sovereignty - we've stated we find this concept less applicable in matters of international trade - as practicality that's moving us to retain its "mild" nature. The decision of what constitutes an unfair infringement of personal liberty, and what a reasonable regulation in the interests of the greater good, is a necessarily complex one. It's for individuals, work tribunals, perhaps unions and boards, to decide on. It's not something one UN proposal can realistically draw sharp lines on, though.

However, were it to fail to reach quorum (72 approvals as of now), we would consider rewording it to maintain its flexibility whilst affirming a more proactive stance. This does not, though, negate the fact that as it stands, this clause would not prevent future proposals from more explicitly ruling on employment law.

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

Working time restrictions have been consistently painted in these halls as infringing on individual rights when it fact they protect them. Limits on working hours are not limits placed on workers, they are placed on employers. Employers are punished for contravening them, and not the workers. Workers and their unions usually fight FOR working hours restrictions, and not against them, because they protect the right to leisure time and promote freedom of choice. They protect people from being overworked and guarentee them the most important commodity people possess, their time.

This proposal is a despicable piece of legislation because it pretends to guarentee individual liberty when in fact it seeks to trample it in the pursuit of greed. Not satisfied with the kick in the shins they dealt to human rights with the repeal of the 40-hour work week, the economic libertarian nations want to take things further, all cloaked in the deceptive statement that they stand for individual liberty.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the United Nations

Convinced that the issues of when, how often, and for how long an individual works should remain an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee.

Does "private negotiation" include the possibility of the employer and the employee negotiating through, or with the support of, representatives?

It may seem obvious that it does -- I note the reference to #149 -- but, though Ardchoille would never let such things happen, I somehow find it easy to imagine a country (possibly one that is "young and free", not to mention "girt by sea"), where 17-year-olds in their first jobs are now expected to "negotiate" individual contracts with employers who've been busily doing down the workers for longer than the kid's been alive.

And to do it without any "representatives" who might have helped even things out a bit.

So I'm a little leery of anything that might lock-in such inequities in nations less fortunate in industrial conciliation than Ardchoille.

I'd appreciate reassurance on this point from the proposer, whose word, despite our philosophical differences, I would unhesitatingly accept.

-- Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

Working time restrictions have been consistently painted in these halls as infringing on individual rights when it fact they protect them.
One should be able to work for as long as one wishes. Any cap on that is a restriction.

Limits on working hours are not limits placed on workers, they are placed on employers.
This contradicts what you said above. Employers are individuals too, remember. (And before people start with the evil corporation shit, small businesses thrive in Gruenberg.)

Employers are punished for contravening them, and not the workers.
If there is an 80-hour cap (as a random example), and someone tries to work for 81 hours, they are breaking the law.

Workers and their unions usually fight FOR working hours restrictions, and not against them, because they protect the right to leisure time and promote freedom of choice.
How does introducing laws that prevent someone from choosing to work for however long they want infringe on "freedom of choice"? Or do you mean "freedom to choose what we want them to choose"?

As for a "right" to leisure time, we recognise no such right. It is a luxury - one we feel all citizens should enjoy, by the way - that one acquires through working.

They protect people from being overworked and guarentee them the most important commodity people possess, their time.
People are the most important commodity a nation possesses. And you're already slipping away from the proposal: individual freedom of choice does not entail being "overworked", as that would imply having to work longer than one wishes - an infringement of that freedom.

This proposal is a despicable piece of legislation because it pretends to guarentee individual liberty when in fact it seeks to trample it in the pursuit of greed.
So you don't believe choosing how long one works for is a liberty?

Not satisfied with the kick in the shins they dealt to human rights with the repeal of the 40-hour work week, the economic libertarian nations want to take things further, all cloaked in the deceptive statement that they stand for individual liberty.
Gruenberg is hardly an economic libertarian nation. We voted for the Workplace Safety Act, and there are national government monopolies on assorted industries. We have high income taxes, legal trade unions, and we like pummelling workers with sticks.

And no, we're not great fans of individual liberty. But we do believe people should be able to choose for how long they work. Just seems like common sense to us.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

The Cloud-Water Community has suspended its membership of the UN pending the outcome of a referendum [OOC: that, and I've been too lazy to rejoin since getting back from me holidays]. However, were we able to vote on this proposal, we would undoubtedly cast a firm "no", for the reasons outlined by Ambassadors Lattener of Kelssek and Co-President Reilly of Ardchoille. The proposal is built on some naive assumptions, chief among them the concept that private contractual negotiations are able to be conducted with no element of coercion on the part of the employer.

The proposal as drafted would be satisfactory for a nation with a tradition of respect for individual rights. However, my time in international politics has demonstrated to me that such nations are not predominant. The terms of this proposal play into the hands of the unscrupulous employer and leaves the worker at his or her mercy.

I would prefer to see the essence of the original 40 Hour Work Week resolution preserved, with minor alterations to mitigate its perceived excesses: the removal of the 80 hour cap, a more flexible approach to treatment of on-call hours, etc.

Sadly, I can see all too clearly the direction UN legislation in this area is taking. I fear that my compatriots have tired of an institution tumbling into conservative hands and will thus vote to withdraw Ecopoeia on a permanent basis. I feel strongly that such a course of action is wrong; indeed, my predecessors frequently berated conservatives for resigning their membership rather than fighting for their beliefs when the so-called 'left' held sway. Perhaps they gave them too much encouragement...

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Ms. Chakrabarti, for the sake of civil discourse within these assembly halls, it is the hope of the Teruchevan delegation that your nation remains attached to this body for many years to come.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Does "private negotiation" include the possibility of the employer and the employee negotiating through, or with the support of, representatives?
...
So I'm a little leery of anything that might lock-in such inequities in nations less fortunate in industrial conciliation than Ardchoille.
I thank you for your kind words, and I must admit I cannot answer your concerns.

At first, I thought you were speaking only about how your nation would be permitted to interpret the proposal. In such a case, certainly, negotiation through representatives would not be verboten, and could very well be mandated in fact. However, I realize now you were making a point regarding how other nations might interpret it. For those, yes, there would be the possibility of excluding representatives from negotiations.

We do not consider this a major concern, though, as The Right to Form Unions is still in effect, and as it contains no mandate with regard to union size and conditions of formation, it would be easy for UN workers to find collective representation.

However, were we able to vote on this proposal, we would undoubtedly cast a firm "no", for the reasons outlined by Ambassadors Lattener of Kelssek and Co-President Reilly of Ardchoille. The proposal is built on some naive assumptions, chief among them the concept that private contractual negotiations are able to be conducted with no element of coercion on the part of the employer.
First, let me join with President Perry in wishing for your delegation's continued presence within these halls, even if it is solely in capacity of an observer.

Nonetheless, we take umbrage at the suggestion our proposal is "naive". We would rather regard it as "deliberately, malevolently cynical". We're not kidding ourselves about what this would mean for workers' rights in many nations, including our own. We can't wait.

Also, we point out that coercion on the part of the employee is equally possible. Three summers ago, Gruenberg's automotive industry was ravaged by a series of wildcat strikes. We know all too well the capacity of the prole to tear down civilization in pursuit of his selfish aims.

The proposal as drafted would be satisfactory for a nation with a tradition of respect for individual rights. However, my time in international politics has demonstrated to me that such nations are not predominant. The terms of this proposal play into the hands of the unscrupulous employer and leaves the worker at his or her mercy.
They play into the hands of the scrupulous employer, actually. Workers who are treated poorly would tend not to work hard, or to seek employment elsewhere, or not to buy the products of the company that maltreats them. Employers who grant their workers considerable freedoms would likely see increased productivity, which would tend to be good.

And Gruenberg has almost no tradition of individual rights (except when it comes to important things like money, guns, smoking, and knocking your wife about a bit if your tea's not ready on time) - yet we plan on enacting portions of the optional provisions of this proposal into law. I think your assumption too sweeping to be valid.

I would prefer to see the essence of the original 40 Hour Work Week resolution preserved, with minor alterations to mitigate its perceived excesses: the removal of the 80 hour cap, a more flexible approach to treatment of on-call hours, etc.
And I'd prefer to repeal "End Slavery" and allow us to get out the shackles and whips again, but sometimes we should seek The Fair Compromise.

Sadly, I can see all too clearly the direction UN legislation in this area is taking. I fear that my compatriots have tired of an institution tumbling into conservative hands and will thus vote to withdraw Ecopoeia on a permanent basis. I feel strongly that such a course of action is wrong; indeed, my predecessors frequently berated conservatives for resigning their membership rather than fighting for their beliefs when the so-called 'left' held sway. Perhaps they gave them too much encouragement...
I would hope the "left" does not simply resign as the UN does turn more rightwards. Firstly, part of the importance of international relations is as a meeting point for opposing views. Without that, there is little point in its existence.

Secondly, because we need someone to irritate by proposing this sort of stuff.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I'll be supporting this with eager abandon.

Freedom = Opportunity. Opportunity = Prosperity.

(and smog = jobs, but that's for another debate)

W.

I'd just like to point out, amongst all your heated workers rights debate, that this resolution doesn't do anything:

Individual Working Freedoms
A resolution to develop industry around the world.
Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Labor Deregulation
Proposed by: Gruenberg

Description: The United Nations,

Steadfastly reaffirming its commitment to individual liberty,

Believing that individuals should be free of undue government interference in making decisions governing their personal lives, where possible,

Convinced that the issues of when, how often, and for how long an individual works should remain an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee,

Equally standing against all forms of slavery and oppression of workers' rights, and to this end recognising Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions", as an effective means through which workers can negotiate fair time schedules and contractual obligations,

Blah blah, essay opinion stuff. No operative clauses here.


Recalling the repeal of Resolution #59, "The 40 Hour Workweek", and the reasons therein given for the weaknesses of the prior document,

Dissenting from the view that one standard working week can be determined as a universal diktat, given the diversity of national economies, the particulars of industries working on cyclical, seasonal or other irregular working patterns, and the varying conditions, demographic, environmental, developmental, and otherwise, of member nations,

Considering any attempt to impose a "one size fits all" manacle of working time constriction as a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms,


Racalling, Dissenting, Considering. Still no operative clauses. This is looking like a high school report on workers rights more then a UN Resolution.


Desirous of reaching a sensible compromise on the issue:


Ahh, here we go, perhpas now we'll MANDATE something.


1. Requests that nations grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, and respect the rights of individuals to negotiate contracts privately;


Requests, I suppose thats a command. Doesn't command much though, whats the greatest possible degree? Isn't this stuff already legislated in better, more specific and concise resolutions? This is pretty vague and nebulous.


2. Supports the removal of regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;


Supports? This isn't an operative clause, just more opinion. Havn't we already established theroughly the stance and intended purpose of this proposal already?


3. Declares it the right of nations to set reasonable restrictions on workweeks, working schedules and overtime arrangements, and equally to choose to delegate such decisions to a more local, or preferably to the individual, level;


Okay, so basically nations can do whatever they want regarding workers rights. Couldn't they do that without this resolution? Doesn't this make this a blocker, doing nothing but making it so no other resolutions can come along and legislate this issue?


4. Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making.


Promotes, I see, so we should, but we don't have to. Not exactly a law or anything. So to summarize we have several clauses stating the opinion of the author, one clause requesting something vague about maximizing workers rights, and one clause declaring that nations have the "right" to set working standards indevidually, which they can since the repeal of 40 hour workweek. Man, there really isn't a whole lot of proposal here, all it does is, basically, block other proposals from legislating on the issue of workers rights, and even that it does so vaguely that it fails as a blocker. There is really not much here to debate.

Okay, so basically nations can do whatever they want regarding workers rights. Couldn't they do that without this resolution? Doesn't this make this a blocker, doing nothing but making it so no other resolutions can come along and legislate this issue?

If such were the case, I would have cut huge ass about this. However, to be fair, it's dealing with the working hours, not all workers rights.



As an aside, I'm ambivalent about this proposal.

Misphrased, it is only about working hours, my mistake.

I've said before that balance is needed.

However, absolute freedom is not balance. Just because a law is difficult or complex does not mean it should be shied away from and just because some moron might try to replace 40HWW with an equally stupid POS isn't reason to block it.

Opposed.

So you don't believe choosing how long one works for is a liberty?

That's a liberty you are seeking to destroy, sir, do not claim you are upholding it because that would be a lie.

Your attitude towards people, considering them as "commodities" for the nation, is yet another regretful example of the rotten disregard that capitalists have for the people and for the individual. You yourself admit your malevolent motives. You have no regard for the individual, yet you claim you do. You are a liar, sir, and your proposal is truly repugnant.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

I'd just like to point out, amongst all your heated workers rights debate, that this resolution doesn't do anything:
Yes it does. It takes a stance on an issue and requests that nations follow it.

Blah blah, essay opinion stuff. No operative clauses here.
...
Racalling, Dissenting, Considering. Still no operative clauses. This is looking like a high school report on workers rights more then a UN Resolution.
You do know what a preamble is, right?

Requests, I suppose thats a command. Doesn't command much though, whats the greatest possible degree? Isn't this stuff already legislated in better, more specific and concise resolutions?
Show me them.

Supports? This isn't an operative clause, just more opinion. Havn't we already established theroughly the stance and intended purpose of this proposal already?
Yes. Now we're enacting it.

There is really not much here to debate.
Then I wouldn't waste your time attempting to do.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

That's a liberty you are seeking to destroy, sir, do not claim you are upholding it because that would be a lie.
So it is a liberty? Glad we've established that. Why, then, did you support to the death a resolution that annihilated our freedoms by capping workers' hours?

And I do support the liberty of choice in working time - it's rather why I'm supporting a proposal on the subject. Speaking of the proposal, I note a conspicuous absence of commentary on its actual text on your parts. How astonishing that with this dedication to addressing the real points of debate your support for The 40 Hour Workweek wasn't enough to prevent it being repealed.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

ooc: Sorry to triple post. Bugger - I thought it had an extra day in queue. Must have submitted it before the Monday update by mistake.

It fell short with ~115 approvals.

It's called arguing the principle. We oppose the very principle of your proposal. You are not aruging to promote liberty, you are arguing to dismantle it. You want to free not the employees, but their employers - to demand more working time from their employees, to increase working hours without fear of punishment. Already employees in many countries have had the law protecting them from being made to work more than 80 hours removed, and you want more. You are the one seeking to annihilate freedoms, you are the one seeking to annihilate choice, you are the one wanting to have the UN pass a resolution placing profit above people, and most despicable of all, you come before us and say you are doing the opposite. You are dishonest, sir, and so is your proposal.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

Here's a suggestion. Instead of presuming to speak for me, try listening to what I am actually saying. Instead of labelling our proposal dishonest without a trace of analysis, point out where it actually creates falsehoods.

The very basis on which you're opposing it identical to the principle the proposal is actually founded on. You believe people shouldn't be forced into working longer than they want. So do I: but I believe it even more strongly, because I wrote a fucking proposal about it. I'm lost as to how you're interpreting this proposal to read "you should have freedom of choice...except not at all, we should be able to force you to work more". Perhaps because nothing in the text lends itself to this assumption.

Any employer forcing a worker to work longer than they wish to is clearly acting in contravention of the spirit of this proposal. To suggest otherwise is the greater act of dishonesty.

Also, once more: you're still not denying that working as long as one wishes is actually a liberty (you're implicitly agreeing with it). Therefore, why prefer something that impinges on that, to this proposal, which supports it?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

The way I see it workers have two options if they feel an employer is pushing them to work more hours than they feel comfortable with. The first is the unions, enshrined under another resolution, and the second is their own feet. There is nothing in this that stops workers walking out on an ogre boss and finding another job with better hours elsewhere. If the boss wants to stay in business, he will click sooner or later that he'd better take his/her employees wants and needs into account when deciding working hours and shifts.

The main reason I, a blocker hater, support this proposal is because it only targets hours, nothing else. In that respect it isn't a blocker at all, but a single purpose proposal that is pushing one aspect of this issue in a mild format. There is nothing stopping someone else writing a proposal to cover other worker rights and conditions that could compliment this.

I just can't see a blanket proposal mandating a certain number of hours in a workweek able to address all the arguements and very good points that were raised against the old resolution in the repeal thread.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN/

I do not speak for you, sir, never have I claimed to. I do speak for the government of Kelssek, elected by a people who I assure you are aghast at the gradual but growing erosion of human rights protections in the United Nations. Being able to work excessive hours is not a liberty, it is called exploitation, and in more extreme cases, slavery. I can picture now a worker, most likely in a developed country, chained to a sewing machine in a sweatshop - the costs must be low so the profit will be high - rejoicing that he has the freedom to work 14 hours a day. Is that not the vision you are promoting to us?

The falsehoods are self-evident, because you say you want people to choose how long they want to work, but you take that choice away by removing work time restrictions from employers. Compare how many want to work over the legal limit, to how many do not want to. You will see that you are not in fact advancing the rights, freedoms, choice, and interests of employees as a whole, you are adovcating that selfishness should subject others to the potential of being made to comply with unreasonable demands.

You are calling work time limits "a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms", and you want to pass this as a UN resolution when in fact, before struck down by a repeal containing arguments as dishonest as those you are now making, they promoted them. They guarenteed workers a minimum of 86 hours of free time every week. They guarenteed workers overtime pay after they have worked for over 40 hours each week.

That resolution is dead and buried, but you still insist that we should defecate on the grave. I suppose you will say that this action is a good thing because it will fertilise the ground and make flowers grow.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

I do not speak for you, sir, never have I claimed to. I do speak for the government of Kelssek, elected by a people who I assure you are aghast at the gradual but growing erosion of human rights protections in the United Nations.
Which leaves me puzzled as to why you're opposing something that espouses individual rights. I fail to imagine the sentiment that people should not be forced to work for hours other than they desire especially frightening to the people of Kelssek...maybe you don't speak for them as representatively as you claim?

Being able to work excessive hours is not a liberty, it is called exploitation, and in more extreme cases, slavery.
That's little to do with what I was saying, though, because you've introduced the word "excessive". Of course working excessive hours is exploitation: excessiveness is an inherently negative concept. I'm talking about working the hours someone wishes to work. That's all this proposal addresses.

I can picture now a worker, most likely in a developed country, chained to a sewing machine in a sweatshop - the costs must be low so the profit will be high - rejoicing that he has the freedom to work 14 hours a day. Is that not the vision you are promoting to us?
No, that'd be slavery, which is already banned by the UN anyway. Further, being chained to a machine would appear to contradict both "End Slavery" and "Workplace Safety Act".

Of course, I could shrug this off with a cry of 'appeal to emotion' (which it is), but I'd rather just say: it's entirely irrelevant.

The falsehoods are self-evident, because you say you want people to choose how long they want to work, but you take that choice away by removing work time restrictions from employers. Compare how many want to work over the legal limit, to how many do not want to.
Compare how many people wish to engage in gay sex, and how many don't.

On the basis that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, we should deny the latter rights?

You will see that you are not in fact advancing the rights, freedoms, choice, and interests of employees as a whole, you are adovcating that selfishness should subject others to the potential of being made to comply with unreasonable demands.
Again with the fancy - and entirely inconsequential - lingo. If someone chooses, freely - they're not coerced or chained or enslaved, but they do so through exercising a free will you seem very keen to deny exists - to work longer than others, they should have the opportunity to do so. A government cap on that is restriction of their choice, no matter how few the number it affects.

You are calling work time limits "a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms", and you want to pass this as a UN resolution when in fact, before struck down by a repeal containing arguments as dishonest as those you are now making, they promoted them. They guarenteed workers a minimum of 86 hours of free time every week.
(Huh? 168 -80 = 88.)

They guaranteed those wanting to work more than 80 hours a week (again, fairly rare I accept, but there are undoubtedly those who would wish to do so) were forbiddent from doing so. Some idea of freedom. Anything else we should prevent people from doing, just so we can give them something they don't want?

They guarenteed workers overtime pay after they have worked for over 40 hours each week.
A fairer point. This proposal mainly focusses on the 80-hour cap, not the overtime requirements.

Nonetheless, the word "guarantee" is misplaced, because there is no "guarantee" that an employer would permit someone to work more than 40 hours, when it would be cheaper to rotate shifts of workers. This might mean the worker having to find a second job, or simply not having enough money.

That resolution is dead and buried, but you still insist that we should defecate on the grave. I suppose you will say that this action is a good thing because it will fertilise the ground and make flowers grow.
Well, I wouldn't advise if you have a meat-heavy diet, as that generally isn't so good for plant growth. But in general, manure does act as a fertilizer.

So yes, I suppose, I do support that. And I have no intention of "honouring the death" of Resolution #59.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Nonetheless, we take umbrage at the suggestion our proposal is "naive". We would rather regard it as "deliberately, malevolently cynical". We're not kidding ourselves about what this would mean for workers' rights in many nations, including our own. We can't wait.
[OOC: Bugger. I'd intended to accuse you of that but musta got distracted.]

I would hope the "left" does not simply resign as the UN does turn more rightwards. Firstly, part of the importance of international relations is as a meeting point for opposing views. Without that, there is little point in its existence.

Secondly, because we need someone to irritate by proposing this sort of stuff.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

We would have flipped those two reasons around.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

(OOC: My bad. Did not have calculator handy. Also I meant "developing country". I'm drinking too much. Or too little.)

It is because the consequences of your proposal will be the opposite of what you seem to think. The hours that people desire will not necessarily be the hours their employers desire, and employers tend to win in those debates because economic conditions are not always conducive to finding a different job. Unions aren't always as strong as they should be, especially in those nations where they are more likely to be needed.

Gay rights do not affect the rights of heretosexuals, but removing work-time limits does affect the rights of workers directly. Your analogy is broken, I suggest you find another.

Perhaps my example is, likewise, too extreme. But nevertheless the point remains valid; for your information, End Slavery does not say anything about working hours. That he is chained is inconsequential, really, and intended to emphasise that the lack of other economic opportunity often compels workers to accept conditions we in the developed world regard as near-slavery.

You are concerned that people cannot work more if they want to, we are concerned that people will not be able to refuse to work more if they do not want to, and we feel our concern is far more pressing, and far more in tune with the protection of individual freedom.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

ooc: Sorry to triple post. Bugger - I thought it had an extra day in queue. Must have submitted it before the Monday update by mistake.

It fell short with ~115 approvals.Well, at least now you have the chance to consider changes :)

It is because the consequences of your proposal will be the opposite of what you seem to think. The hours that people desire will not necessarily be the hours their employers desire, and employers tend to win in those debates because economic conditions are not always conducive to finding a different job.
Which is maybe why I'm writing a proposal asking that employers DO permit employees to work the hours they desire.

And if economic conditions are not conducive to finding a different job, then forcing overtime requirements upon UN-based employers makes even less sense, given the presumed scarcity of second jobs.

Unions aren't always as strong as they should be, especially in those nations where they are more likely to be needed.
This, together with the previous comments of Secretary Macwotsit and Doctor Leary, are making me increasingly feel "The Right to Form Unions" is a waste of space, if these workers' rights lobbies are so weak anyway.

Gay rights do not affect the rights of heretosexuals, but removing work-time limits does affect the rights of workers directly. Your analogy is broken, I suggest you find another.
Not at all. You suggested that because more didn't want to work over the limit than did, we just keep the limit. You would have a tyranny of the majority rule over our freedoms.

Let's strike a deal. Admit that you have no problem banning people from working over a certain limit, even if they are fit and healthy and very willing to do so, and I'll admit that...um...I rock.

Perhaps my example is, likewise, too extreme. But nevertheless the point remains valid; for your information, End Slavery does not say anything about working hours. That he is chained is inconsequential, really, and intended to emphasise that the lack of other economic opportunity often compels workers to accept conditions we in the developed world regard as near-slavery.
Then deal with promoting economic opportunity. That there are few jobs for some Gurglestani gutterfilth to partake of is little of my concern. But this is a separate issue entirely: where there is opportunity to find employment, people should be able to work the hours they desire.

You are concerned that people cannot work more if they want to, we are concerned that people will not be able to refuse to work more if they do not want to, and we feel our concern is far more pressing, and far more in tune with the protection of individual freedom.
No, our concerns are equally valid. And I actually share yours: it's just while you've been harping on one tangent, you've conveniently ignored the fact this proposal would protect both groups of people.

Once again: forcing someone to work longer than they wish to is a violation of their individual rights, and we oppose it, fully. Forcing someone to work longer than they wished to would contravene the intention of this proposal.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I gotta say, in countries where unemployment is high, a Resolution like 40HWW was damn useful. It prevented one person from effectively taking the job of another by using as much hours as could be used by someone without a job. I don't buy the whole "someone should be allowed to work for as long as he wants," so luckily enough for me, the government runs most every big business in the country (small businesses like neighborhood bakeries and stuffs are still privately owned) and so the government chooses the hours a person can work. Cuts down on unemployment a bit while allowing full time work for everyone involved.

Then there's the argument that people could just up and find another job with better hours if they don't like what their employee is doing. Easier said than done, especially in countries where the economy is not a powerhouse.

Once again: forcing someone to work longer than they wish to is a violation of their individual rights, and we oppose it, fully. Forcing someone to work longer than they wished to would contravene the intention of this proposal.

Well how about making it contravene with the proposal itself, then, instead of the idea?

I gotta say, in countries where unemployment is high, a Resolution like 40HWW was damn useful. It prevented one person from effectively taking the job of another by using as much hours as could be used by someone without a job. I don't buy the whole "someone should be allowed to work for as long as he wants," so luckily enough for me, the government runs most every big business in the country (small businesses like neighborhood bakeries and stuffs are still privately owned) and so the government chooses the hours a person can work. Cuts down on unemployment a bit while allowing full time work for everyone involved.
First, this kind of amoral communist slavery is the sort of thing this proposal sets out to eliminate from the fair halls of this noble institution.

Secondly, I agree with your analysis, insofar as 40HWW probably did help reduce unemployment in some nations. This is because of its overtime requirement: it would drive employers to hire on extra workers, instead of paying through the nose so their first workers could stay on longer.

Well how about making it contravene with the proposal itself, then, instead of the idea?
I'll see. I will be rejigging the wording over this coming week. But I wish to remain appropriately respectful of national sovereignty.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Which is maybe why I'm writing a proposal asking that employers DO permit employees to work the hours they desire.

Where does it say so? All I see is "regulation bad!!"

And if economic conditions are not conducive to finding a different job, then forcing overtime requirements upon UN-based employers makes even less sense, given the presumed scarcity of second jobs.

Where do second jobs come in with the overtime and all that?

This, together with the previous comments of Secretary Macwotsit and Doctor Leary, are making me increasingly feel "The Right to Form Unions" is a waste of space, if these workers' rights lobbies are so weak anyway.

They are strong in some countries, weak in others.

Not at all. You suggested that because more didn't want to work over the limit than did, we just keep the limit. You would have a tyranny of the majority rule over our freedoms.

But comparing it to gay rights is completely different. Heterosexual rights are unaffected by legalising homosexuality, homosexual acts, or homosexual marriage. By giving homosexuals rights they deserve anyway, heterosexuals do not have their rights curtailed. Making buttsex legal doesn't mean the regular penis-in-vagina kind we all know and love becomes illegal. On the other hand, this is one case where "freedom" for some does cut into the freedom of others. Then it's a matter of which freedom is more important, and we think the right to leisure is more important.

Let's strike a deal. Admit that you have no problem banning people from working over a certain limit, even if they are fit and healthy and very willing to do so, and I'll admit that...um...I rock.

Why would I need to "admit" that? It's hardly a hidden agenda, all along I've been saying it's a tradeoff between individual freedoms of a few and the many... Oh, you egomaniac.

Then deal with promoting economic opportunity. That there are few jobs for some Gurglestani gutterfilth to partake of is little of my concern. But this is a separate issue entirely: where there is opportunity to find employment, people should be able to work the hours they desire.

Which, again, is a cause more likely to be advanced by limiting work hours, rather than having no limits.

Once again: forcing someone to work longer than they wish to is a violation of their individual rights, and we oppose it, fully. Forcing someone to work longer than they wished to would contravene the intention of this proposal.

But we don't abide by the intention of laws, do we? We abide by the letter. What the proposal says doesn't protect people from working longer than they wish to - that was what the 40-hour work week helped to do. You can have lots of intentions but all I'm seeing is a resolution that essentially says work time limits are bad. It is a statement of principle we cannot agree with.

Adressed to the UN and its member states:

Juli 16th, 2006 - Jurion

Although not a member of the UN, the governement of Eurime strongly approves this resolution and any resolution that attempts to free individuals from wrongful and injust governemental regulation and grants individual rights . We also ask that the the members of the UN nations strongly approve this resolution, believing that any individual is competent to negotiate freely about working conditions.

Vincent Yvain
Secretary of External Affairs

Sunita Saundra
Secretary of Justice & Human Rights

Howard Sakari
Secretary of Economy

Adressed to the UN and its member states:

Juli 16th, 2006 - Jurion

Although not a member of the UN, the governement of Eurime strongly approves this resolution

Will you be joining the UN if this passes?

Will you be joining the UN if this passes?

Individual resolutions should not affect one's presence in the UN. A nation can get by with non complying a little bit with any one resolution :) The UN has passed a lot of laws... it's hard to implement them all... Our nation is still struggling to fully implement UN law passed years ago!

*removes from TG spam list*

However, please do approve it, or FEEL THE WRATH OF SHEKNU.

Dang it, I was all set to approve it, but we are so curious what the wrath of sheknu is like. We suggest no one approve it :)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to incur the wrath of Sheknu here. The resolution is a dangerous attack on the principle of collective bargaining and would enable unscrupulous employers and governments to drive a wedge through or severely weaken the Trades Union movement. I'm loathe to vote for a proposal calling for the legitimisation of scabbing and disunity amongst workers.

Additionally, the U.N. has the duty to its member state's citizens to legislate progressively on their behalf and help protect against injustices and unfair treatment at the hands of their employers and state. To remove this right from the U.N. would constitute an abandoment of any committment ot social-democratic principles and the rights of workers.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I'm afraid I'm going to have to incur the wrath of Sheknu here. The resolution is a dangerous attack on the principle of collective bargaining and would enable unscrupulous employers and governments to drive a wedge through or severely weaken the Trades Union movement. I'm loathe to vote for a proposal calling for the legitimisation of scabbing and disunity amongst workers.

Additionally, the U.N. has the duty to its member state's citizens to legislate progressively on their behalf and help protect against injustices and unfair treatment at the hands of their employers and state. To remove this right from the U.N. would constitute an abandoment of any committment ot social-democratic principles and the rights of workers.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Well, this resolution does appear to be nothing but a blocker. I try to be opposed to all blockers.

OOC: It's a blocker? Which proposal is it trying to block? (I ask out of genuine curiousity, this is the first time in a fortnight I've been on the U.N. forum).

OOC: It's a blocker? Which proposal is it trying to block? (I ask out of genuine curiousity, this is the first time in a fortnight I've been on the U.N. forum).

We just repealed the UN 80 hour work week.

40, actually.

Nonetheless, please don't post in this thread - the new thread can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494296).