NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Advancement of Industry, Labor Deregulation
The United Nations,

Strongly reaffirming its commitment to individual liberty,

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

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,

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 fair compromise on the issue:

1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;

2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

4. Reserves the right of nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest, so long as such regulations do not unduly abridge the freedom of individuals in deciding their terms of employment;

5. Endorses policies aimed at delegating decisions concerning working time regulations to the most local level possible;

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

3. Mandates the removal of regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;Make this clause more specific. We are talking about only "working freedoms," aren't we? As it's written this goes well beyond that.

4. Reserves the right of nations to remain free to choose to set, or not to set, specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the interests of health and safety;Remove bolded language.

Clause 3 edited; extraneous words removed from clause 4.

Last chance to comment.

Let 'er rip, mate!

Wish I had seen this sooner. It's good. I really like it. Good on ya, Gruen.

Ceorana is uneasy with this at the moment, but may be able to support. It seems very open to interpretation by nations, since a lot of the requirements deal with the intent of the regulations.

For example, we feel that there may be cases where nations should be able to impose mandated workweeks, such as in cases when a state verges on a corporate police state (for example in a labor monopoly) and the government needs to restore order and fair working conditions.

In essence, our alarm bells are going off, but we can't put our finger on any specific, definite problems.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

The vast majority of Ausserlanders strongly support the principle of subsidiarity. This proposal is a rather good example of that principle at work. Our government supports it 100%.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

For example, we feel that there may be cases where nations should be able to impose mandated workweeks, such as in cases when a state verges on a corporate police state (for example in a labor monopoly) and the government needs to restore order and fair working conditions.
They would be permitted to do so: "Reserves the right of nations to choose to set ... specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the interests of health and safety;".

2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to negotiate contracts privately and free from government interference;
It is not unsual for governments to legislate on minimum standards for employment contracts, and this clause may affect that

It is not unsual for governments to legislate on minimum standards for employment contracts, and this clause may affect that
Only if you want it to. "Calls upon" is inviting, not mandating.

We dislike any provision not allowing legislation of overtime. This will mean businesses will be less likely to offer them especially as concentration levels will be lower after a long period working, but sometimes they are necessary and the workers deserve to have payment for putting themselves in what is potentially a dangerous situation - workers often become less safety conscious as they become more weary, especially if they are performing repeat tasks.

Moreover, this makes no mention of any provision for leave or breaks. We find it despicable that a business could take advantage of the fact that because there is no national or international legislation they need not give their workers breaks, paid or not. We find it highly unlikely that an employee has much influence over the terms of his or her contract beyond perhaps which days they work and for a limited few the ability to haggle their salary.

ooc: trust me, long shifts with no overtime sucks major roundthings.

Additionally, isn't this a blocker? 'We bring out this proposal to say you can't put any work hour limits.' Well that's either a NatSov infringement if it's 'you can't legislate full stop' or something that does nothing except ban UN legislation.
Randomea will be voting no if this reaches anything near quorum.

We dislike any provision not allowing legislation of overtime. This will mean businesses will be less likely to offer them especially as concentration levels will be lower after a long period working, but sometimes they are necessary and the workers deserve to have payment for putting themselves in what is potentially a dangerous situation - workers often become less safety conscious as they become more weary, especially if they are performing repeat tasks.
Good spot. I'd included overtime previously. I'll try to put it back in.

Moreover, this makes no mention of any provision for leave or breaks. We find it despicable that a business could take advantage of the fact that because there is no national or international legislation they need not give their workers breaks, paid or not. We find it highly unlikely that an employee has much influence over the terms of his or her contract beyond perhaps which days they work and for a limited few the ability to haggle their salary.
Leave is an issue I had thought another proposal would deal with.

Breaks are an issue too local in nature for consideration by the UN.

ooc: trust me, long shifts with no overtime sucks major roundthings.
OOC: Given these featured heavily in my last week, I agree.

Additionally, isn't this a blocker? 'We bring out this proposal to say you can't put any work hour limits.' Well that's either a NatSov infringement if it's 'you can't legislate full stop' or something that does nothing except ban UN legislation.
Randomea will be voting no if this reaches anything near quorum.
If you want to challenge its legality, go ahead. But clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 clearly fit in the Labor Deregulation category, and there is no prohibition on "blockers". Both precedent and the proposal's text itself seem to point to it being legal.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

They would be permitted to do so: "Reserves the right of nations to choose to set ... specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the interests of health and safety;".
But restoring order or controlling overpowerful corporations doesn't really fall under "health and safety". Ceorana would appreciate some mention of other circumstances in this.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

At present my government is neutral, though leaning in favour.

OOC: I think it is well written but want to think about this some more. I do however like it.

The definition of regulate: To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
1) This does not say if nations are regulating working times or company's are does it. That means it could easily mean that company's cannot say for there workers to work at least so much time
2) At the same time communists will tell there people to work. That is a nation regulating people to work. So that would severly damage the system.
3) If you are in the army you are working arn't you. So this would probably even ban concription

I also hate this for other reasons but it is way too broad.
I've tried about four times now to reply, and each time I stop, and rethink. Because frankly, I don't understand a word you're saying.

I do appreciate the problems EFL people can have, and I will try to be accommodating as possible, but when I can't read what you're writing, there's not much I can do. Could you restate your problems with it in different phrasing, so I can deal with them?

But restoring order or controlling overpowerful corporations doesn't really fall under "health and safety". Ceorana would appreciate some mention of other circumstances in this.
Would "in the general public interest suffice"?

Also, no changes will be made to mention overtime, for now; I'm not convinced they're relevant to this proposal.

Would "in the general public interest suffice"?
That would do nicely. I think we could support if that were added. :)

Funnily enough, this is a "rip-open-the-market" proposal that doesn't seem like it will even effect socialists, or at least those with complete government-controlled economies. Since the government is the employer, it can just hire everyone for its desired workweek...

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Funnily enough, this is a "rip-open-the-market" proposal that doesn't seem like it will even effect socialists, or at least those with complete government-controlled economies. Since the government is the employer, it can just hire everyone for its desired workweek...


Why the obsession with stopping people from regulating their economies then? Are we going to end up in a situation where there is no middle road, only the extremes of economic ideology?

I find this proposal inoffensive inasmuch that it places no unpleasant demands on any nation. However, it forestalls future legislation that may be drafted to the benefit of workers who are unable or find it difficult to negotiate contracts from a position of strength. Liberty in this regard is all well and good on paper, but the powers of employer coercion should not be underestimated.

Benedictions,

workers who are unable or find it difficult to negotiate contracts from a position of strength.Well, they already have the right to form unions...

Well, they already have the right to form unions...
And if the unions are corrupt, say in the pocket of business, the government or organised crime? Or the workers are unable to form a union of significant strength?

Why the obsession with stopping people from regulating their economies then? Are we going to end up in a situation where there is no middle road, only the extremes of economic ideology?Yes, that is exactly what this resolution does. You can either be communist (like us) or laissez-faire, but you can't be anything in between.

Also, in those states that permit private enterprise, it's a bad idea to take government completely out of the business of defining what does and does not constitute a legal contract. As the proposed resolution now stands, government can't even define what a contract is, let alone the laws under which contracts are governed. Under these circumstances, most jurists will butt out of contractual disputes because they will see themeselves as having no standing.

So maybe laissez-faire isn't strong enough; maybe the only alternative to communism under this proposed resolution is anarcho-capitalism.

As the proposed resolution now stands, government can't even define what a contract is, let alone the laws under which contracts are governed. Under these circumstances, most jurists will butt out of contractual disputes because they will see themeselves as having no standing.

I was about to respond one way, because I couldn't go back and look up the specific text. I forgot the exact wording of

"respect the rights of individuals to negotiate contracts privately and free from government interference".

I had hoped the worker was the one protected here. That they could waive said right and then the employer couldn't keep out government interference :) That way the worker would decide.

However that is worded in such a way it protects employers from any form of government interference in contracts. This would seem to make all anti trust legislation illegal.

Currently, many employers force new employees to sign draconian contracts, signing away every idea they have from then on to their employer (along with giving up various other intagible rights). Usually local government protects the workers in these situations, limiting how many of their rights they can sign away.

Under this new resolution, it would seem workers would be allowed to sign away as many rights as they choose. Why let employees retain government protection when you can force them to sign it away?

Perhaps the result of this legislation is workers would become a lot more cagey about what rights they sign away. They would each hire lawyers to look over their hiring documents.

I see middle and higher class workers doing so. I see more desperate workers being forced to sign away every right they have to their employer, making them unable to sue, whistleblow, or basically do anything not already protected by previous UN resolution.

The freedom of an individual to negotiate their own terms with industry seems somewhat muddled by the fact that employer and employee are rarely on a level playing field. Why would we not take into consideration that workers may be less free to choose their contracts if there are no restrictions on what employers may demand of them as terms of employment? Employees need this work to eat, employers need them to make more money...one of these needs the other in a much more basic way. This seems to take power away from workers and hand it over to the already powerful. I may also simply be misunderstanding it.

However that is worded in such a way it protects employers from any form of government interference in contracts. This would seem to make all anti trust legislation illegal.
All right I'll bite, how in the blue hell does a resolution dealing with the relationship between employee and employer have any effect on anti-trust legislation?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I am a bit worried about the employee being forced to sign contracts they don't understand. Perhaps you could consider including a provision for an employee to have a representative, such as union, solicitor, or other, assist them in negotiating their work hours.

While I do still like the idea of this proposal, it is a fact that in most cases the employer holds all the cards. While I don't want to see set work hours, and agree with the principal in the proposal, some basic protection of the worker, just to keep the negotiation playing field level, is necessary. Just giving workers the option of having someone beside them who understands contracts would do that I feel. The decision whether to sign or not would still be theirs.

I am a bit worried about the employee being forced to sign contracts they don't understand. Perhaps you could consider including a provision for an employee to have a representative, such as union, solicitor, or other, assist them in negotiating their work hours.

While I do still like the idea of this proposal, it is a fact that in most cases the employer holds all the cards. While I don't want to see set work hours, and agree with the principal in the proposal, some basic protection of the worker, just to keep the negotiation playing field level, is necessary. Just giving workers the option of having someone beside them who understands contracts would do that I feel. The decision whether to sign or not would still be theirs.

We don't share the concern of our distinguished colleague from Witchcliff. There is nothing in the proposal which would preclude a worker from seeking the advice and counsel of unions, attorneys, friends, or anyone else.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

All right I'll bite, how in the blue hell does a resolution dealing with the relationship between employee and employer have any effect on anti-trust legislation?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Um the actual text of the resolution includes what I quoted:

"respect the rights of individuals to negotiate contracts privately and free from government interference".

Um the actual text of the resolution includes what I quoted:

"respect the rights of individuals to negotiate contracts privately and free from government interference".
And it's referring to contracts between employee and employer which has nothing to do with anti-trust legislation. Monopolies are not formed by contracts between an employee and an employer, they're formed by one company having a stranglehold on a particular good or service.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And it's referring to contracts between employee and employer which has nothing to do with anti-trust legislation. Monopolies are not formed by contracts between an employee and an employer, they're formed by one company having a stranglehold on a particular good or service.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If it's wording was so limited I wouldn't be complaining. I had hoped it was only protecting workers. I even composed a post assuming it was worded so (the site wasn't responding so I couldn't go back and check), when I was later able to check I had to abandon the post because the resolution was not so limited in it's wording.

If it's wording was so limited I wouldn't be complaining. I had hoped it was only protecting workers. I even composed a post assuming it was worded so (the site wasn't responding so I couldn't go back and check), when I was later able to check I had to abandon the post because the resolution was not so limited in it's wording.

Well, now, let's go back and look at the statement that the representative of Discoraversalism is so stoutly defending:

However that is worded in such a way it protects employers from any form of government interference in contracts. This would seem to make all anti trust legislation illegal.

And now let's look at the clause of the proposal that he's complaining about:

2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to negotiate contracts privately and free from government interference;

First of all, when read in the context of the whole, the statement is clearly and unambiguously referring to contracts concerning employment. Second, even if we were to accept the reading -- totally out of context -- that the representative adopts, the statement about "all anti trust legislation" being made illegal is still absurd. It would still be perfectly possible to prohibit acts in restraint of trade without interfering in the negotiation of contracts. And, besides, legislating on contracts between corporations would be untouched by the proposal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

First of all, when read in the context of the whole, the statement is clearly and unambiguously referring to contracts concerning employment.

Let's assume the proposal only grants workers a right to avoid government interference in employment contracts. I was hoping the worker could waive that right if he wanted government protection. However it seems to also be saying that employers won't be interfered with, IE both employer and worker would have to waive the nongovernment interference right before a worker was granted any government protection.

The purpose of this resolution should be to protect workers. However it would seem to only make it harder for workers to seek assistance from their government in employment negotiations.

The government of Ardchoille shares the uneasiness of the governments of Witchcliff and Ceorana. This may be, in part, an example of "Beware of Gruenbergers bearing gifts" syndrome; that is, a knee-jerk reaction to our experiences with the previous Gruenberger representative, which has us automatically looking for the swiftie, regardless of the subject.

However, we remind ourselves that this is largely the work of the admirable, liberal, fair and open-minded nation of Sheknu, a connection that goes a long way towards stilling our doubts.

Furthermore, this proposal seems to Ardchoille to have sufficient wriggle-room to allow us to continue our pro-worker policies -- perhaps with the use of a little creative legislation, but I'm sure we can manage.

The specific clause under discussion, for example, endorses freedom from government interference in negotiations. However, we cannot see why a government could not still interfere before or after the negotiations. *Cough*WorkChoices*Cough*

These would be matters of internal national legislation. To detail them in a UN proposal would be micro-management at a level that even internationalists such as ourselves agree would be simply inefficient. (And, besides, we see no reason to signal our shots.)

We recognise that by acquiescing in this proposal we would be allowing workers in less enlightened nations to continue suffering the effects of unbridled entrepreneurial greed. You are not forgotten, brothers. But we must think of our larger obligation.

If Ardchoille's workers are able to protect the gains they have made, they will be stronger and more able to help others seek their own rights. We achieve nothing by waiting until something worse, perhaps blatantly exploitative, is forced upon all of us.

Consequently, we would give our tentative support, subject to there being no retreat from the present flexibility.

Ok.

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ people, learn to read already.

Nonetheless, the general reaction is useful inasmuch as it's probably indicative of how it would be received by the UN as a whole. In particular, the line about "private contracts" seems to have copped some [entirely undeserved] flak, and there seems to be a lot of emphasis on there not being a "level playing field". As such, the draft has updated. Comments?

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ people, learn to read already.


Reading is hard! We appreciate your efforts to redraft the resolution in such a way that even we can understand it.

I'm curious how these 2 clauses interact:

"
3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

4. Reserves the right of nations to choose to set, or not to set, specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest;
"

Does this mean nations have to remove their existing working time regulations, but they are then allowed to reset them? Virtually all government action is stated to be in "the general public interest" and to serve some purpose besides "reducing individual liberty."

It does seem to be designed to place these decisions at national level, which is good.

OOC: Re "private contracts" -- Bear with me, Gruen. The RL country I live in is currently going through a spate of silly-buggeralism in its industrial laws. As a result, I get antsy the minute I see "private", "contract" and "negotiations" in any proposal on workplace regulation. I acknowledge your proposal relates to working hours only, but a mean-spirited, petty-minded government (unlike any in the NS UN, of course) would not hesitate to bush-lawyer a single, specific paragraph into a general, over-riding principle. So we have to be watchful with the paragraphs.
_____________________________________________

IC: The government of Ardchoille maintains that a reasonable reading of this proposal would not prevent our continued application of collective bargaining in the workplace, which we regard as the principle most likely to achieve justice for the individual worker and parity for the individual employer.

The government of Ardchoille intends to be extremely reasonable in its reading of this proposal, should it be adopted.

Apologies for posting in the wrong thread, we will gladly redirect to a more "on topic", "current" thread. Whatever thread traffic is being routed to currently...

Anyway, this is a blocker. It follows a misleading repeal of a resolution that banned workers being forced to work over 80 hours (it was written like it was preventing people from working 40 or more hours, which it did not).

The government of Ardchoille intends to be extremely reasonable in its reading of this proposal, should it be adopted.

Does "reasonable" mean "non compliant?" :)

You keep saying "this is a blocker" as though that is a bad thing.

Are you suggesting "Nuclear Armaments", "Abortion Legality Convention", and "UN Taxation Ban", should be repealed because they were "blockers"?

You keep saying "this is a blocker" as though that is a bad thing.

Are you suggesting "Nuclear Armaments", "Abortion Legality Convention", and "UN Taxation Ban", should be repealed because they were "blockers"?

Ok, if it's not a blocker, what does it actually accomplish?

That post is fairly definitive proof of your inability to ACTUALLY FUCKING READ A SINGLE THING ANYONE WRITES.

Point me to where I said "it's not a blocker".

OH WAIT YOU CAN'T, BECAUSE AT NO POINT DID I FUCKING SAY THAT

That post is fairly definitive proof of your inability to ACTUALLY FUCKING READ A SINGLE THING ANYONE WRITES.

Point me to where I said "it's not a blocker".

OH WAIT YOU CAN'T, BECAUSE AT NO POINT DID I FUCKING SAY THAT

Hehe sorry I did misread. Well if you admit it's a blocker I'm half inclined to vote for it.

You keep saying "this is a blocker" as though that is a bad thing.

Are you suggesting "Nuclear Armaments", "Abortion Legality Convention", and "UN Taxation Ban", should be repealed because they were "blockers"?

Here is a more sensical reply (I hope). By default I oppose all blockers. I don't feel any pressing need to repeal blockers, but I'd rather they weren't implemented in the first place. The purpose of a blocker is to use the current majority in the NSUN to slow down future generations when they try to undo what this congress has done.

If you really hate legislation, you repeal it, then write a blocker. A more democratic method is to repeal it, then right a compromise bill. Not quite a blocker, but a weaker implementation.

OOC: Re "private contracts" -- Bear with me, Gruen. The RL country I live in is currently going through a spate of silly-buggeralism in its industrial laws. As a result, I get antsy the minute I see "private", "contract" and "negotiations" in any proposal on workplace regulation. I acknowledge your proposal relates to working hours only, but a mean-spirited, petty-minded government (unlike any in the NS UN, of course) would not hesitate to bush-lawyer a single, specific paragraph into a general, over-riding principle. So we have to be watchful with the paragraphs.
OOC: All of which I accept, but "private contracts" appeared in a clause beginning "calls upon". That means it is non-mandatory.

IC:
The government of Ardchoille maintains that a reasonable reading of this proposal would not prevent our continued application of collective bargaining in the workplace, which we regard as the principle most likely to achieve justice for the individual worker and parity for the individual employer.
And the government of Ardchoille is correct: much as collective bargaining is a communist conspiracy against freedom, this proposal in no way prohibits it. After all, one perfectly valid notion of "individual freedom" includes, through the right to assembly, freedom to join with others for the purposes of negotiations.

The government of Ardchoille intends to be extremely reasonable in its reading of this proposal, should it be adopted.
That's refreshing to hear, because there are certainly others who are being deliberately unreasonable, solely to fabricate reasons for opposition - a "tactic" we find tiring and incomprehensible.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

That's refreshing to hear, because there are certainly others who are being deliberately unreasonable, solely to fabricate reasons for opposition - a "tactic" we find tiring and incomprehensible.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Don't let the vulgar ruffian upset you. It's me he's mad at. Check his sig :)

We are not inventing reasons to oppose this. We oppose all blockers, not just this one. We are split on this one, because it doesn't accomplish too much, it's a weak blocker.

For example, once could still write NSUN law that limits workweeks, in those specific cases where the workers file a complaint that a company is using predatory tactics on it's workers, right? Would this resolution even block that? (I'm not too sure how blockers work, haven't seen a blocker come up for vote yet.)

Does "reasonable" mean "non compliant?" :)

Just check us out with the Gnomes (and tell 'em Dicey says hello). The Government of Ardchoille has been complying compliantly since we joined the UN. We're the most compliant compliers you ever did see, pet.

As to "blockers", it seems to my government that this relatively bearable proposal would, indeed, block some of the more insane industrial legislation that is currently causing certain capitalist conspiracies to slaver in their sleep. It's not wonderful, there wouldn't be dancing in the streets, but we could live with it.

(They don't call us Fabians for nuthin', you know.)

OOC: All of which I accept, but "private contracts" appeared in a clause beginning "calls upon". That means it is non-mandatory.

IC:

And the government of Ardchoille is correct: much as collective bargaining is a communist conspiracy against freedom, this proposal in no way prohibits it. After all, one perfectly valid notion of "individual freedom" includes, through the right to assembly, freedom to join with others for the purposes of negotiations.

Yet it attacks the very basis of collective bargaining by providing this opt-out, which contrary to the impressions of some who support this proposal, is unlikely to bring genuine independence or benefits to ordinary workers, but will be used by unscrupulous and/or anti-union managers to divide the workforce and impose weaker contracts and poorer working conditions upon employees.

Resisting anti-union laws is essential for the survival of a strong workers movement and ensuring good working conditions for all in employment. We are not all able to have the luxury to negotiate advantageous working contracts on our own, that is why the Trades Union movement is so important and why its preservation from measures such as this is so vital.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Seriously Otterby, where are you getting this shit from? The proposal doesn't even mention unions...although it does include the heinous phrase "to seek representation or counsel towards such negotiations".

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Yet it attacks the very basis of collective bargaining by providing this opt-out, which contrary to the impressions of some who support this proposal, is unlikely to bring genuine independence or benefits to ordinary workers, but will be used by unscrupulous and/or anti-union managers to divide the workforce and impose weaker contracts and poorer working conditions upon employees.

Resisting anti-union laws is essential for the survival of a strong workers movement and ensuring good working conditions for all in employment. We are not all able to have the luxury to negotiate advantageous working contracts on our own, that is why the Trades Union movement is so important and why its preservation from measures such as this is so vital.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

With due respect to the honorable representative of Compadria, we're completely unable to find any reasonable argument against the proposal in this diatribe.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Seriously Otterby, where are you getting this shit from? The proposal doesn't even mention unions...although it does include the heinous phrase "to seek representation or counsel towards such negotiations".

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Category: Advancement of Industry, Labor Deregulation
The United Nations,

Well that's the first clue.

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 see this as anti-union, in case you were wondering, because it clearly places individual negotiations as a sancrosanct right and appears to discount collective bargaining as inferior to the individual bargaining method.

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,

Not union-related, but I disagree with this assertion anyway, due to perceiving it as a an attempt to disallow any international labour regulations as incompatible with NatSov.

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

Which also implies an attack on collective bargaining, because this would suggest that a union reached overall deal would be "one size fits all". I know this applies chiefly to U.N. legisaltion, but because of its wording, it could be used as an excuse to attack Trade Union deals as "grossly unfair abrogation(s) of individual freedoms".

Desirous of reaching a fair compromise on the issue:

1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;

Which could be used as a cover for anti-union laws, i.e. RL "right to work" laws, Taft-Hartley Act, etc.

2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and further of such individuals to seek representation or counsel towards such negotiations;

Which, admirably, takes the side of unions, but given the other concerns I have, it rings a tad hollow.

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

Which, incidentally, would kick open the door for worker exploitation through long-hours and shatter about 50 years worth of Compadrian labour law, i.e. our own national version of the 40 Hour Week.

4. Reserves the right of nations to choose to set, or not to set, specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest;

These two clauses (3 & 4) appear to contradict one another, particularly the vague phrase "general public interest" when contrasted with "individual liberty". Which is more important for the purposes of the proposal?

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

Which muddies the waters even further in my opinion.

And that Mr Pyandran, is where I'm getting my shit from.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

You keep saying "this is a blocker" as though that is a bad thing.

Are you suggesting "Nuclear Armaments", "Abortion Legality Convention", and "UN Taxation Ban", should be repealed because they were "blockers"?
While personally I have no aversion to blockers, I've heard tell the gnomes get very crotchety and start grumbling about lots of flashy paperwork that doesn't let them annoy the states' legislators.

i.e. Hack wants every resolution to do something even if the main purpose is to be a blocker. <_<.

Seeing the only mandation bans working time specifics which with creative legislating can be made under the following clause.

Perhaps and further of such individuals to seek representation or counsel towards such negotiations; could be reworded to make it a condition that representation/advice is available. It needs rewording anyway, it just does not flow right.

However we're drifting from 'against' into a more positive direction.

Well that's the first clue.
I don't get this blanket opposition to labor deregulation. If there is a law saying "all people must work 95 hours a week", abolishing it would be good, nah?

All this proposal is setting out to do is to abolish unfair laws: look - "Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level".

Labor deregulation is not a blanket bad, just as labor regulation is not a blanket good.

I see this as anti-union, in case you were wondering, because it clearly places individual negotiations as a sancrosanct right and appears to discount collective bargaining as inferior to the individual bargaining method.
Well, you're wrong. The whole point of unions is (well, should be) to protect individuals. If the employee wants help in negotiating his contract, nothing in this proposal prohibits that.

Not union-related, but I disagree with this assertion anyway, due to perceiving it as a an attempt to disallow any international labour regulations as incompatible with NatSov.
Don't understand your English here. Too many negatives.

Which also implies an attack on collective bargaining, because this would suggest that a union reached overall deal would be "one size fits all". I know this applies chiefly to U.N. legisaltion, but because of its wording, it could be used as an excuse to attack Trade Union deals as "grossly unfair abrogation(s) of individual freedoms".
Well, it's intended to refer to UN legislation. Would you prefer I added "by the UN" after "attempt"?

Although I have to say, you're clearly reaching.

Which could be used as a cover for anti-union laws, i.e. RL "right to work" laws, Taft-Hartley Act, etc.
OOC: I will not discuss RL labour law here. Go to General to do so.

IC: Not really. It seems to us part of that freedom would include the freedom of association, and thereby a right to unionise.

Furthermore, nothing in this proposal can override Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions". So any "anti-union laws" could either a) not be perpetrated or b) be perpetrated regardless of this proposal.

Which, admirably, takes the side of unions, but given the other concerns I have, it rings a tad hollow.
OIC

"Despite the fact this proposal says what I want it to say, I'm going to pretend that's all a lie, because I don't know the category."

Sophisticated stuff, Otterby.

Which, incidentally, would kick open the door for worker exploitation through long-hours and shatter about 50 years worth of Compadrian labour law, i.e. our own national version of the 40 Hour Week.
I'm sorry? Your labour laws are "unfair"?

If so, then they SHOULD be shattered.
If not, this proposal doesn't touch 'em.

These two clauses (3 & 4) appear to contradict one another, particularly the vague phrase "general public interest" when contrasted with "individual liberty". Which is more important for the purposes of the proposal?
Neither takes precedence...nonetheless I will clarify clause 4 a little.

Which muddies the waters even further in my opinion.
How?

(Although I am considering scrapping that clause anyway.)

And that Mr Pyandran, is where I'm getting my shit from.
Evidently. Suffice it to say, I'm not impressed.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Perhaps ... could be reworded to make it a condition that representation/advice is available. It needs rewording anyway, it just does not flow right.
You're right it needs rewording. However your suggestion would be a category violation - it'd be regulating, not deregulating, labor law.

Is this better?
2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;
~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

While personally I have no aversion to blockers, I've heard tell the gnomes get very crotchety and start grumbling about lots of flashy paperwork that doesn't let them annoy the states' legislators.

i.e. Hack wants every resolution to do something even if the main purpose is to be a blocker. <_<.At the risk of speaking for Hack, he never said blockers couldn't be mild, and he never said blockers had to mandate something. ALC is the perfect example of that: when comparing it to ELC, he implied ALC was legal, and ELC was not.

That said:

2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;Bolded clause is superfluous and should be omitted.

I don't get this blanket opposition to labor deregulation. If there is a law saying "all people must work 95 hours a week", abolishing it would be good, nah?


You are attacking a straw man. Many of us are suspicious of all labor deregulation laws, especially when proposed by UN members clearly in the pocket of corporate interesnts.

I don't have any strong resistance because I feel it lacks teeth. If I fully complied with this resolution... how would it change anything?

In our nation, labor law violations are only investigated when there are repeated reports of violations by corporate entities. If the workers are constantly complaining.... we listen. This bill is written to espouse the view of corporate interests... but serves no other purpose except as a blocker.

We don't mind blockers too much, we can always waste more UN time removing them later. But they are annoying.



All this proposal is setting out to do is to abolish unfair laws: look - "Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level".



There is so much mindless rhetoric in that clause, that it means nothing. No government will admit it has laws on the book that "only reduce individual liberty."


Labor deregulation is not a blanket bad, just as labor regulation is not a blanket good.



Duh...



Well, you're wrong. The whole point of unions is (well, should be) to protect individuals. If the employee wants help in negotiating his contract, nothing in this proposal prohibits that.



because this resolution has no teeth.



Don't understand your English here. Too many negatives.



It's hard to understand the English used in this resolution. Too few active clasues, and those active clauses have too much nonsensical rhetoric in them.



Well, it's intended to refer to UN legislation. Would you prefer I added "by the UN" after "attempt"?

Although I have to say, you're clearly reaching.


OOC: I will not discuss RL labour law here. Go to General to do so.


OOC: then make an IC reply. It's not hard to make an IC reply to OOC statements. Just pretend there is a slightly different NS version of whatever they are talkign about.


IC: Not really. It seems to us part of that freedom would include the freedom of association, and thereby a right to unionise.

Furthermore, nothing in this proposal can override Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions". So any "anti-union laws" could either a) not be perpetrated or b) be perpetrated regardless of this proposal.



It doesn't override it, it just subtly undermines it. Well it would, if it accomplished anything, but again, no teeth here.


OIC

"Despite the fact this proposal says what I want it to say, I'm going to pretend that's all a lie, because I don't know the category."

Sophisticated stuff, Otterby.


I'm sorry? Your labour laws are "unfair"?

If so, then they SHOULD be shattered.
If not, this proposal doesn't touch 'em.


Neither takes precedence...nonetheless I will clarify clause 4 a little.


How?

(Although I am considering scrapping that clause anyway.)


Evidently. Suffice it to say, I'm not impressed.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

It's your job to impress us with your legislation, right? Nice try shifting the burden of proof, but alas this is your thread, your resolution, your efforts to serve corporate interests.

*snip*Weren't you just lecturing us all in Hirota's thread that we all need to fight for national sovereignty? And now you're ripping into the only sovereigntist proposal on this forum because it "lacks teeth"? You can have one way or the other, buddy. Ya can't have it both.

Of course, I forget who I'm talking to: you're no high-minded sovereigntist crusader; you're just a silly communist. Never fucking mind.

At the risk of speaking for Hack, he never said blockers couldn't be mild, and he never said blockers had to mandate something. ALC is the perfect example of that: when comparing it to ELC, he implied ALC was legal, and ELC was not.

I'm sure I remember him saying something about ALC having an acting clause when we had the big blocker debate. Hack - care to correct us?

I'm sure I remember him saying something about ALC having an acting clause when we had the big blocker debate. Hack - care to correct us?
For fuck's sake, 4 of the 6 clauses of this resolution call for labor deregulation.

'Calling' is not exactly the same thing.

*shrugs* But this is being finiky over what to us is unimportant. Guess I'm being perfectionist today. *drops it*

There is difference between "being a perfectionist" and "being wrong". But I'm glad you've dropped it.

Any final comments on textual changes? Otherwise, I'll submit it Monday.

Weren't you just lecturing us all in Hirota's thread that we all need to fight for national sovereignty? And now you're ripping into the only sovereigntist proposal on this forum because it "lacks teeth"? You can have one way or the other, buddy. Ya can't have it both.

Of course, I forget who I'm talking to: you're no high-minded sovereigntist crusader; you're just a silly communist. Never fucking mind.

Lol. You didnt' actually read anything I posted didja?

I call a spade, a spade. This is a blocker with no teeth. It's legality is nebulous. I don't have any strong opposition to blockers without teeth, but I just wanted to be sure we all new what we were talking about.

Gruenberg has already put forth the national soveriegnty argument here. If not elquently, he has at least done it repeatedly. I don't have to do it then :)

If no one is arguing the Nat Sov position on major UN legislation, I have to. Once anyone else does it adequately, I stop.

In what way, shape or form am I a communist? I'm the one constantly fighting to prevent the UN from setting up artificial monopolies in our nation, and yours! We are, undeniably Capitalizt. Name any nation with a freer market then ours? We outlaw trade in few things that aren't WMDs. We have an open border. We have absolute freedom of speach. Can your nation say the same?

Verrrrrrrrrrrry few communists are libertarian.

Were you just trying to get my goat? A little trolling? If so please, stop dragging this thread off topic. If you want to call me a communist, do it somewhere else. And read an economics textbook some time.

http://www.nationstates.net/discoraversalism

Submitted. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=freedoms)

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;Which, incidentally, would kick open the door for worker exploitation through long-hours and shatter about 50 years worth of Compadrian labour law, i.e. our own national version of the 40 Hour Week.

There's what seems to me to be a fairly obvious loophole in that clause, namely its use of the word "only": If your national government holds that your national laws on the subject serve some purpose besides "to reduce individual liberty" and "unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level", such as to protect the workers from exploitation, then doesn't this CLEARLY let you leave those national laws in place?

If your national government holds that your national laws on the subject serve some purpose besides "to reduce individual liberty" and "unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level", such as to protect the workers from exploitation, then doesn't this CLEARLY let you leave those national laws in place?
Yes, of course it does.

This needs 5 approvals, and I think it expires tomorrow. I'm wasting time TGing for it when I should be TGing for my repeal, so please approve it and save me the time and bother of spamming you. Because I will.

Quorum.

Congratulations :).

It is a good proposal, and I do support it.

This resolution endorses the ideal of liberty. It allows the individual to choose the working hours he wishes to work and to negotiate with the employer and decide whether or not he wants to work more than 40 hours, or even 60 hours a week.

Furthermore, in the line of work I come from (ooc: Accountancy), we consistently work over 60 hours a week. Illegal under the old resolution but expected by our employer.

Many complain that the employer is in a position of strength and can exploit the worker. I say that is a falsehood. If the employer offers me a contract, he wants me, he wants to have me work for him. If he wants me to work more than 40 hours a week and I am unwilling to do so, I retain the right to refuse the contract and seek work elsewhere. Thus I retain my liberty to, or not to work over 40 hours a week. Furthermore, the argument for a limit is that I am being exploited etc However, if I am not forced to sign the contract, if I am not forced to stay in the job. I am not being exploited, as I can walk away and find another job with another employer who is willing to offer me working conditions I am willing to work under.

Thus the employment field becomes a marketplace for jobs, competition if you will. (Now I know socialists hate the idea of "evil" competition where the weak may be less able to do as well as the strong.) Now employers are competing for my services and I can choose where I want to go. I can work 60 hours a week for 60,000, or 40 hours a week for 40,000. It is my choice and the decision i make is dependent upon the value I place on that extra 20,000 against the extra 20 hours a week I would have to work. Truth be told, I would choose the 40. I should have the right and option to do that, this legislation guarantees that. I give it my full endorsement.

I'm all for it. Hope it passes!

This resolution endorses the ideal of liberty. It allows the individual to choose the working hours he wishes to work and to negotiate with the employer and decide whether or not he wants to work more than 40 hours, or even 60 hours a week.



It does endorse an ideal.


Furthermore, in the line of work I come from (ooc: Accountancy), we consistently work over 60 hours a week. Illegal under the old resolution but expected by our employer.


The text of the repeal justifies your statement. However it was legal to work 80 hours under the old resolution.


Many complain that the employer is in a position of strength and can exploit the worker. I say that is a falsehood. If the employer offers me a contract, he wants me, he wants to have me work for him. If he wants me to work more than 40 hours a week and I am unwilling to do so, I retain the right to refuse the contract and seek work elsewhere.


In the situation you have described that is true. However there are company towns with single employers. Imagine a mining town. Everyone moved to said town to work on the mine. There are no other jobs in that circumstance.



Thus I retain my liberty to, or not to work over 40 hours a week. Furthermore, the argument for a limit is that I am being exploited etc However, if I am not forced to sign the contract, if I am not forced to stay in the job.


One can always choose to starve, if you consider that a choice :)



I am not being exploited, as I can walk away and find another job with another employer who is willing to offer me working conditions I am willing to work under.


In an ideal market place, you can do exactly that. Not all marketplaces are ideal. Some countries do not recognize, or fight against the right of their citizens to leave their town, country, and even country.


Thus the employment field becomes a marketplace for jobs, competition if you will. (Now I know socialists hate the idea of "evil" competition where the weak may be less able to do as well as the strong.) Now employers are competing for my services and I can choose where I want to go. I can work 60 hours a week for 60,000, or 40 hours a week for 40,000. It is my choice and the decision i make is dependent upon the value I place on that extra 20,000 against the extra 20 hours a week I would have to work. Truth be told, I would choose the 40. I should have the right and option to do that, this legislation guarantees that. I give it my full endorsement.

The purpose of workplace resolutions are not to protect those in no need of protection, like you have described. They are there to protect..... drum roll please..... those who don't have all the options you have described.

As most of the time, Love and esterel follow the principles of utilitarianism and the principle of one's liberty stopping where one other liberty begins.

In the case of working time, in particular for cheap labour, without regulation, there is obviously more pressure towards more working time for the same salary.

But we think workers need free time to access to culture, tourism, sports, leisure and humanitarian actions, and we think that this free time doesn't undermine national economic growth, as they decrease stress put on workers and sustain many economic activities, such as culture, tourism, sports or entertainment.

Further more this pressure decrease the freedom of workers who want to work for reasonable working time, and also if someone want to work lots of hours every week, there are many opportunities available, create one's own business, work for non-profit organisations or even have an additional part-time activity.

bump for vote tomorrow.

If this could be stickied and retitled - thanks.

Best of luck when this comes to vote, Gruen! :)

Unfortunately, we will have to vote against this. My government sees this proposal as an attempt to further a particular economic ideology, which we believe is detrimental to the peoples of all UN member States.


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,


We believe strongly that the State should play a major role in legislating on the conditions for any such negotiation.


3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;


This we cannot accept. Despite its wording, and despite the vagueness of section 4, the proposal aims at removing protective legislation for workers and subjecting them to choosing between unemployment and the unlimitable dictates of employers.

Furthermore, Ariddia cannot accept section 5, as it contradicts our policy of centralisation in such crucial matters.

It will be a sad day when the United Nations legislates against progressive socialist policies and endorses capitalism in such open terms.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Unfortunately, we will have to vote against this. My government sees this proposal as an attempt to further a particular economic ideology, which we believe is detrimental to the peoples of all UN member States.
It furthers no particular economic ideology. Rather, it furthers a specific political model: subsidiarity. That is not exclusive to any special economic model. Whether socialist or capitalist, a state can recognise the value of subsidiarity.

We also note that the PDSRA has had no such compunction against endorsing resolutions that have infringed on the ability of states to have free and open markets, and that have specifically advanced socialist, environmentalist and social democratic causes.

We believe strongly that the State should play a major role in legislating on the conditions for any such negotiation.
I'd firstly point out that this is an introductory clause, not an operative. It has no effect: all it does is set out the axioms from which this proposal operates. It has no future legislative effect.

I'd secondly point out that it's typical of unjust communist authoritarianism (as opposed to the just righteous authoritarianism of Gruenberg) to ignore the right to privacy. Presumably we should have a Political Officer standing by our side every step we take, gun cocked at our head lest we dare to think anything not approved of by The Party.

Besides, nothing in this proposal prevents states from legislating the conditions for the negotiations. Want to mandate access to union officials? Instate laws requiring translator services for non-nationals? Demand that such negotiations be conducted on one leg? You can still do so. Setting up how the negotiations will be conducted is different to dictating their outcome.

This we cannot accept. Despite its wording, and despite the vagueness of section 4, the proposal aims at removing protective legislation for workers and subjecting them to choosing between unemployment and the unlimitable dictates of employers.
Section 4 is not vague. Sections 1-3 and 5-6 are vague, but 4 certainly not: it is an affirmation of national rights. It preserves exactly the kind of economic sovereignty you are arguing for.

As to Clause 3, it does not remove protective legislation. It does not even aim to do so. The only regulations targetted are those "that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level". Now, if your "protective legislation" does this, it's not really protecting anything at all, is it? Protective legislation would support workers. For we recognise that choosing between unemployment and harsh working conditions is no choice at all, and we wouldn't wish to force anyone into such a situation. Hence, we didn't write a proposal mandating this.

Furthermore, Ariddia cannot accept section 5, as it contradicts our policy of centralisation in such crucial matters.
That's reasonable: I have no rebuttal to this. Centralisation is such a fundamentally retarded economic policy this proposal never made an attempt to accommodate it. Not that this clause is totally incompatible with centralisation anyway - and it's not even mandatory.

It will be a sad day when the United Nations legislates against progressive socialist policies and endorses capitalism in such open terms.
I just wish that the rhetoric was as forthcoming on the regular occasions the UN legislates progressive socialism and impinges on the rights of state to organize their economies to a capitalist model.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I'd firstly point out that this is an introductory clause, not an operative. It has no effect: all it does is set out the axioms from which this proposal operates. It has no future legislative effect.

We are not disputing that. However, the language of this proposal expresses values and aims which we cannot condone, and which we do not wish to see enshrined within the body of United Nations legislation. Although it is worded to express the furtherment of "freedom", we believe the intent is clearly to promote capitalist ideology.


I'd secondly point out that it's typical of unjust communist authoritarianism (as opposed to the just righteous authoritarianism of Gruenberg) to ignore the right to privacy. Presumably we should have a Political Officer standing by our side every step we take, gun cocked at our head lest we dare to think anything not approved of by The Party.


The PDSRA would never condone such measures. We do, however, recognise the right of the sovereign State of Gruenberg to maintain an authoritarian government.


Besides, nothing in this proposal prevents states from legislating the conditions for the negotiations. Want to mandate access to union officials? Instate laws requiring translator services for non-nationals? Demand that such negotiations be conducted on one leg? You can still do so. Setting up how the negotiations will be conducted is different to dictating their outcome.


True. We cannot dispute that the letter of the text (and specifically section 4, as you say) can be interpreted in such a way as to enable to continuation of virtually any economic policies. However, we cannot approve a proposal which clearly intends to promote (albeit not mandate) the rights of employers over social legislation designed for the protection of workers.

We will readily concede that this proposal is very cleverly written, of course.


As to Clause 3, it does not remove protective legislation. It does not even aim to do so. The only regulations targetted are those "that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level". Now, if your "protective legislation" does this, it's not really protecting anything at all, is it? Protective legislation would support workers. For we recognise that choosing between unemployment and harsh working conditions is no choice at all, and we wouldn't wish to force anyone into such a situation. Hence, we didn't write a proposal mandating this.


I'm glad to hear you say you wouldn't wish to force anyone into such a situation. But I'd be very curious to hear the honourable representative Pyandran supply us with a clear definition, and perhaps examples, of "working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty".


I just wish that the rhetoric was as forthcoming on the regular occasions the UN legislates progressive socialism and impinges on the rights of state to organize their economies to a capitalist model.


I don't believe the United Nations "regularly" promotes socialism. Quite the contrary. In any case, my government has always- has... generally sought to refrain from imposing its social values upon the member States of this august assembly.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

(OOC: It is a very well written proposal. There's just no way in hell Ariddia can ever support it.)

Firstly, I now recognise that Ambassador Zarazarawotsit's concerns were largely of tone, rather than practical effect. I was concerned there was a misinterpretation that this resolution compelled unfavourable laws. So long as it is understood that it at most suggests them, that's fine by me.
I'm glad to hear you say you wouldn't wish to force anyone into such a situation. But I'd be very curious to hear the honourable representative Pyandran supply us with a clear definition, and perhaps examples, of "working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty".
I'll provide no definition. That's for national legislatures to determine. But some examples of how it might be implemented in Gruenberg:
1. Banning absolute caps on working hours (thus permitting someone to work, for example, more than 80 hours per week should they freely choose to do so).
2. Removing anything that is too restrictive with regards to work breaks. So removing laws stating that someone may only take a break every 8 hours...and equally removing laws stating that someone must spend 15 minutes on the hour at unpaid break.
3. Abolishing laws against employers giving lazy workers a thorough stick beating to improve productivity.
4. Ending any laws that do not take account of the broad range of circumstances affecting working time.
5. Stopping any laws that do not permit reasonable flexibility in determining working hours, and also reasonable flexibility in the cane, to allow for a hearty crack against the workers' back.

I don't believe the United Nations "regularly" promotes socialism. Quite the contrary. In any case, my government has always- has... generally sought to refrain from imposing its social values upon the member States of this august assembly.
Oh? So what was "The 40 Hour Workweek" (the replacement of which this proposal was originally conceived as preventing) or "The Rights of Labor Unions" and its spawn "The Right to Form Unions"? When the UN passed "Required Basic Healthcare" and "Free Education", was it not promoting socialist policies?

And Gruenberg has nothing against imposing our values on other nations. Our values are better, you see.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Presumably we should have a Political Officer standing by our side every step we take, gun cocked at our head lest we dare to think anything not approved of by The Party.
Yes! Yes you should. You would be amazed at the wild ideas people get in their heads without the guiding hand of the Party apparatus, the hooliganism they will engage in. They're like children, really.

Firstly, I now recognise that Ambassador Zarazarawotsit's concerns were largely of tone, rather than practical effect. I was concerned there was a misinterpretation that this resolution compelled unfavourable laws. So long as it is understood that it at most suggests them, that's fine by me.

Ambassador Zyryanov nods, trying not to smile as she notices that Pyandran has picked up the "nickname" Bausch had first given her.


But some examples of how it might be implemented in Gruenberg:
<SNIP>


"Most of those examples are, of course, ones we fully agree with - although we have some concern about the first being exploited by employers threatening to sack workers if they refuse to work longer hours, for example."


Oh? So what was "The 40 Hour Workweek" (the replacement of which this proposal was originally conceived as preventing) or "The Rights of Labor Unions" and its spawn "The Right to Form Unions"? When the UN passed "Required Basic Healthcare" and "Free Education", was it not promoting socialist policies?

And Gruenberg has nothing against imposing our values on other nations. Our values are better, you see.


"We see those as being, for the most part, issues of basic human rights."


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We see those as being, for the most part, issues of basic human rights.
See, I don't think being forced to contribute a healthy chunk of my income towards paying for services for someone else, who I don't know, and have no connection to, and who are able to not work, and not contribute to the national economy, by virtue of these funds being taken from me, is an especially wonderful affirmation of human rights. But then, I believe in all kinds of crazy shit, like that deciding how long one works for, rather than being mandated it by an unaccountable government suit, is a matter of basic human rights, so I guess my opinion doesn't count for much.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

See, I don't think being forced to contribute a healthy chunk of my income towards paying for services for someone else, who I don't know, and have no connection to, and who are able to not work, and not contribute to the national economy, by virtue of these funds being taken from me, is an especially wonderful affirmation of human rights. But then, I believe in all kinds of crazy shit, like that deciding how long one works for, rather than being mandated it by an unaccountable government suit, is a matter of basic human rights, so I guess my opinion doesn't count for much.


That's the tricky thing about human rights, isn't it? I say "human rights", you say "oppression"; I say "oppression", you say... Anyway. We will see which way our colleagues vote. Although I suppose many, alas, won't read much further than the title...


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

That's the tricky thing about human rights, isn't it? I say "human rights", you say "oppression"; I say "oppression", you say... Anyway.
I agree. And it's why "basic human rights" is so fundamentally unsound as a basis for justifying the overriding of sovereignty.

We will see which way our colleagues vote. Although I suppose many, alas, won't read much further than the title...
Hmm, I don't think that'll be good for me. My feeling is this will fail, although it picked up approvals reasonably quickly.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

bump for vote tomorrow.

If this could be stickied and retitled - thanks.

Done.

It's supposed to say "Official Topic" at the end. :p

It's supposed to say "Official Topic" at the end. :p

Give him a break, he's new.:p

Goddamn n00b mods fucking everything up. He also forgot the "(almost)" at the beginning. Not at vote yet, you see... :p

Ahem.

In character...

The Hack fully supports this proposal and hope that the UN will finally pass some legislation that actually makes sense and doesn't try to turn its members into a bunch of filthy commie hippies. Goddamn hippies. I just wanna take a tire iron to their head.

...what was I talking about?

Oh, right. Proposal. We support it. Vote yes, you goddamn hippies.


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

Goddamn hippies.
I have found that an effective method for dealing with hippies is to excavate a large hole, fill it with hippies, cover the hippies with dirt, then have heavy equipment drive over the dirt until it is well packed. In this way, citizens are encouraged to work harder and bathe more frequently.

The most honorable Ambassador Zyryanov has raised a point on this page that I would like to see answered to.

OOC: I apologize if it has already been answered, it's late, and I wanna get to bed.

IC:"Most of those examples are, of course, ones we fully agree with - although we have some concern about the first being exploited by employers threatening to sack workers if they refuse to work longer hours, for example."

What say you, Mr. Pyandran?

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

OOC: TH a mod now? Wowee, congrats!

What say you, Mr. Pyandran?
I say that an employer should be able to sack a worker if they refuse to work longer hours. What, you're suggesting that if I decide that after a couple of hours I'm tired and I want to go home, I should be able to do that with no penalty? A job is a private contract. One person agrees to work for so long, in return for pay and benefits. The idea that breaking a contract is a bad thing is surely not exclusive to Gruenberger law?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Messenger: I am here to represent Pope Golden Fleece the 1st of the Holy Empire of Sheepism. The Pope feels that such a resolution might impede the ability of our priests to advice correctly as to when our people should be working and when they should be praying. Consequently, the Pope feels that he cannot support this resolution at this time.

My government is not generally in favour of this resolution. For example the passage below is considered by many to be incorrect in that the employee weilds little power over the employer (prospective or current).


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,

However, the government of Tiwanku does agree with this passage, because it disadvantages weaker, fledgling economies (such as Tiwanku's):

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,

Therefore, the government of Tiwanku regards the following as against our principles:

1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;

2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

5. Endorses policies aimed at delegating decisions concerning working time regulations to the most local level possible;

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

However, we feel that the individual freedom of individual governments to set thier own working time regulations should be upheld. However, the latter part of this point is also against our principles.

4. Reserves the right of nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest, so long as such regulations do not unduly abridge the freedom of individuals in deciding their terms of employment;

But then, I believe in all kinds of crazy shit, like that deciding how long one works for, rather than being mandated it by an unaccountable government suit, is a matter of basic human rights, so I guess my opinion doesn't count for much.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Well there is your problem. You seem hostile to any form of government. How about instead you start holding government accountable? If you treat it like an enemy you won't get the most use out of it.

Give him a break, he's new.:p

Actually, I just don't see the need for the [Official Topic] tag at the end, because its officiality is rather evident from it being stickied and given the "At Vote:" prefix.

But if y'all want it, that's fine. Don't make much difference.

Having read through the entire proposal more than once, I can now say that the Queendom of Karmicaria approves.

We have voted FOR.


Dahlia Black
UN representative for the Queendom of Karmicaria

Who wrote this piece of ... oh it's Gruenberg. Ladies and gentlemen, I rise in support of this resolution although frankly I have no idea why. In the first place it sounds like a minor caregory violation, after all it is claimed to be "Labor Deregulation" but technically didn't the deregulation actually happen with the repeal of Resolution #59? I don't see how this resolution further deregulates anything, except under certain conditions which I will clearly explain later.

It being understood, however, that I rise in support of this resolution.

One of my biggest problems is that the resolution seems to talk about one thing and then legislate something else. It seems to talk about the work week, but in all the action clauses talks about "working time." And the resolution title doesn't help. Is this some awfull attempt at forcing "flex hours" down national throats? I mean if my postal carrier at the post office decided to come in every day in the afternoon and leave 8 hours later then I have to deal with late mail every day! And what about, "Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty." I mean I always thought it was a good idea to limt the number of consecutive hours a truck driver can work, because if they don't get sleep, they are going to fall asleep at the wheel. Same for air pilots, heavy machine operators, in fact practically everybody! I mean do you want to see a burger flipper fall flat on his face on the hot grilling surface! Think of the burger flippers!

It being understood, however, that I rise in support of this resolution.

(At this point a big blone haried man walks into the debate hall.)

I would like to introduce Flash Blonde, a famous rugby player from the Free Land of Retired Werepenguins who is visiting the UN. Thankfully Retired Werepenguins is not a member of the UN.

(Flash begins to take pieces of paper, crumple them up and throw them at the representative from Gruenberg.)

Ah it would appear that Flash is somewhat upset at the recent vote of Gruenberg which suggested that non-human intercourse was equivalent to sex with animals. Since he can't speak, as he is not a member of the UN, this is apparently the only way he can 'hurl insults' at the represtative from Gruenberg. (Opening one of the crumpled papers) Hmmm, it says 'Cricket players are girly men who don't know how to play a real sport like rugby.'

It being understood, however, that I rise in support of this resolution and I believe Flash also is in agreement that this resolution should be passed.

(Flash nods his head in the affirmative.)

This proposal is way too dictatorial. Individual nations may have religious or moral restrictions in place that would be affected by this document. Not only might a nation's charter give the government the right to restrict labor regulations, but it might also give the employer/businessowner certain rights to regulate employment.

Passing this proposal would infringe upon the individual charters as well as the business owners.

VOTE "NO"!

The Great Star Empire supports this fine proposal, having reviewed both it and the debate surrounding it. His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty is pleased to give his support to this.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

Messenger: I am here to represent Pope Golden Fleece the 1st of the Holy Empire of Sheepism. The Pope feels that such a resolution might impede the ability of our priests to advice correctly as to when our people should be working and when they should be praying. Consequently, the Pope feels that he cannot support this resolution at this time.
You might note that this proposal has been submitted by the...Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg, a devout nation that spends close to one in seven of its tax dollars on the state religion. So arguments about restriction of theocracies naturally puzzle us.

Suffice it to say, though, that nothing in this proposal would prevent your priests from "advic"ing your people when to work and when to pray.

--snip--
I have no clue what you're saying.

--snip--
I have no clue what you're saying.

This proposal is way too dictatorial. Individual nations may have religious or moral restrictions in place that would be affected by this document. Not only might a nation's charter give the government the right to restrict labor regulations, but it might also give the employer/businessowner certain rights to regulate employment.

Passing this proposal would infringe upon the individual charters as well as the business owners.
Except, no, it wouldn't.

Here's a suggestion. Instead of vaguely saying, "Oh it's so bad," point out where it is bad. Demonstrate how a conflict might arise. If you're just going to spout empty garbage, though, you can shove it.

Irritating size and color tags removed.
Thank you!

Thank you to those who have spoken in support. The vote tally is a lot more promising now than it was this morning.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I have to dissent on this issue. Governments are far more likely to look out for the best interests of the people than a corporation is. Corporations are responsible to the shareholders, not the employees and as such may force horrible working hours on their employees, in order to improve profits.

"I... er... this makes us uneasy. I don't know why, but it just makes me squirm a bit. However, we cannot find any good (and coherant) argument against this proposal, and therefore I cast the Commonwealth's vote in favor."

This resolution boils down to one simple issue: Does its 3rd clause do anything substantive?3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level; In this debate, we've heard people say that this clause is utterly overruled by the resolution's 4th clause:4. Reserves the right of nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest, so long as such regulations do not unduly abridge the freedom of individuals in deciding their terms of employment;Well, either it is or it isn't.

If the 4th clause protects all substantive legislation limiting working hours which can be justified “in the general public interest” from repeal under the previous clause, then all this resolution does is effectively “sunset” archaic labor laws, and then only with respect to working hours. For no legislature is ever going to make the claim that its work is solely the product of whimsy; “the general public interest” will always be invoked as justification for its works, in this area like any other.

This leaves us to ask: If the 4th clause nullifies the 3rd, then what does this resolution actually do? The 2nd, 5th, and 6th clauses are normative; while we will not assert them to be utterly toothless, they lack the force of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th clauses. This leaves just the 1st clause:1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;... but even this is weakened by weasel words “greatest possible”. What, may we ask, is “possible”? Who judges it? Since laissez-faire capitalism is “possible” (it exists in the world of NationStates), then does this clause require its adoption by all NSUN members? One could argue that it does, or one could argue that “possibility” is judged according to the frame of reference of each nation's value system. If the former, this resolution would be illegal; but if the latter, then it would merely be worthless.

That leaves us asking the question: Why are we even bothering with this resolution? It is either: An illegal proposal banning all forms of politico-economic organization other than anarcho-capitalism,


A mass of empty verbiage intended to serve as a “blocker” against further efforts to legislate a global work week, or


An subtle (or maybe not-so-subtle) attempt to influence the legal environment of litigious NSUN members in favor of a more capitalistic stance when it comes to the enforcement of their national laws.We believe the last of these three to be the purpose, although the second is not utterly impossible.

All of that “calling”, “promoting”, and “endorsing” has an impact only in those societies where litigation might affect the legality of various kinds of work contracts, workplace regulations, or labor laws, in so far as it would tend to influence a court towards striking down government-established work rules in favor of privately negotiated arrangements, voluntary or coerced. That means that if this resolution does anything other than act as a blocker, it widens the gap between laissez-faire regimes and socialist ones, a kind of “eliminate the center” move we've seen from aggressive idealogues before. After all, in Community Property – where these is no private enterprise (aside from those annoying lemonade vendors), the People – as owners and operators of the means or production – aren't non-contracting parties able to intervene only through legislation and the courts: we are both employers and employees, and so every arrangement we come up with is by definition a matter of “free” choice (as defined according to the logic of the resolution, where the word “individual” should be taken as a code-phrase for “employee”, “employer”, and “contractor” all at once); to paraphrase Pogo, “We have met the boss, and he is us.”

It is for this reason that we must oppose this resolution: at its best it is a blocker; more likely it is an attempt to drive the membership towards a more laissez-faire way of doing business (no pun intended) - or at least polarize it - and therefore fails to win our support both on the grounds of national sovereignty (legislating in an area where there is no clear need for international legislation) and on the grounds that it increases the differences among nations and thereby disrupts gloabl harmony; and at worst it is a blatant attempt to outlaw everything but anarcho-capitalism.

Whichever it is doesn't matter to us; we vote “no”.

This resolution boils down to one simple issue: Does its 3rd clause do anything substantive?
Stop presenting your opinions as facts. Which clause(s) of this proposal are taken to be the most significant is a point of individual consideration.

If the 4th clause protects all substantive legislation limiting working hours which can be justified “in the general public interest” from repeal under the previous clause, then all this resolution does is effectively “sunset” archaic labor laws, and then only with respect to working hours. For no legislature is ever going to make the claim that its work is solely the product of whimsy; “the general public interest” will always be invoked as justification for its works, in this area like any other.
So? Not every resolution needs to change which direction the Earth spins. If this were in a different category, I'd completely accept it would be classified as Mild.

This leaves just the 1st clause:... but even this is weakened by weasel words “greatest possible”. What, may we ask, is “possible”? Who judges it?
National legislatures (or whoever is tasked with the interpretation and implementation of UN law).

Since laissez-faire capitalism is “possible” (it exists in the world of NationStates), then does this clause require its adoption by all NSUN members?
No.

One could argue that it does, or one could argue that “possibility” is judged according to the frame of reference of each nation's value system. If the former, this resolution would be illegal; but if the latter, then it would merely be worthless.
The former is wrong. The latter is too, but even if it were correct, it wouldn't render the proposal worthless. There's a great deal of worth in preventing another catastrophe like The 40 Hour Workweek.

An illegal proposal banning all forms of politico-economic organization other than anarcho-capitalism,
No.

A mass of empty verbiage intended to serve as a “blocker” against further efforts to legislate a global work week,
Not really. One aim, sure, was to prevent a recurrence of a global workweek mandate...but the proposal still does what it says, and that it was designed as a blocker does not detract from its otherwise promotion of particular ideas and principles.

An [sic] subtle (or maybe not-so-subtle) attempt to influence the legal environment of litigious NSUN members in favor of a more capitalistic stance when it comes to the enforcement of their national laws.
Nope.

We believe the last of these three to be the purpose, although the second is not utterly impossible.
Well, you're wrong, so hey.

--long-winded snip--
Sorry pal, you're going to have to try again in English. Oh, and a vague attempt to actually address the text of the proposal would probably help focus your waffle.

It is for this reason that we must oppose this resolution: at its best it is a blocker; more likely it is an attempt to drive the membership towards a more laissez-faire way of doing business (no pun intended) - or at least polarize it - and therefore fails to win our support both on the grounds of national sovereignty (legislating in an area where there is no clear need for international legislation) and on the grounds that it increases the differences among nations and thereby disrupts gloabl harmony; and at worst it is a blatant attempt to outlaw everything but anarcho-capitalism.
I see. So you object to it because it preserves national sovereignty, and because it infringes on national sovereignty. Interesting line. Tell me, would your position also be the same if it danced the tango with national sovereignty? There doesn't seem much else it can do.

Actually, don't. I'm tired of your interminable spew.

Whichever it is doesn't matter to us; we vote “no”.
You mean I wasted all my time wading through that drivel just for you to stick out your tongue and yah-boo anyway? Well damn.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I find myself agreeing with the Honourable Representative from Tzorsland. I'm hardly surprised to see a resolution like this come from Gruenberg - but that is about as far as I agreed with him. I immediately decided against the resolution, simply hearing whom it was from, and then I took the time to read it. A few minutes of my life I'll never get back, I must say.

But, well done in the crafting of a right-wing 'employees have no say in the amount of hours they work' resolution in the guise of a reasonable resolution. Then again, you are from a clearly misled nation, in the guise of a knowledgeable nation.

May you find the Deity's Light.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

I find myself agreeing with the Honourable Representative from Tzorsland.
Who, um, voted for the proposal...

I'm hardly surprised to see a resolution like this come from Gruenberg.
You know, I can't quite place where I've heard these sort of childish whinings before. Which past proposal/argument of mine did you find yourself disagreeing with?

I should note that I really don't remember you, so I'm not basing my judgement that you're a fucking retard on past disagreements. It's the petty shit you're spewing now that leads me to this conclusion.

I immediately decided against the resolution, simply hearing whom it was from, and then I took the time to read it.
Then you're indescribably dumb.

A few minutes of my life I'll never get back, I must say.
Ooh burn! What, is this meant to be some form of insult or criticism? Wow, your wit is truly so razor sharp I'd have to bludgeon myself in the head with it to raise a scratch.

But, well done in the crafting of a right-wing 'employees have no say in the amount of hours they work' resolution in the guise of a reasonable resolution.
Ah, so when you said you read the proposal, you were actually lying. Because, you know, clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 all ask nations to give employees a say in the amount of hours they work.

1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;

2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;
...
5. Endorses policies aimed at delegating decisions concerning working time regulations to the most local level possible;
Now piss off, and when you've read the proposal properly, you can come back and try again.

Then again, you are from a clearly misled nation, in the guise of a knowledgeable nation.
No idea what this means. How can a nation be "knowledgeable"?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

"Er... congratulations, Mr. Pyandran, on the fact that you're currently winning."

Votes For: 2,224

Votes Against: 1,176

"However, on a completely inconsequential sidenote, we noticed that you marked the Community Property's spelling of subtle as incorrect(the [sic], of course). Which is incorrect. Subtle is, in fact spelled, subtle. No offense, but it woke up my inner grammar psycho.

OOC: LOL, I couldn't help myself :D

IC:

"But really, I hope this passes, as there's no real reason for it not to, and the general basis is good."

OOC: http://m-w.com/dictionary/subtle

The Wolf Guardians;11642752']"However, on a completely inconsequential sidenote, we noticed that you marked the Community Property's spelling of subtle as incorrect(the [sic], of course). Which is incorrect. Subtle is, in fact spelled, subtle. No offense, but it woke up my inner grammar psycho."
Yeah, and?

Ok, I was partially at fault. I placed the [sic] in the wrong place. I meant to flag the use of "an" preceding "subtle". I have amended my statement.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC: LOL, my work here is done, then.

IC: "Ah, I see. Well, I've decided and cast my vote already, so I've no further purpose in this room for the remainder of the debate. Good luck, Mr. Pyandran. I hope it passes, which it will. Knock on wood." Wolfgang actually knocks on the desk. "I'm off to the Bar."

Yes! Yes you should. You would be amazed at the wild ideas people get in their heads without the guiding hand of the Party apparatus, the hooliganism they will engage in. They're like children, really.

OOC: Enjoying this new character, are ya? ;)

Opalania chose to vote a resounding NO on this resolution. This Resolution is in direct conflict of the UN Charter which specifically grants every nation the right to self-determination. The Resolution does not take into account the economic impact this may have on many member nations including Opalania. How can we be guarenteed individual self-determination while certain member nations are simultaneously whittling away at our soveirgnty by attempting to pass and enforce such a Resolution? This is a matter for the governments of each individual member nation to decide.

This Resolution is in direct conflict of the UN Charter which specifically grants every nation the right to self-determination.
The what-now? The UN has no charter.

OOC: This isn't the RLUN.

The Resolution does not take into account the economic impact this may have on many member nations including Opalania. How can we be guarenteed individual self-determination while certain member nations are simultaneously whittling away at our soveirgnty by attempting to pass and enforce such a Resolution?
Maybe by actually reading the damn thing?
4. Reserves the right of nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest, so long as such regulations do not unduly abridge the freedom of individuals in deciding their terms of employment;

5. Endorses policies aimed at delegating decisions concerning working time regulations to the most local level possible;

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

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Opalania chose to vote a resounding NO on this resolution. This Resolution is in direct conflict of the UN Charter which specifically grants every nation the right to self-determination. The Resolution does not take into account the economic impact this may have on many member nations including Opalania. How can we be guarenteed individual self-determination while certain member nations are simultaneously whittling away at our soveirgnty by attempting to pass and enforce such a Resolution? This is a matter for the governments of each individual member nation to decide.

We don't have a charter, nitwit. Didn't you read your orientation packet?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I find myself agreeing with the Honourable Representative from Tzorsland. I'm hardly surprised to see a resolution like this come from Gruenberg - but that is about as far as I agreed with him. I immediately decided against the resolution, simply hearing whom it was from, and then I took the time to read it. A few minutes of my life I'll never get back, I must say.

But, well done in the crafting of a right-wing 'employees have no say in the amount of hours they work' resolution in the guise of a reasonable resolution. Then again, you are from a clearly misled nation, in the guise of a knowledgeable nation.

May you find the Deity's Light.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Your snide comments do you no credit. So you decided against the proposal simply based on who its author was. What an intelligent way to make a decision!

Perhaps if you took your blinders of prejudice off before reading a proposal, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by making completely false statements. Exactly where, pray tell, does the proposal state or provide that 'employees have no say in the amount of hours they work'?

May you find a good reading comprehension course.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

. How can we be guarenteed individual self-determination while certain member nations are simultaneously whittling away at our soveirgnty by attempting to pass and enforce such a Resolution? .

Because the resolution very clearly leaves the decision to both the individual person and the national governments to figure out how long they should work.

Or did the whole thing about "Individual Working Freedoms" throw you off?

Actually, don't. I'm tired of your interminable spew.I see that politeness is not a Gruenberger national trait. Do you talk to everyone that way, though, or just those who disagree with you? We rather suspect the latter, which makes your rudeness less a character flaw than a form of verbal abuse aimed at silencing your political opposition. For shame, sir, for shame.I see. So you object to it because it preserves national sovereignty, and because it infringes on national sovereignty. Interesting line. Tell me, would your position also be the same if it danced the tango with national sovereignty? There doesn't seem much else it can do.You appear to completely misunderstand the objection on sovereigntist grounds – and probably even the whole concept of national sovereignty - so we'll spell it out for you: What on Earth do working hours have to do with international relations? Is there some reason why different nations can't have different approaches to the management of labor issues? Is there some way in which, say Community Property's labor laws affect Gruenberg, such that Gruenberg should even care whether we have overtime laws, or restrictions on the number of consecutive hours a person can work without a break, or laws dictating how late a minor can work on a school night, or whatever?

If the principle of national sovereignty means anything, it is that we should refrain from regulating matters that are better left to the members of this body. Implicit in your own resolution...5. Endorses policies aimed at delegating decisions concerning working time regulations to the most local level possible; ... is the notion that this is not an international issue, but rather one that should be left to individual nations.

That alone tells us that this resolution isn't worth the electrons it was written with.One aim, sure, was to prevent a recurrence of a global workweek mandate...but the proposal still does what it says, and that it was designed as a blocker does not detract from its otherwise promotion of particular ideas and principles.A refreshing moment of candor, that.
Sorry pal, you're going to have to try again in English. Oh, and a vague attempt to actually address the text of the proposal would probably help focus your waffle.We did, actually – or at least as much of it as is worth addressing. Since we doubt the proposal was intended to force anarcho-capitalism to be instituted everywhere¹, we are left with our original observations intact: it is either intended as a blocker, or to push non-socialist states a little closer to the laissez-faire principle in their operation. Of course, we wanted to be nice and assume that you actually believed that your resolution was going to do something instead of just sitting there obstructing the possible future passage of an improved international overtime law; however, you don't seem to like asserting that, so we'll just label this thing a legislative doorstop and leave it at that.

Indeed, you don't appear to be able to make up your mind as to whether this proposal really does anything or not; I see you telling people that this doesn't have to affect them if they don't want it to. So is there any unambiguous effect this would have on every nation in the NSUN, or is this just one of those absurdities that Kennyites can effectively ignore without breaking a sweat: “Calls upon ... endorses ... promotes ... but only mandates or requires if we think its O.K. to mandate or require”?!?

Come now, sir: there's no such thing as “a little bit pregnant”. Either your proposal actually requires some of us to do something we may not want to do, or it's a blocker². So which is it?

¹A possibility we were forced to mentions if only for the sake of logical completeness. Now denied and rejected by all, it can be safely forgotten (maybe³).

²Or maybe, just for grins, we'll call it “an blocker” and see if anybody's actually paying attention. It beats flogging the NSUN translator corps with limp vermicelli...

³Since we don't leave it up to national governments to determine which weapons are “necessary” for national defense, then why should we conclude that it's up to these same governments to determine what the “greatest possible” degree of freedom with regards to working hours might be?

OOC: Enjoying this new character, are ya? ;)
OOC: Immensely.:D

IC: Character? The last person who referred to me as a "character" was sealed inside a barrel of fish heads and dumped into the Volga. But yes, I am enjoying myself. Particularly now that the pointy-headed Yeldan dogooders have left me to properly perform my duties.

My government has a few questions regarding this resolution that we'd appreciate answered prior to voting.

1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;

My analysis of this particular clause is that employees and employers will still need to agree upon written contracts, and that both parties (as "people") will retain the freedom to build situational based contracts. Is this view consistent with the intent of this clause?


3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

In a way this clause seems to reiterate some of the language from the previous (not shown here) clause. However, it is my understanding that in some countries, such as Mikitivity, that there are trade unions. Speficially I'm thinking of the Companions Guild, where the decision making for general employement is handled by guild regulations, while the decisions on clientel, services, and fees for services rendered is solely a matter between a Companion and her/his client. Some of the top down decisions about conditions of employment actually come from the cantonal government (and in the case of Companions the UN itself via its Sex Industry Worker Act).

Could you elaborate on what the intent of the second half of this clause was?

4. Reserves the right of nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest, so long as such regulations do not unduly abridge the freedom of individuals in deciding their terms of employment;

How would this clause fit with religious states that mandate that businesses remain closed on Sundays or that everybody kneel down and pray to a meteorite while dreaming of having 72 wives?


5. Endorses policies aimed at delegating decisions concerning working time regulations to the most local level possible;


I do not have a question here, but rather a firm endorsement of this sort of approach. It is consistent with most Mikitivity laws and is certainly nice to see in a UN resolution.

Sincerely,
Howie T. Katzman

If you want the government at all levels to be involved with the hiring and firing of employees, then vote yes. If you want to leave it up to the employers where it belongs, VOTE NO!

If you want the government at all levels to be involved with the hiring and firing of employees, then vote yes. If you want to leave it up to the employers where it belongs, VOTE NO!

You fail at reading comprehension.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I am deeply saddened that this legislation fails to secure the right of cadres to beat workers with sticks. Sometimes this is necessary, yes?

I see that politeness is not a Gruenberger national trait. Do you talk to everyone that way, though, or just those who disagree with you? We rather suspect the latter, which makes your rudeness less a character flaw than a form of verbal abuse aimed at silencing your political opposition. For shame, sir, for shame.
Boo hoo.

You appear to completely misunderstand the objection on sovereigntist grounds – and probably even the whole concept of national sovereignty - so we'll spell it out for you: What on Earth do working hours have to do with international relations? Is there some reason why different nations can't have different approaches to the management of labor issues? Is there some way in which, say Community Property's labor laws affect Gruenberg, such that Gruenberg should even care whether we have overtime laws, or restrictions on the number of consecutive hours a person can work without a break, or laws dictating how late a minor can work on a school night, or whatever?

If the principle of national sovereignty means anything, it is that we should refrain from regulating matters that are better left to the members of this body. Implicit in your own resolution...... is the notion that this is not an international issue, but rather one that should be left to individual nations.

That alone tells us that this resolution isn't worth the electrons it was written with.
Except of course the whole fucking point of this proposal is to prevent the UN from legislating on workweek laws, precisely because they are not an international issue and any proposals on the subject would be unsuitable and unworkable. But at the same time, a proposal cannot simply state "the UN won't do this" - it'd be ruled illegal - so therefore it has to be given an overall tone. In this case, we chose to endorse broad principles of subsidiarity and call for the removal of restrictions on individual liberty. But nothing in my understanding of national sovereignty would prevent the UN from encouraging, from recommending, from suggesting or from urging nations to adopt particular policies or change certain nation laws. A breach of sovereignty only comes about when a nation's authority is directly overriden, or where it is forced to do certain things.

The general statements of this proposal I believe in. But I accept they're not right for all nations - so they are only softly endorsed. The hard part of this legislation is the protection of national rights.

We did, actually – or at least as much of it as is worth addressing.
Ah snap!

You guys need to come up with better jibes. Your present attempts pretty much suck.

it is either intended as a blocker, or to push non-socialist states a little closer to the laissez-faire principle in their operation.
I have, repeatedly, told you it's the former. That you continue to yammer on about the latter indicates only that you can't seem to fucking drop it...no fault of mine.

Of course, we wanted to be nice and assume that you actually believed that your resolution was going to do something instead of just sitting there obstructing the possible future passage of an improved international overtime law; however, you don't seem to like asserting that, so we'll just label this thing a legislative doorstop and leave it at that.
Yes, it is a legislative doorstop.

Please tell me that means you'll go away now?

Indeed, you don't appear to be able to make up your mind as to whether this proposal really does anything or not; I see you telling people that this doesn't have to affect them if they don't want it to. So is there any unambiguous effect this would have on every nation in the NSUN, or is this just one of those absurdities that Kennyites can effectively ignore without breaking a sweat: “Calls upon ... endorses ... promotes ... but only mandates or requires if we think its O.K. to mandate or require”?!?
I've already answered this.

Come now, sir: there's no such thing as “a little bit pregnant”. Either your proposal actually requires some of us to do something we may not want to do, or it's a blocker². So which is it?
I've already answered this.

A possibility we were forced to mentions if only for the sake of logical completeness. Now denied and rejected by all, it can be safely forgotten
Yes. So kindly shut the fuck up about it.

Or maybe, just for grins, we'll call it “an blocker” and see if anybody's actually paying attention. It beats flogging the NSUN translator corps with limp vermicelli...
HURR HURR! WOW THAT WOULD BE SO FUNNY HURR.

Since we don't leave it up to national governments to determine which weapons are “necessary” for national defense, then why should we conclude that it's up to these same governments to determine what the “greatest possible” degree of freedom with regards to working hours might be?
Ugh, this again.

We do leave it to national governments to decide what weapons are necessary for national defence. The UN simply has the authority to override that if it chooses to do so. So yes, if the UN passed a proposal defining a cap on working hours as "serving only to reduce individual liberty and unfairly removing decision-making from the individual level", or as "unduly abridging the freedom of individuals in deciding the terms of their employment", there'd be a problem.

1. I'd oppose such a proposal.
2. That's a problem with every possible proposal that doesn't add Webster's as an annex.
3. I don't think such a proposal would make it to a resolution anyway.

My analysis of this particular clause is that employees and employers will still need to agree upon written contracts, and that both parties (as "people") will retain the freedom to build situational based contracts. Is this view consistent with the intent of this clause?
Somewhat. But the clause doesn't actually assume that individuals can make such contracts - if it did, I think it'd be encroaching into ideological ban territory - just that where they can, they be afforded freedom in doing so.

In a way this clause seems to reiterate some of the language from the previous (not shown here) clause. However, it is my understanding that in some countries, such as Mikitivity, that there are trade unions. Speficially I'm thinking of the Companions Guild, where the decision making for general employement is handled by guild regulations, while the decisions on clientel, services, and fees for services rendered is solely a matter between a Companion and her/his client. Some of the top down decisions about conditions of employment actually come from the cantonal government (and in the case of Companions the UN itself via its Sex Industry Worker Act).

Could you elaborate on what the intent of the second half of this clause was?
It was essentially a proclamation against the sentiment that the government knows better than the worker what's good for him. If someone is willing to work long hours, they should not be proscribed from doing so simply because the government believes working long hours is unhealthy. Unconventionally for Gruenberg, perhaps, this is a sort of libertarian clause: the right to make decisions for one's self that others may disapprove of.

How would this clause fit with religious states that mandate that businesses remain closed on Sundays or that everybody kneel down and pray to a meteorite while dreaming of having 72 wives?
I think it'd fit fine. In a religious state, such mandates would clearly be in the public interest (it being in the public interest not to incur the wrath of the divine), and wouldn't unduly infringe on freedom insofar as they would be equitably applied.

I do not have a question here, but rather a firm endorsement of this sort of approach. It is consistent with most Mikitivity laws and is certainly nice to see in a UN resolution.
Thank you, Ambassador Katzman.

I am deeply saddened that this legislation fails to secure the right of cadres to beat workers with sticks. Sometimes this is necessary, yes?
All things in good time...

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I am deeply saddened that this legislation fails to secure the right of cadres to beat workers with sticks. Sometimes this is necessary, yes?


Ah, I see my friend remembers the earlier draft of this proposal... ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ah, I see my friend remembers the earlier draft of this proposal...
Actually, that was a draft repeal of The 40 Hour Workweek.

Actually, that was a draft repeal of The 40 Hour Workweek.

Hey, I got the reference at least, albeit not accurately. All the Cluichstani whiskey I consume kills some brain cells but not all, it seems.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Except, no, it wouldn't.

Here's a suggestion. Instead of vaguely saying, "Oh it's so bad," point out where it is bad. Demonstrate how a conflict might arise. If you're just going to spout empty garbage, though, you can shove it.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time

That in itself infringes on any national charter that might have religious or traditional restrictions, such as no business on sunday.

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level

If I hire someone to do a task, he is obligated to either do it the way I want him to do it, or seek other employment. I should not be told HOW to hire someone. It's my business, not the UN's or any other nation's...and not even my own government's, unless I happen to live in a dictatorship or feudal fiefdom. It is absolutely imperative that the employee only have decision-making power that I--the employer/owner--give to him at my discretion. Otherwise the employee might just decide to change the rules of my business!

EMPLOYEE: Gee, I don't think it's fair to work on Mondays until I've had my brunch, so I'm just going to hire this attorney and have the policy changed at my job.

4. Reserves the right of nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest, so long as such regulations do not unduly abridge the freedom of individuals in deciding their terms of employment

Contradicts point 1 quite directly. Either you give them the right or you don't. Make up your mind before posting a proposal that changes national policies around the globe and beyond!

Now, is that succinct enough for you? Or do I need to spell it out more clearly?

That in itself infringes on any national charter that might have religious or traditional restrictions, such as no business on sunday.
No it doesn't. The qualifier "greatest possible" was included such that reasonable concessions would be made possible for nations with such considerations.

If I hire someone to do a task, he is obligated to either do it the way I want him to do it, or seek other employment.
Exactly. Exactly! That's the whole fucking point of this proposal - that the government, the UN, nor anyone else, should not intervene in such a contract. A "regulation" is not an employment contract; it's a government law affecting employment contracts.

I should not be told HOW to hire someone. It's my business, not the UN's or any other nation's...and not even my own government's, unless I happen to live in a dictatorship or feudal fiefdom.
I agree with all of this. So does the proposal. So does the very clause you're citing.

It is absolutely imperative that the employee only have decision-making power that I--the employer/owner--give to him at my discretion. Otherwise the employee might just decide to change the rules of my business!
Again, I think you've lost track of where this all refers back to: working time regulations. Not to contracts. It does not say: "employers should give employees the greatest possible degree of freedom" or whatever. It talks about government interference. Can't you understand that?

EMPLOYEE: Gee, I don't think it's fair to work on Mondays until I've had my brunch, so I'm just going to hire this attorney and have the policy changed at my job.
Well, nothing in this proposal even hints at such a scenario being acceptable, but whatever - if you enjoy completely misreading proposals and ignoring what they mean, it's your life.

Contradicts point 1 quite directly. Either you give them the right or you don't. Make up your mind before posting a proposal that changes national policies around the globe and beyond!
My mind was made up long ago: nations should have the right to be free of UN interference in setting labour laws. That's what this proposal aims to preserve. The proposal gives them the right to set working time restrictions. Then it encourages them not do so. Think of it, perhaps, in terms of a law that gives people the right to bear arms...so long as they don't shoot anyone.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Exactly. Exactly! That's the whole fucking point of this proposal - that the government, the UN, nor anyone else, should not intervene in such a contract. A "regulation" is not an employment contract; it's a government law affecting employment contracts.


Labor regulations result in very little uninvited interferences by governments. Most governments have enough trouble responding to all the requests for intervention. Labor regulations allow both sides to cry foul when mistreated. When neither side is mistreated, the government rarely steps in.

However, the law can't be written such that the government can only step in when invited, because then too often workers are coerced by their employers. Once a complaint has been filed it is important that it cannot be withdrawn as a result of corporate intimidation.

No it doesn't. The qualifier "greatest possible" was included such that reasonable concessions would be made possible for nations with such considerations.


Exactly. Exactly! That's the whole fucking point of this proposal - that the government, the UN, nor anyone else, should not intervene in such a contract. A "regulation" is not an employment contract; it's a government law affecting employment contracts.


I agree with all of this. So does the proposal. So does the very clause you're citing.


Again, I think you've lost track of where this all refers back to: working time regulations. Not to contracts. It does not say: "employers should give employees the greatest possible degree of freedom" or whatever. It talks about government interference. Can't you understand that?


Well, nothing in this proposal even hints at such a scenario being acceptable, but whatever - if you enjoy completely misreading proposals and ignoring what they mean, it's your life.


My mind was made up long ago: nations should have the right to be free of UN interference in setting labour laws. That's what this proposal aims to preserve. The proposal gives them the right to set working time restrictions. Then it encourages them not do so. Think of it, perhaps, in terms of a law that gives people the right to bear arms...so long as they don't shoot anyone.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I know how to read legal documents and political proposals. You apparently do not know how to write them. Your proposal mandates that individual nations abide by certain labor regulations that will infringe upon ones who have religious or traditionalist charters. You cannot dictate how a nation regulates its people in this manner. It solves nothing and only raises dissention.

No individual liberties are being infringed if a religious charter determines that it is unlawful to work or hire to work on a sunday. It isn't a point in the charter that harms any one of the nation's citizens and it has been practiced for centuries.

You also cannot tell an individual that they have more rights to their scheduling than the employer. You are telling the individual worker that they basically run the shop! Labor Unions do this crap. It's communist in nature. It takes away ownership rights and managerial powers and puts it into the hands of the people, where it should not be.

The UN would be infringing on the rights of the business owners and the rights of the nations to pass this proposal.

No individual liberties are being infringed if a religious charter determines that it is unlawful to work or hire to work on a sunday. It isn't a point in the charter that harms any one of the nation's citizens and it has been practiced for centuries.
Excellent. Then if no individual liberties are being infringed upon, the regulations can stay:
Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;
Phew! You solved that problem for your self.

You also cannot tell an individual that they have more rights to their scheduling than the employer. You are telling the individual worker that they basically run the shop! Labor Unions do this crap. It's communist in nature. It takes away ownership rights and managerial powers and puts it into the hands of the people, where it should not be.
I really don't think you understand this proposal at all...

Look, most of the left-wingers oppose this proposal. Why? Because they argue it prevents exactly the sort of situation you're talking about. By stating that the negotiation process should be limited to empolyer-employee, we're cutting labour unions out of the bargain. Furthermore, you still haven't responded to the point that you're clearly missing the starts of all these clauses: the freedoms being allotted are freedoms from government. Not from employers.

Now, I don't know how things work in The Tetrad, but in Gruenberg, if a worker says that he wants to work short hours, he gets fired and replaced with someone who will work for longer. Nothing in this proposal changes that. However, if the UN relegislated something like The 40 Hour Workweek, it might well change: all workers would be limited to shorter hours. That's what this proposal aims to prevent.

Does that help clarify things at all? When people start ranting that labor deregulation proposals are communist, something's gone seriously off the rails in the basic understanding stakes...

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Yes, it is a legislative doorstop.

Please tell me that means you'll go away now?No. Especially not now that you've failed to show any contrition about being vulgar and rude. Call it the ultimate in passive-aggressive behavior: we stay around to drive your blood pressure through the roof – something that is evidently delightfully easy to do.We do leave it to national governments to decide what weapons are necessary for national defence. The UN simply has the authority to override that if it chooses to do so. So yes, if the UN passed a proposal defining a cap on working hours as "serving only to reduce individual liberty and unfairly removing decision-making from the individual level", or as "unduly abridging the freedom of individuals in deciding the terms of their employment", there'd be a problem.Which means that you did your job very poorly; you opened the door for the abuse of this proposal under the proper legislative environment.Except of course the whole [gratuitous expletive deleted] point of this proposal is to prevent the UN from legislating on workweek laws, precisely because they are not an international issue and any proposals on the subject would be unsuitable and unworkable. But at the same time, a proposal cannot simply state "the UN won't do this" - it'd be ruled illegal - so therefore it has to be given an overall tone. In this case, we chose to endorse broad principles of subsidiarity and call for the removal of restrictions on individual liberty. But nothing in my understanding of national sovereignty would prevent the UN from encouraging, from recommending, from suggesting or from urging nations to adopt particular policies or change certain nation laws. A breach of sovereignty only comes about when a nation's authority is directly overriden, or where it is forced to do certain things.This brings us to the whole issue of the propriety of “blockers”. We understand that there are people who feel the need to save the membership from themselves; we don't share it, mind you – but we do understand it.

If that was your intention, however, then – as noted above – you did your job poorly. A “blocker” should be qualitatively neutral, recognizing that the NSUN is about as diverse a lot as you're ever going to see. If your real interest is in upholding national sovereignty, then you had better be prepared to craft the most ideologically bland resolutions imaginable, and this one – as you freely admit – is anything but that.

Our take on this issue is that if you wanted to write a “blocker” aimed at preventing NSUN regulation of working hours while supporting local (i.e., national) regulation of the same, you'd do something like this:RECOGNIZING the importance of effective legislation aimed at governing working hours, overtime, etc., and

DESIRING that this legislation be written at the national level or below, so as to best take into account the unique characteristics of local work conditions,

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

RESERVE to all member states the right to establish laws governing working hours, overtime, etc.

URGE them to exercise this right as they see fit, and

CALL UPON all member states to respect differences among members of various ideologies with regards to this matter, or whatever other innocuous thing we can come up with as a third directive.Instead, you chose to promote your own ideals, which, while understandable, is entirely contrary to the whole idea of national sovereignty. After all, it's either about preserving our freedom of action from unwarranted interference in certain areas, or its about jamming our views down other peoples' throats. Having chosen to do the latter, you can hardly claim to be also doing the former. It doesn't matter how gently you push your ideas on others: You're still pushing.By stating that the negotiation process should be limited to empolyer-employee, we're cutting labour unions out of the bargain.<Clears throat>

What was that we said a moment ago about ideological neutrality?

One moment you tell people this won't interfere with their nation's long-standing traditions of requiring or prohibiting thus-and-such, in defense of the lofty principle of national sovereignty. Then, in the next, you're gloating about how this will emasculate labor unions and circumvent the laws that allow them to play a role in the workplace, at least with respect to working hours, overtime, etc. (not that these are of interest to any union, oh no...).

So either you're preserving the rights of nations to regulate their labor markets as they see fit with respect to working hours, etc., or you're union-busting. Which is it?

<pause>

Oh, we get it: You're preserving the right of governments to go union-busting, and everyone else be damned. Yeah, just a little bit pregnant it is, we see.

Hypocrisy. Rank hypocrisy.Now, I don't know how things work in The Tetrad, but in Gruenberg, if a worker says that he wants to work short hours, he gets fired and replaced with someone who will work for longer. Nothing in this proposal changes that.Oh, and wouldn't it be wonderful if we could make the whole world just like Gruenberg.

Stop pretending to be a supporter of national sovereignty; you're just embarassing everyone with your silly masquerade.

Which means that you did your job very poorly; you opened the door for the abuse of this proposal under the proper legislative environment.
You...are aware that door was already open? That the UN could have passed a replacement for The 40 Hour Workweek at any stage, but didn't? Besides, this really misses the point of language like that. Even if someone did find a way to legalistically wangle around it, they would almost certainly only do so after reviewing rulings, checking with the moderators, and so on. In other words, that they intended a proposal would become apparent in forum drafts and the like, and thus there would be a possibility for a) arguing for amendments to it and b) more completely blocking it. And given that, if a straightforward 40 Hour Workweek replacement did reach queue should this resolution pass, it would be illegal - and the blocker would have done its job.

If that was your intention, however, then – as noted above – you did your job poorly. A “blocker” should be qualitatively neutral, recognizing that the NSUN is about as diverse a lot as you're ever going to see. If your real interest is in upholding national sovereignty, then you had better be prepared to craft the most ideologically bland resolutions imaginable, and this one – as you freely admit – is anything but that.

Our take on this issue is that if you wanted to write a “blocker” aimed at preventing NSUN regulation of working hours while supporting local (i.e., national) regulation of the same, you'd do something like this: --illegal draft snipped--
Except, of course, I can't, because the UN operates on a category system. It can only pass proposals that are classified under a particular category. So every proposal has to adopt a stance, however mildly. It's not necessarily the way things should be, but it's the way they are, and I'm perfectly happy to work within them for now. Alternative approaches to this proposal might include a Mild Social Justice/Human Rights/Moral Decency proposal going the other way, but still protecting rights, or possibly something in The Furtherment of Democracy. But whatever category we pick, we have to write to it.

Instead, you chose to promote your own ideals, which, while understandable, is entirely contrary to the whole idea of national sovereignty. After all, it's either about preserving our freedom of action from unwarranted interference in certain areas, or its about jamming our views down other peoples' throats. Having chosen to do the latter, you can hardly claim to be also doing the former. It doesn't matter how gently you push your ideas on others: You're still pushing.
Hmm. Guess I'm just a pragmatist when it comes down to it. Push mildly but not forcibly, and have the Gatesville trolls vote against me...versus leaving the way for the UN to smash national sovereignty with another workweek law. You know, I'll pinch my nose and take the former. You're welcome to remain on the - entirely useless - high ground.

One moment you tell people this won't interfere with their nation's long-standing traditions of requiring or prohibiting thus-and-such, in defense of the lofty principle of national sovereignty.
It will do this.

Then, in the next, you're gloating about how this will emasculate labor unions and circumvent the laws that allow them to play a role in the workplace, at least with respect to working hours, overtime, etc. (not that these are of interest to any union, oh no...).
It won't do this. It might, subject to other UN legislation, allow individual nations to do this.

See the difference?

Oh, we get it: You're preserving the right of governments to go union-busting, and everyone else be damned. Yeah, just a little bit pregnant it is, we see.

Hypocrisy. Rank hypocrisy.
Don't understand any of this, but gee it sounds pretty.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Did you or did you not say...?By stating that the negotiation process should be limited to empolyer-employee, we're cutting labour unions out of the bargain.<Drums fingers on table, watching Gruenberg two-step>

Yeah, you did. You can't deny it: it's right there in the legislative record.

So - again - you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. This resolution won't do anything - but it weakens unions. We're not suprised you can't see you're own logical pratfall in making these statements: In Gruenberg, weakening unions isn't really “anything”, after all.

It's time you came clean: you can't tell right-wing regimes how great this thing is because it cuts unions out of the picture when it comes to the negotiation of working hours and overtime, while telling others who express reservations about this resolution changing their labor laws that it's harmless; while we're sure you see union-busting as “harmless”, you can't be so naive as to think that everyone else sees things that way, too.

This is what we mean when we say “just a little bit pregnant”; it's a binary condition: Yes or no, true or false, you are or you're not.

Community Property doesn't especially like “blockers”, but we don't always oppose them when they hit the floor. What we can't stomach are “blockers” that permit one form of activism while barring another, and this resolution does exactly that.

We challenge Gruenberg to explain how current NSUN resolution rules render our off-the-cuff counterproposal “illegal”. It follows the same format as Gruenberg's proposal: “Reserving” certain rights on behalf of national governments while “urging” and “calling upon” members to exercise these rights. It never says “the NSUN can no longer do X or Y”, and the fact that it lacks any obligatory clauses makes it no different than half of the resolutions on the books. It is ideologically neutral; it has a suitably narrow purpose. How then is it illegal?

The answer, of course, is that it is not - and that's better than most rough drafts. Far better.

In one more display of hypocritical deceit, Gruneberg argues that no “blocker” aimed at preventing another international overtime law could ever be written in ideologically neutral fashion; somebody's ideas about how labor relations should be handled will have to be imposed upon the rest of us. And naturally, as author of the resolution, the kind folks of Gruenberg think it should be theirs.

Of course. We should all be more like Gruenberg. Why would any of us not want to be more like Gruenberg?

Vote this pile of offal into the dumpsters. We don't need a “blocker” against a new international overtime law; there's very little danger or such an act getting passed in the first place. And we certainly don't need a “blocker” that is as reactionary as this one is.

I'm not sure if you're purposefully misrepresenting my comments for the sake of being a dick, or if you're just that fucking dumb.
Did you or did you not say...?

Yeah, you did. You can't deny it: it's right there in the legislative record.

So - again - you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. This resolution won't do anything - but it weakens unions. We're not suprised you can't see you're [sic] own logical pratfall in making these statements:
There is no logical disconnect between the two sets of statements. I'm saying that if a nation took the optional, negotiatable portions of this statement to a complete extent, they might use the resolution to weaken union power in wage negotiations (given that the caveat of Clause 2 is optional). Equally, I'm saying that a nation is not obliged to do so. If they wish to retain certain regulations, or to permit unions a role in working time negotiations, they can do so.

Simply: "you can do this; you don't have to". There is nothing illogical in demonstrating both of those possibilities.

In Gruenberg, weakening unions isn't really “anything”, after all.
Hmm, what's this snip refer to?

Community Property doesn't especially like “blockers”, but we don't always oppose them when they hit the floor. What we can't stomach are “blockers” that permit one form of activism while barring another, and this resolution does exactly that.
No, it doesn't. It permits both kinds of activism. It does not ban union activism. It could, in certain nations, given certain readings, and subject to UN law on unions and other aspects of industrial regulation, be used as a basis for anti-union laws or activities. But then, I'm sure you could swing it similarly against employers - the representative of The Tetrad certainly seemed keen on doing so.

We challenge Gruenberg to explain how current NSUN resolution rules render our off-the-cuff counterproposal “illegal”. It follows the same format as Gruenberg's proposal: “Reserving” certain rights on behalf of national governments while “urging” and “calling upon” members to exercise these rights. It never says “the NSUN can no longer do X or Y”, and the fact that it lacks any obligatory clauses makes it no different than half of the resolutions on the books. It is ideologically neutral; it has a suitably narrow purpose. How then is it illegal?
I won't hijack my own thread to discuss a separate proposal. But briefly: it's a category violation. It doesn't fit into any category. It'd be subject to the same ruling as the "Euthanasia Legality Convention". A proposal must adopt - however mild - that's consistent with its category. Given this has no categorisable parts, it's never going to do that.

The answer, of course, is that it is not - and that's better than most rough drafts. Far better.
Ah, so you're arrogant as well as wrong. Always a bad combination.

In one more display of hypocritical deceit, Gruneberg [sic] argues that no “blocker” aimed at preventing another international overtime law could ever be written in ideologically neutral fashion; somebody's ideas about how labor relations should be handled will have to be imposed upon the rest of us. And naturally, as author of the resolution, the kind folks of Gruenberg think it should be theirs.
Given our options are Social Justice (labor regulation) or Labor Deregulation (does exactly what it says on the tin), no, I don't see how an absolutely neutral resolution could be written. Care to try again, except not illegally? (And, ironically, you're wrong about the self-authorship deal - this proposal was inspired by a draft from another nation, Powerhungry Chipmunks, who despite being an active sovereigntist legislator was, by force of the system, forced to couch their proposal idea in equally non-neutral tones.)

Of course. We should all be more like Gruenberg. Why would any of us not want to be more like Gruenberg?
I personally disagree with this. But it does seem that increasingly random, vague assertions - once again departing entirely from the text of the proposal - are the way to go in this debate, so it's not unexpected.

We don't need a “blocker” against a new international overtime law; there's very little danger or such an act getting passed in the first place.
It passed the last time, didn't it?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

It's refreshing to see that the usual tenor of UN debates continues in its usual polite, sophisticated and genteel manner.

Grand Duke Boziis, leader of one of the nations in the region I represent, has asked me to forward his concerns to this assmebly, and so I shall:

The following clause is problematic:

"1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time; "

This clause abrogates any employment law in our nations that does set a maximum workweek, particularly with regard to overtime pay and similar notions. Ultimately, this resolution exhibits a fairly strong "Right to Work" ethos, offsetting whatever local progress our labour forces have made.

Forgive me if a like argument has been solved or countered already (and link or give the post number so that I may read the post without forcing anyone to repeat themselves).

Magister Intangelon, Jubal Harshaw.

OOC:
It's refreshing to see that the usual tenor of UN debates continues in its usual polite, sophisticated and genteel manner.
Long time no see.

(Sorry, I tried to fit an insult into that, but even I couldn't find a way.)

IC:
The following clause is problematic:

"1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time; "

This clause abrogates any employment law in our nations that does set a maximum workweek, particularly with regard to overtime pay and similar notions. Ultimately, this resolution exhibits a fairly strong "Right to Work" ethos, offsetting whatever local progress our labour forces have made.
I don't think it bans maximum workweeks or national overtime laws. "greatest possible" has already been branded as weaselling, and whilst I don't necessarily share the tone of that assessment, I agree with its conclusion. The clause is only operative within the context of national laws, and the relationship between government and employees. If it's possible for the government to butt out, then they should do so. If not - i.e. it would lead to severe abuses - then they're entitled to stay in the ring, in a legislative sense.

So I don't see the clause as overly problematic, especially given the rights afforded under Clause 4.

I hope these comments are helpful for the Grand Duke.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I'm not sure if you're purposefully misrepresenting my comments for the sake of being a dick, or if you're just that fucking dumb.Tsk, tsk, tsk. It's a poor debater who has to resort to such slurs.There is no logical disconnect between the two sets of statements. I'm saying that if a nation took the optional, negotiatable portions of this statement to a complete extent, they might use the resolution to weaken union power in wage negotiations (given that the caveat of Clause 2 is optional). Equally, I'm saying that a nation is not obliged to do so. If they wish to retain certain regulations, or to permit unions a role in working time negotiations, they can do so.Duh! If a nation wants to break unions, they don't need this resolution to break unions. This is NationStates, where politics is a parody of itself: A nation is free to turn all its labor leaders into soylent green if it wants to; if you're trying to sell this resolution on a basis of it's anti-union power to conservatives, you're selling snake oil.

But that just emphasizes my point: you've engaged in a dishonest and hypocritical sales campaign to punch this thing through. You tell some people that it won't do anything if they don't want it to do anything, while hawking it as a cure for the common cold to people who want it to cure the common cold.

In the end, who can trust you or anything you say about this resolution or what it will do? If you want this to be all things to all people, how can you protest when others disagree with your “interpretations”?No, it doesn't. It permits both kinds of activism. It does not ban union activism. It could, in certain nations, given certain readings, and subject to UN law on unions and other aspects of industrial regulation, be used as a basis for anti-union laws or activities. But then, I'm sure you could swing it similarly against employers - the representative of The Tetrad certainly seemed keen on doing so.Ignoring the Tetrad's obvious misreading of the resolution, we think you'd be hard pressed to make a case that this resolution could be used to justify a more activist role for government in the regulation of working hours, overtime, etc.

So “both kinds of activism” means “anti-union or none at all”.I won't hijack my own thread to discuss a separate proposal. But briefly: it's a category violation. It doesn't fit into any category. It'd be subject to the same ruling as the "Euthanasia Legality Convention". A proposal must adopt - however mild - that's consistent with its category. Given this has no categorisable parts, it's never going to do that.Poppycock. I don't want to hijack your thread either; I am simply pointing out that there are more creative ways of doing absolutely nothing at all while still remaining within the category.Given our options are Social Justice (labor regulation) or Labor Deregulation (does exactly what it says on the tin), no, I don't see how an absolutely neutral resolution could be written. Care to try again, except not illegally?Did it ever occur to you to write a blocker that falls in the same exact category as the blocked legislation? IOW, instead of trying to replace a Social Justice resolution with a Labor Deregulation bill, why not just draft a zero-strength Social Justice measure and be done with it? If you recategorized our “you-may-regulate-when-you-are-ready,-Gridley” approach as Social Justice, it would have blocked the legislation you fear without requiring anyone to do anything whatsoever, or even creating the slightest presumption that somebody ought to do something.

Instead, you give us something that could be seriously abused to do real damage (a majority of the members simply declaring laissez-faire to provide “the greatest possible freedom” in all matters as part of some other resolution, for instance).It passed the last time, didn't it?Along with a lot of other things that we will never see again.

Duh! If a nation wants to break unions, they don't need this resolution to break unions. This is NationStates, where politics is a parody of itself: A nation is free to turn all its labor leaders into soylent green if it wants to; if you're trying to sell this resolution on a basis of it's anti-union power to conservatives, you're selling snake oil.

But that just emphasizes my point: you've engaged in a dishonest and hypocritical sales campaign to punch this thing through. You tell some people that it won't do anything if they don't want it to do anything, while hawking it as a cure for the common cold to people who want it to cure the common cold.

In the end, who can trust you or anything you say about this resolution or what it will do? If you want this to be all things to all people, how can you protest when others disagree with your “interpretations”?
I'm not protesting when others disagree with my - and why the fuck did you place the word interpretations in snear quotes? What, they're somehow not interpretations? I'm protesting when you continue to waste my time. You've twisted every whichway to try to argue against this proposal, and while you've been accusing me of inconsistency or two-facedness, have been giving me a first-rate course in them yourself.

That said, I do admit I'd slightly misinterpreted your point. I thought you were trying to make an argument even vaguely relevant to the proposal: I now see you're not, but were simply sniping at my dishonesty. I don't think I've been dishonest, inasmuch as you haven't yet held me to an outright lie. I have, of course, tried to advertise my proposal to suit the particular concerns of those speaking against it - what did you expect?

Because, you're missing that people bought snake oil. I want people to vote for this resolution. What happens is none of my concern - given it's empty, if not flat, any major changes it brings about are the fault of the nations implementing them, not me.

Ignoring the Tetrad's obvious misreading of the resolution,
Yeah, see, I can't. It's my proposal, and I am obliged to defend it - however stupid the arguments against it might be.

we think you'd be hard pressed to make a case that this resolution could be used to justify a more activist role for government in the regulation of working hours, overtime, etc.

So “both kinds of activism” means “anti-union or none at all”.
True. Which, yet-a-fucking-gain, ignores what I said - which was that it "permits both kinds of activism". Permit does not equate to promote.

I don't want to hijack your thread either; I am simply pointing out that there are more creative ways of doing absolutely nothing at all while still remaining within the category.
But the proposal you just presented fits no category. It would be illegal. I don't consider that a worthwhile form of creativity.

Did it ever occur to you to write a blocker that falls in the same exact category as the blocked legislation? IOW, instead of trying to replace a Social Justice resolution with a Labor Deregulation bill, why not just draft a zero-strength Social Justice measure and be done with it? If you recategorized our “you-may-regulate-when-you-are-ready,-Gridley” approach as Social Justice, it would have blocked the legislation you fear without requiring anyone to do anything whatsoever, or even creating the slightest presumption that somebody ought to do something.
It did. I even mentioned this in my previous statement (but then, I've grown accustomed to your reading what you want, rather what actually is, so meh). My reason for using this category was severalfold:
1. The ideas for the proposal didn't fit with SJ.
2. Social Justice proposals require an element of welfare and wealth redistribution, which I saw no way to include.
3. There is no special reason not to place it in this category.
4. I thought I might as well see what sort of thing this category could be used for. Given there was no imminent threat of replacement, failure would be no disaster.

Instead, you give us something that could be seriously abused to do real damage (a majority of the members simply declaring laissez-faire to provide “the greatest possible freedom” in all matters as part of some other resolution, for instance).
So your argument is "some people might misinterpret it". Well shit, what can I do about that?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I'm not protesting when others disagree with my - and why the fuck did you place the word interpretations in snear quotes?

I though everyone knew that Community Property was really this bald headed guy who is too attached to his cat and that runt of a clone that was created as an emergency replacement. You should see him wiggle his fingers when he said “interpretations” as it was very funny to watch. Oh and I think he secretly owns the UN starbucks as well.

I though everyone knew that Community Property was really this bald headed guy who is too attached to his cat and that runt of a clone that was created as an emergency replacement. You should see him wiggle his fingers when he said “interpretations” as it was very funny to watch. Oh and I think he secretly owns the UN starbucks as well.
Yeah, I still don't know what the fuck you're saying. Please please try to recover some of your grasp of the English language.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I though everyone knew that Community Property was really this bald headed guy who is too attached to his cat and that runt of a clone that was created as an emergency replacement. You should see him wiggle his fingers when he said “interpretations” as it was very funny to watch. Oh and I think he secretly owns the UN starbucks as well.My cat(s) and I object to your description of me as “bald”.

And I'm charging double for your latte from now on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, on to you, Gruenberg...

Let's make this a simple as possible: We're not a fan of “blockers”. They don't stop people from passing legislation you don't like; they just slow things down. While we can see the value of time in organizing resistance to a piece of legislation you don't like, that's not a very good reason for cluttering up the NSUN law books with junk.


Your argument to the effect of: “Well, I thought I'd try it this way first” is lame. Try it the best way you can think of first. This isn't the best way because...


”Blockers” should be written with Hippocrates' Oath in mind: “First, do no harm.” Since the NSUN is ideologically diverse, it makes no sense to write anything other than ideologically neutral “blockers”. Having failed to do that, you now face opposition from those whose ideology you slight, both during passage of the “blocker” and during its defense against repeal, not to mention the fact that...


Idle words are the Devil's workshop. How many repeals have been spurred on by an obnoxious phrase in a resolution? And how many have unwittingly blocked something they never intended to block?

Then too, there is synergy. For over a year we've been (privately) toying with resolutions that have one effect if implemented individually and another when implemented together. We've hinted at this here: In the 1st clause you require members to grant their “people” the “greatest possible degree” of “freedom” in determining “their terms of employment”, with “specific” (but not “exclusive” - oops!) “regard to working time”. As long as no other NSUN resolution defines these terms, then national governments are free to make of them what they will.

But based on the precedent established with respect to means of national defense, any NSUN resolution that has even an incidental interest in defining these terms can completely alter the effect of this resolution for everyone merely by taking away from nations the right to define these all-important concepts.

We are left, then, wondering if you actually realize the risk this resolution poses to the membership of the NSUN and intend to exploit this state of affairs at a later date, to the detriment of the rest of us, or are simply thick-headed. Usually we prefer to give our rivals the benefit of the doubt, but in your case we're not so sure that policy helps. This brings us to your sales pitch...


Trying to market your resolution as both a floor wax and a dessert topping makes you look like a huckster. If you look like a huckster, why is it inappropriate to suggest that you are one, and that you might not be presenting things truthfully, given your obvious hucksterism? There are too many simultaneous agendas at work here for your honor to be above question, and if your honor is not above question, you can hardly blame your critics for searching the fine print.

Yeah, I still don't know what the fuck you're saying. Please please try to recover some of your grasp of the English language.

I'll have you know I've been butchering the "English" language for ages. That's how I got this job from the King of Tzor. Besides I made a promise to Harold. If it wasn't for that meddling Doctor you all would be speaking a proper language and not this horrid prose men call English.


Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,
Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
And in his tyme swich a conquerour,
That gretter was ther noon under the sonne.
Ful many a riche contree hadde he wonne,
What with his wysdom and his chivalrie;
He conquered al the regne of Femenye,
That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
And weddede the queene Ypolita,
And broghte hir hoom with hym in his contree,
With muchel glorie and greet solempnytee,
And eek hir yonge suster Emelye.
And thus with victorie and with melodye
Lete I this noble duc to Atthenes ryde,
And al his hoost, in armes hym bisyde.

The People of Sconchiglioso Zeta is definitely against any de-regulation in matter of employment, and in the same time wants to reaffirm that any State should have the right to safeguard the employees from any discrimination or abuse that an excess of "individual freedom" accorded to the employer could cause.

Peace.

(Hope this makes sense, for english is not my native language)

The People of Sconchiglioso Zeta is definitely against any de-regulation in matter of employment, and in the same time wants to reaffirm that any State should have the right to safeguard the employees from any discrimination or abuse that an excess of "individual freedom" accorded to the employer could cause.

Peace.

(Hope this makes sense, for english is not my native language)

No that was very clear, even elegant. And it's exactly what I was worried about.

The People of Sconchiglioso Zeta is definitely against any de-regulation in matter of employment, and in the same time wants to reaffirm that any State should have the right to safeguard the employees from any discrimination or abuse that an excess of "individual freedom" accorded to the employer could cause.
Bear in mind the individual freedom is being accorded to the employee, not the employer. This proposal isn't giving rights to the employers...

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted AGAINST this resolution in accord with the wishes presented to her by a majority of the citizens of the region, after reviewing both the Civic HQ and the offsite poll.

Hellar Gray

Bear in mind the individual freedom is being accorded to the employee, not the employer. This proposal isn't giving rights to the employers...

Uh, probably I misunderstood your proposal.
You wrote:

Strongly reaffirming its commitment to individual liberty,

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

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,

and

1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;

2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

4. Reserves the right of nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest, so long as such regulations do not unduly abridge the freedom of individuals in deciding their terms of employment;

5. Endorses policies aimed at delegating decisions concerning working time regulations to the most local level possible;

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

Well, I do not see any specific reference to employees rather than employers. It seems like "individual freedom" should be declared for everyone.
But the point is that this proposal affects the role of unions in negotiating contracts (just as others highlighted before) and therefore weakens their influence and their ability to safeguard all workers, and this is just because individual contracts are surely less checkable than collective ones.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted AGAINST this resolution in accord with the wishes presented to her by a majority of the citizens of the region, after reviewing both the Civic HQ and the offsite poll.

Hellar Gray

I took a look at your regional HQ, and while it's not my business to tell democratic institutions what to do, I feel this is warranted.

This resolution was authored by Gruenberg, one of the most vocal members of the National Sovereignty Organization.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496576

Form the looks of it, your region's main issue with this bill is that it both harms sovereignty and is anti-economy. That is blatantly false. This bill, essentially, removes the UN from decision-making about working times, reducing the UN's involvement in the affairs of independent nations. This bill is intended to give national governments more power than the UN in determining how long a person should be able to work.

Being that your region is anti-UN in the first place, and pro-sovereignty in the second, I urge you to reconsider your votes on those same grounds. The NSO has supported this bill overwhelmingly, and this both protects economic rights by deregulating labor, and supports national sovereignty by taking the UN out of the mix.

Again, I urge you to reconsider your vote.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Delegate to the NSO

I took a look at your regional HQ, and while it's not my business to tell democratic institutions what to do, I feel this is warranted.

This resolution was authored by Gruenberg, one of the most vocal members of the National Sovereignty Organization.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496576

Form the looks of it, your region's main issue with this bill is that it both harms sovereignty and is anti-economy. That is blatantly false. This bill, essentially, removes the UN from decision-making about working times, reducing the UN's involvement in the affairs of independent nations. This bill is intended to give national governments more power than the UN in determining how long a person should be able to work.

Being that your region is anti-UN in the first place, and pro-sovereignty in the second, I urge you to reconsider your votes on those same grounds. The NSO has supported this bill overwhelmingly, and this both protects economic rights by deregulating labor, and supports national sovereignty by taking the UN out of the mix.

Again, I urge you to reconsider your vote.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Delegate to the NSO

I am well aware of the resolution's sponsor, his membership in the NSO, and the effects of the resolution. My personal vote was cast FOR "Individual Working Freedoms". However, the Delegate of Gatesville votes in accord with the wishes of the majority, not in accord with the wishes of myself, the UN Clerk. There are a number of logistical realities that prevent me from swaying the vote of every citizen of Gatesville to my preference. Nonetheless, I am implementing policies that will help better inform the citizens about the UN resolutions that come up for vote, so they will be better able to fight for their sovereignty.

Hellar Gray

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has changed her vote to FOR on this resolution in accord with the wishes presented to her by the citizens of the region, after reviewing the offsite poll.

Hellar Gray

Bear in mind the individual freedom is being accorded to the employee, not the employer. This proposal isn't giving rights to the employers...Uh, probably I misunderstood your proposal.No, you didn't. Gruenberg is simply shamelessly misrepresenting it again, as usual.Well, I do not see any specific reference to employees rather than employers.That's because there aren't any: “individuals” can be either one, so government is equally constrained from regulating either.¹

Thus, Gruenberg's intimation that this only requires governments to release employees from restrictions on working hours, overtime, etc., while employers may still be so regulated is nothing less than outright prevarication. We're sure that Gruenberg will, with a great show of righteous indignation - peppered by various pungent and thoroughly gratuitous obscenties - declare that we have misrepresented their position: that they never said this wouldn't mean less regulation of employers along with employees; they'll just make up some twaddle about what they're doing for employers doesn't count, or something equally inane.

And then subject anyone who doesn't agree with them to a torrent of verbal abuse.This resolution was authored by Gruenberg, one of the most vocal members of the National Sovereignty Organization.Well, when you have so little to say, there is a tendency to shout at the top of your lungs. In that sense, the label “vocal” fits perfectly.

¹It can tell unions to shove off, though. But Gruenberg won't ever claim that this helps employers. It's for the workers' benefit not to be able to engage in collective bargaining, after all. Employers probably couldn't care less...

Well, when you have so little to say, there is a tendency to shout at the top of your lungs. In that sense, the label “vocal” fits perfectly.


Let me rephrase: Distinguished.

That better?

Exactly. Exactly! That's the whole fucking point of this proposal - that the government, the UN, nor anyone else, should not intervene in such a contract. A "regulation" is not an employment contract; it's a government law affecting employment contracts.


The exception being government employees, no? I think your last thought it really the take home message:

This resolution focuses on the (de)regulation of employment contracts.

Specifcally it seems that the main focus is on the deregulation on limits to working hours that can be neogitated into a contract.

Howie T. Katzman

[center]
[indent]The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has changed her vote to FOR on this resolution in accord with the wishes presented to her by the citizens of the region, after reviewing the offsite poll.


OOC: Just a FYI thank you for that ... this actually *is* noteworthy and will be worked somehow into the NSWiki article. :)

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

Useless!
Remove it, we will vote positively.

Well, I do not see any specific reference to employees rather than employers. It seems like "individual freedom" should be declared for everyone.
Where it says "the terms of their employment..." is where it's referring to employees rather than employers.

But the point is that this proposal affects the role of unions in negotiating contracts (just as others highlighted before) and therefore weakens their influence and their ability to safeguard all workers, and this is just because individual contracts are surely less checkable than collective ones.
No, it doesn't. Didn't you read Clause 2?

2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;

Gruenberg...Gruenberg...Gruenberg...Gruenberg
I have a name, you know.

Unfortunately, I don't understand most of the rest of your statement - the words are too long. However, it does seem like you're omitting to mention that the earlier operative clauses do refer to people determining the terms of their employment...and hence to employees, not to employers.

And if my swearing bothers you that much, that really isn't my problem. Maybe if you ignored it, it'd show how petty and silly it is: continuing to harp on about it just shows you up for being caught up in irrelevancies.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

My government, as mentioned in her motto, believes that individuality is the way towards economic superiority. With the newly drafted and passed charter, my government absolutely supports this resolution.

I would like to take this time to mention that my government is always considerate of the invitations she receives to join a particular alliance or region. Pls. do not hesitate as her options are always open. Thank you.

:fluffle:

Gruenberg,

Sorry for my last reply... I've been a little tough.
Excuse it because I'm a newby!
Maybe you can help me... Why a so general last clause?
"6. Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making"
Maybe a detail in all the discussions I've seen so far, but it seems that this clause 6 is a general statement that would need a specific debate and maybe should be proposed for another & different resolution. This clause oblige to a huge effort on something too general - and moreover - don't you think that just the fact that this Individual Working Freedoms resolution will be voted shows itself our willing to "Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making"...

The government of The Holy Empire of Yoshi-State, doesn't support the resolution. That's why we have voted against. We believe that not individuality is the way towars a better economy, but that the community is far more important then the individual.

Let me rephrase: Distinguished.

That better?

No, not really. It's not very distinguished to shout obscenities at those that disagree with you.

Because Yuhljung is not a corrupt dictatorship, she feels mandated to give her people the right to choose of what is best for them in their own opinion. She does not bully her people by creating such mirage of 'social unity.'

No, not really. It's not very distinguished to shout obscenities at those that disagree with you.But it does make it easier for us to distinguish Gruenberg from others.Gruenberg...Gruenberg...Gruenberg...Gruenberg
I have a name, you know.Yes, but we're trying to avoid the use of obscenities.Unfortunately, I don't understand most of the rest of your statement - the words are too long.“The words are too long”?!?

You're kidding, right?

Never mind. Let's home in on a few points here:1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;Since your current interpretation¹ of this clause is that the presence of the word “their” in the phrase, “their terms of employment”, means that member nations are only required to grant employees such freedom – and therefore are under no obligation to extended employers such liberties - is it your understanding that a nation could pass a law forbidding, say sixteen-year-olds from working past 8:00PM on a school night or anyone for more that 10 hours in a day as long as these mandates were worded as restrictions on the employer (eg,. “Employers shall limit the length of a work shift to 10 hours per day...”, etc.)?2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;Understanding that this clause “calls upon” nations to act rather than mandating or requiring them to do so, is it now your position² that this clause encourages the passage or maintenance of laws supporting the right of workers to engage in collective bargaining?

Oh, and one more question: since the word “overtime” doesn't appear anywhere in this text, is it your understanding that this resolution has no effect whatsoever on compensation regulations - just starting time, quitting time, breaks, length of shift, and whatnot?

<Sits, looking like the cat that ate the canary>

¹As opposed to yesterday's interpretation, or tomorrow's.
²As opposed to your earlier position, or your future one.

No, not really. It's not very distinguished to shout obscenities at those that disagree with you.


Fuck off!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Sorry, I just couldn't resist that. :p

¹As opposed to yesterday's interpretation, or tomorrow's.
²As opposed to your earlier position, or your future one.

OOC: Knock off the bleedin' footnotes already, will ya? :rolleyes:

:eek:
Risottia will never support further labour deregulations! We want our people having good wages, time for themselves, and no tycoon trying to transform our country into a 18th-century-crazed-industrialization nightmare.

Why don't you re-name that proposal to "Legalization of quasi-slavery" ? That would describe it better.

What about people having to work 16 hours a day? Or about children chained to workplaces and not going to school? What about families never meeting together because of crazed working times? That's disintegration of society, that's what it is. Would you like to live in a country where that is the norm?

We would never. For the sake of social progress, welfare and human rights, stand up AGAINST LABOUR DEREGULATION!

:eek:
Risottia will never support further labour deregulations! We want our people having good wages, time for themselves, and no tycoon trying to transform our country into a 18th-century-crazed-industrialization nightmare.

Why don't you re-name that proposal to "Legalization of quasi-slavery" ? That would describe it better.

What about people having to work 16 hours a day? Or about children chained to workplaces and not going to school? What about families never meeting together because of crazed working times? That's disintegration of society, that's what it is. Would you like to live in a country where that is the norm?

We would never. For the sake of social progress, welfare and human rights, stand up AGAINST LABOUR DEREGULATION!

Or maybe the resolution allows employees a greater amount of freedom to determine how long they work. Rather than "enslaving" them.

OOC: Knock off the bleedin' footnotes already, will ya? :rolleyes:

OOC: Hey footnotes¹ are fun! I probably should use them more often².



¹It being understood from a technical note that a footnote is typically placed at the end of a page and this is technically placed at the end of a post, so it's probably better to call it an "endnote" since endnote is defined as "a note placed at the end of the text," and the post can be considered to be a "text" as opposed to a "page." Plus the fact that these things are absolutely annoying and fun to write. And they can be ignored by reasonable people as I assume you have already done which is why I can start throwing in insulting text without worrying that you are actually going to take the time to read it.
²Once is probably once too many.

No, not really. It's not very distinguished to shout obscenities at those that disagree with you.But it does make it easier for us to distinguish Gruenberg from others.Yeah, cork your cryhole, already. When nods for Miss Congeniality come up, I'll be sure to name you. Till then, why don't you focus on Mr. Pyandran's actual arguments?

Where it says "the terms of their employment..." is where it's referring to employees rather than employers.

While I honestly believe that is the intent, my governments earlier question was similiar, which to me suggests that this is a vague point in the resolution.

The reason this might be important is contracts are a bidding agreement between two parties, and it is possible that some employers might also benefit from having fewer regulations when they draft up a proposed contract. In particular, I'm thinking of small business owners.

-Katzman

i tell you one thing, i dissapprove it, resolutions are repealed for a reason

i tell you one thing, i dissapprove it, resolutions are repealed for a reason

We thank you for your briliiant and insightful analysis.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We frankly don't care overmuch about the distinguished representative of Gruenberg's interpretation of this proposal. And we care less about the representative of Community Property's snide little footnoted commentary. We prefer to focus on what the proposal actually says, rather than being distracted by the representative of Community Property's muddying of the waters.



1. Requires member nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;

Since your current interpretation¹ of this clause is that the presence of the word “their” in the phrase, “their terms of employment”, means that member nations are only required to grant employees such freedom – and therefore are under no obligation to extended employers such liberties - is it your understanding that a nation could pass a law forbidding, say sixteen-year-olds from working past 8:00PM on a school night or anyone for more that 10 hours in a day as long as these mandates were worded as restrictions on the employer (eg,. “Employers shall limit the length of a work shift to 10 hours per day...”, etc.)?

Ridiculous. If I pass a law forbidding employers from allowing employees to work beyond a one-size-fits-all limit, the effect is to preclude workers from choosing to do so. That woulld be a clear violation of the proposal's requirement.


2. Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;

Understanding that this clause “calls upon” nations to act rather than mandating or requiring them to do so, is it now your position² that this clause encourages the passage or maintenance of laws supporting the right of workers to engage in collective bargaining?

That's perfectly obvious from the text.

Oh, and one more question: since the word “overtime” doesn't appear anywhere in this text, is it your understanding that this resolution has no effect whatsoever on compensation regulations - just starting time, quitting time, breaks, length of shift, and whatnot?

To anyone with even the slightest knowledge and understanding of employee-management relations, "terms of employment" has a much broader meaning than simply hours of work. It includes wages, hours of work, benefits, termination provisions, etc.

We do wish the representative of Community Property would confine himself to stating and explaining his substantive objections to the proposal, if he has any, rather than continuing this rather childish bear-baiting contest with the author.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

i tell you one thing, i dissapprove it, resolutions are repealed for a reason

And not always for the one written in the resolution repeal argument.

OOC:

Long time no see.

(Sorry, I tried to fit an insult into that, but even I couldn't find a way.)

IC:

I don't think it bans maximum workweeks or national overtime laws. "greatest possible" has already been branded as weaselling, and whilst I don't necessarily share the tone of that assessment, I agree with its conclusion. The clause is only operative within the context of national laws, and the relationship between government and employees. If it's possible for the government to butt out, then they should do so. If not - i.e. it would lead to severe abuses - then they're entitled to stay in the ring, in a legislative sense.

So I don't see the clause as overly problematic, especially given the rights afforded under Clause 4.

I hope these comments are helpful for the Grand Duke.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC: Thanks. I've just moved back from Seattle, where I stay over the academic summer break, to Bismarck, where sits the college in which I teach. Good to be back after the transition.

IC: Chief Pyandran, I thank you for the clarification. I shall forward your reply to the Grand Duke immediately. He is a man fond of reasoned responses, and yours is exactly that.

The last few boxes are arriving here at the Grey House from the Magistrate's Summer Flat in the norhtwestern district of Intangelon. Now comes the Opening of the Boxes, where, according to an old Intangelonian tradition, we discover which of our knick-knacks is missing. It started out as an annoying reality of laborers who deemed it acceptable to steal from the ruling class back in the days of palaces and crowns. One enlightened king decided to make a sort of Carnival out of the whole thing, wherein subjects were permitted to steal anything left out in the great halls of the nobility, and a great big party was had by all. Eventually, during the Enlightenment, the party showed the last king of Intangelon, Argos the Moderately Neato, that we're all basically the same and that ridiculous gaps in citizens' income didn't need to be emphasized by a silly class distinction. Thus the monarchy was permanently abdicated and the Serene Republic was born.

Sorry -- I didn't intend to filibuster. Shade and Sweet Water to you all!

Magister Intangelon, Jubal Harshaw.

Yeah, cork your cryhole, already. When nods for Miss Congeniality come up, I'll be sure to name you. Till then, why don't you focus on Mr. Pyandran's actual arguments?

The fact that shouting obscenities is part of his arguments tells me worlds about him, and about his argument.

Most attempts at discrediting your opponent are done when they are winning(hence right).

The fact that shouting obscenities is part of his arguments tells me worlds about him, and about his argument.

Most attempts at discrediting your opponent are done when they are winning(hence right).


Or when one gets frustrated at an opponent's bloody ignorance.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Or when one gets frustrated at an opponent's bloody ignorance.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Just because someone disagrees with you, does not make them ignorant. Community Property has raised some valid concerns. The only reason I could see for ignoring those concerns is if those concerns were the authors intent in the first place.

And it started immediately, so I doubt it would qualify as frustration at that point.

We agree with Ausserland's analysis on all counts; however, the mere fact that Gruenberg has held several different interpretations of what its own resolution says in the course of this debate, skewing it this way and that to sell it to the audience of the moment, suggests that it is a poorly written piece of legislation, fraught with peril for the membership upon its (likely) passage.

Legislation shouldn't be like this – plastic in the hands of whomever may happen to be reading it from one moment to the next. Nations voting on this resolution ought to know what it is they're voting for, not just in the sense of being able to predict the effect that it will have on them, but also the effect that it will have on their neighbors, allies, and trading partners.

Thus, it doesn't help Gruenberg's case to watch their position on this resolution change by the minute: now it's anti-union, then it's pro-union, and after that it's neutral and need not affect unions in any way; now it only affects employees, then it affects employers too, and somewhere down the line it affects everybody and nobody all at once.

In fact, the only interpretation that Gruenberg rejects is the one we offer, and that rejection only comes out of spite: That (under its 1st and 3rd clauses) the proposed resolution requires the elimination of all regulation of any kind pertaining to work hours that can't be justified under the “general public interest” test (from the 4th clause), and that even here the burden lies with the proponents of such legislation to show that they do not “unduly” limit “individual freedom”; beyond that, the other clauses are all normative, likely to play a role only in litigation – but in litigious societies, this will be a very real issue.

As such, we believe that the overall effect of the legislation is to weaken government's ability to regulate work hours and working conditions, thereby driving us all a little closer to laissez-faire. Since Community Property embraces socialism, this is obviously an unacceptable outcome.

Fans of laissez-faire can pontificate all day about how it is “ideal” for employer-employee negotiations to occur without government interference, but in our view this is tantamount to saying that relations between the sexes would be a lot easier if there weren't laws against date rape. The employer-employee relationship is fundamentally an unequal one, and the logic of the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) makes things worse, with employees competing against their fellows to everyone's detriment. Absent regulation, history tells us again and again that the result will be a exploitive “race to the bottom”, with each worker rushing to accept working hours and conditions just a little worse that those of his or her peers.

It is for this reason that we wish Gruenberg and other members of the NSO had taken the long view and written a better (as in “less ideologically motivated”) “blocker”. There is no urgency here: The current political environment doesn't favor a renewed attempt at another international overtime law. Under the circumstances, we believe that defeat of this resolution followed by an attempt that does more than just protect fans of laissez-faire from unwanted regulation, but instead also protects fans of socialism from unwanted deregulation would be the best course of action for sovereigntists to follow.

This is not mere abstraction: because of the peculiar construction of this resolution, leftists must now fight tooth and nail to preserve the right to collective bargaining and against international recognition of corporate entities as legal persons, both of which might otherwise been issues where negotiation between different ideologically-motivated camps could have produced mutually satisfactory results.

As we noted earlier, poorly chosen or sloppy wording can be incredibly dangerous when crafting legislation. Too little thought was put into this measure; consequently, we should dump it and try again.

The fact that shouting obscenities is part of his arguments tells me worlds about him, and about his argument.
Here Chief of Staff Pyandran has used a legitimate and effective debating technique. The shouting of obscenities serves to emphasize the significance of ones argument and is often employed when one wants to make his meaning crystal clear. I recall a speech by Stalin in which he stated: "Kill the fuckers! Raze their houses and burn their fields!". In this way, Comrade Stalin conveyed to us the urgency of the situation.

Here Chief of Staff Pyandran has used a legitimate and effective debating technique. The shouting of obscenities serves to emphasize the significance of ones argument and is often employed when one wants to make his meaning crystal clear. I recall a speech by Stalin in which he stated: "Kill the fuckers! Raze their houses and burn their fields!". In this way, Comrade Stalin conveyed to us the urgency of the situation.Oh, well, in that case...

<The Ambassador from Community Property removes her clogs and sets them on the table before her...>

Here Chief of Staff Pyandran has used a legitimate and effective debating technique. The shouting of obscenities serves to emphasize the significance of ones argument and is often employed when one wants to make his meaning crystal clear. I recall a speech by Stalin in which he stated: "Kill the fuckers! Raze their houses and burn their fields!". In this way, Comrade Stalin conveyed to us the urgency of the situation.

You've never been in a real debate have you? Shouting obscenities will likely get you disquailified. This isn't the same as stalin's quote at all. He is insulting his opponent directly. This isn't using obscenities for emphasis. That would be in this manner: That was fucking awesome. It emphasizes the word awesome, not what the chief of staff was doing. He was trying to belittle his opponent, probably in the hopes that it would make the less intelligent think that he was winning when he was not.

You've never been in a real debate have you?I'm sure "Iron Felix" has participated in a few.

Shouting obscenities will likely get you disquailified.Yeah, and where do serial redherrings land you in a "real debate," oh wise one?

You mean this is supposed to be a debate? :p

I thought this was the room to be insulted! :cool:

You've never been in a real debate have you?
*Stops cleaning his sidearm. Looks up and glowers at the Jimayoian ambassador.*

I have been in many debates. You, I take it, have never been doused in petrol, set ablaze and thrown down a well?

*resumes cleaning*

I'm sure "Iron Felix" has participated in a few.


OOC: One or two, yeah. And it seems he's really enjoying this new persona -- as am I, frankly. Funny as hell. :D

OOC: One or two, yeah. And it seems he's really enjoying this new persona -- as am I, frankly. Funny as hell. :D[OOC: Yup. That last offering from "Felix" just about did it for me as well. http://209.85.48.12/3578/154/emo/z7shysterical.gif]

I'm sure "Iron Felix" has participated in a few.

Yeah, obscenities are welcomed in an official debate.:rolleyes:

Yeah, and where do serial redherrings land you in a "real debate," oh wise one?

That would depend on what you mean by red herring as there are multiple meanings.

* a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments. See Ignoratio elenchi.

Your point would likely be struck down in this situation.

* in politics, a minor or even phony issue trumped up as being of great importance, in order to influence voters to vote for one party or candidate and against the other, or distract from more important issues that might help the opposing party.

Since this type of red herring would have nothing to do with the debate at hand you would likely be penalised for straying off topic.

So what exactly is the red herring in this debate?

Maybe you can help me... Why a so general last clause?
It was written as a sort of concluding note, to summate the intentions of the proposal as a whole. In actual effect, it's terminably vague, and essentially has no legislative force, so it would be better served as a preambulatory clause, arguably, but I felt it was an acceptable note on which to end the proposal, emphasising that the proposal was taking into account both the needs of individuals, and the needs of nations...and seeking a compromise between the two.

Never mind. Let's home in on a few points here:Since your current interpretation snide footnote snipped
Do bear in mind that my current interpretation is relevant only insofar as Gruenberg's domestic application of this proposal is concerned. I have no say in how the government of Community Property, nor the government of any other nation, interprets them. And I think that's where part of the flaw in your obsession regarding my perceived flip-flopping comes in - that I am presenting possible interpretations does not mean I am endorsing every single one. It means I am demonstrating how this proposal is relatively flexible.

of this clause is that the presence of the word “their” in the phrase, “their terms of employment”, means that member nations are only required to grant employees such freedom – and therefore are under no obligation to extended employers such liberties - is it your understanding that a nation could pass a law forbidding, say sixteen-year-olds from working past 8:00PM on a school night or anyone for more that 10 hours in a day as long as these mandates were worded as restrictions on the employer (eg,. “Employers shall limit the length of a work shift to 10 hours per day...”, etc.)?
No, don't be a retard. That's still a restriction.

Understanding that this clause “calls upon” nations to act rather than mandating or requiring them to do so, is it now your position snide footnote again snipped that this clause encourages the passage or maintenance of laws supporting the right of workers to engage in collective bargaining?
It's my opinion that the clause encourages the passing of laws that respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations.

Oh, and one more question: since the word “overtime” doesn't appear anywhere in this text, is it your understanding that this resolution has no effect whatsoever on compensation regulations - just starting time, quitting time, breaks, length of shift, and whatnot?
Weren't you the one earlier pointing out that the word used was "specific" rather than "exclusive"? So yes, I think that at least insofar as Gruenberg will be implementing the resolution, it would have affects on such areas - though I think the extent of labour law it has dominion over is something that nations would be left to determine. And I have used examples of, for example, break times, already in the course of this "debate" - I think they would be fair game for this proposal's ambit.

<Sits, looking like the cat that ate the canary>
I have no idea what the fuck this means. If, though, you're inviting me to ram a bird carcass down your throat, I'd be much obliged.

What about people having to work 16 hours a day? Or about children chained to workplaces and not going to school? What about families never meeting together because of crazed working times? That's disintegration of society, that's what it is. Would you like to live in a country where that is the norm?

We would never. For the sake of social progress, welfare and human rights, stand up AGAINST LABOUR DEREGULATION!
Um...did you actually read any of the proposal? You might also want to bear in mind that the UN has already legislated on child labour, on workplace safety, on unionisation, and on slavery.

Nowhere in this proposal is there a requirement for people to have to work 16 hours a day. Further, your nation can set laws against this sort of thing, under Clause 4. You're right about chaining children to factories though...I meant to snip that clause out of the final draft. Damn.

The reason this might be important is contracts are a bidding agreement between two parties, and it is possible that some employers might also benefit from having fewer regulations when they draft up a proposed contract. In particular, I'm thinking of small business owners.
I agree - I agree especially about the point concerning small business owners. However, I felt that was a subject for another day (and I do intend that day on coming, repeal of UNSBE permitting). The clauses of this proposal can only really refer to employees...their effect on employers is wholly indirect.

--snip--
I wouldn't bother.

We agree with Ausserland's analysis on all counts; however, the mere fact that Gruenberg has held several different interpretations of what its own resolution says in the course of this debate, skewing it this way and that to sell it to the audience of the moment, suggests that it is a poorly written piece of legislation, fraught with peril for the membership upon its (likely) passage.
Once again, I'd really prefer "Mr Pyandran". "Gruenberg" is so impersonal.

And I haven't held different interpretations of what the proposal does. I've presented the possibility of several different interpretations. For everyone but the hardcore "I need someone to tell me which end to shit out of" legalists, it's common sense that a bit of legislative flexibility is a good thing when writing for the diverse community that is the NSUN membership.

Legislation shouldn't be like this – plastic in the hands of whomever may happen to be reading it from one moment to the next. Nations voting on this resolution ought to know what it is they're voting for, not just in the sense of being able to predict the effect that it will have on them, but also the effect that it will have on their neighbors, allies, and trading partners.
To an extent, yes. I'd argue that if they actually read the proposal, this set of circumstances might be helped on their way. But, there is no way to tell what the exact effects of a proposal will be for other nations, without discussing it with them. Coming to me is useless - I have no way of knowing how different nations will implement the proposal.

Let's take an example, at random: Resolution #98, "Eradicate Smallpox". Is it a decent resolution? In my view - yes. I see biological terrorism as one of the principle threats of the modern age, and this is a useful component in the fight against it (although I'd probably support it being overlaid with a more general resolution on contagious diseases). But does it have the degree of unambiguity you cite as necessary in UN legislation? No:
- I have no way of knowing whether other nations will choose to enact its two recommendations, or not;
- I have no way of knowing what means each nation will deploy, nor how concerted their effort will be, in eradicating smallpox;
- where nations do increase health spending, I don't know how they might spread these costs, or account for them;
- I don't know how much, to what extent, how, or to who, any additional funds might be made available.

Plenty of areas where such a resolution is shady. And I can't think of many that aren't like that. Unless you really do want a pin-prick, implementation-by-numbers diktat in every resolution, you're never going to get that level of clarity, either. That a proposal contains language that is open to interpretation is no great threat, insofar as I trust the constituent members of the NSUN to implement their domestic obligations with a reasonable degree of common sense.

In fact, the only interpretation that Gruenberg rejects is the one we offer, and that rejection only comes out of spite:
Ho ho, I wouldn't kid yourself. You're annoying, sure, but really not that special.

That (under its 1st and 3rd clauses) the proposed resolution requires the elimination of all regulation of any kind pertaining to work hours that can't be justified under the “general public interest” test (from the 4th clause), and that even here the burden lies with the proponents of such legislation to show that they do not “unduly” limit “individual freedom”; beyond that, the other clauses are all normative, likely to play a role only in litigation – but in litigious societies, this will be a very real issue.
Putting aside that litigious societies pretty much have it coming, I still don't find your interpretation valid. Of course, you could do this if you wanted - I'm certainly not disputing that - but it does not force you to. I could conceive of "general public interest" being used to justify a whole host of situations, such as to greatly minimise any perceived effect anyway. The definition of "general public interest" and delineation of what it covers, to what extent, lies with nations - not with me, or with Gruenberg.

As such, we believe that the overall effect of the legislation is to weaken government's ability to regulate work hours and working conditions, thereby driving us all a little closer to laissez-faire. Since Community Property embraces socialism, this is obviously an unacceptable outcome.
We agree here: it's the size of "a little" we disagree on. For me, it's "potentially a very very little, approaching zero".

Fans of laissez-faire can pontificate all day about how it is “ideal” for employer-employee negotiations to occur without government interference, but in our view this is tantamount to saying that relations between the sexes would be a lot easier if there weren't laws against date rape.
Let's set aside that I have never said any of this, and point out that you're invoking a false analogy. Date rape would equate to slavery, in employment terms. An employee voluntarily enters into a wage negotiation...so it'd be more like the government legislating consentual sexual relations. What value is there in this?

It is for this reason that we wish Gruenberg and other members of the NSO
The NSO has not endorsed this proposal. I don't recall drafting it with them, and in-house voting already indicates that some members oppose the legislation.

had taken the long view and written a better (as in “less ideologically motivated”) “blocker”. There is no urgency here: The current political environment doesn't favor a renewed attempt at another international overtime law. Under the circumstances, we believe that defeat of this resolution followed by an attempt that does more than just protect fans of laissez-faire from unwanted regulation, but instead also protects fans of socialism from unwanted deregulation would be the best course of action for sovereigntists to follow.
Once again, your demonstration of an ideologically neutral alternative - that is not illegal for category violation - would be most welcome here.

This is not mere abstraction: because of the peculiar construction of this resolution, leftists must now fight tooth and nail to preserve the right to collective bargaining and against international recognition of corporate entities as legal persons, both of which might otherwise been issues where negotiation between different ideologically-motivated camps could have produced mutually satisfactory results.
Um, nothing in UN law - nor this one - recognises corporate personhood.

As we noted earlier, poorly chosen or sloppy wording can be incredibly dangerous when crafting legislation. Too little thought was put into this measure; consequently, we should dump it and try again.
Or, we should recognise that there are times when we can actually resort to a little common sense - we don't need to spell out every single word in precise definition. Determined as you are to wrest decision-making power in resolution interpretation away from nations, I really do think it's better all round if we let it back into its rightful place.

The whole "obscenities" thing
Get a fucking grip people. I said some naughty words - who, frankly, gives a shit?

You're right - it's not a hugely effective debating tactic. It's a very poor one, actually. So stop fucking concentrating on it! If you continue to complain everytime I dip into my Anglo-Saxon phrasebook, you're only allowing my poor debating tactic to win through - you're being distracted from the issue. Genuinely good debaters would ignore every word thrown about in anger, and carry on resolutely with their point. That you choose to start wagging your finger at me only indicates your inability to separate reason from emotion in this debate.

And again, you're right - it's not a good debating tactic. But really, you give me too much. I'm not using it as a tactic - it's just part of how I talk, who I am. It's how I've always addressed the GA. If it bothers you that much - I'm a reasonable guy. Ask me to cut it out, and I'll gladly do so. But whining like schoolchildren doesn't really endear me to your point of view.

Now, could we please get back to discussing the proposal?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Actually, it's not without reason that we've been needling Gruenberg about obscenity: It's one thing to invade another country for disagreeing with you in a floor debate or threatening to set the opposing delegate on fire; these are standard NSUN debating tactics, accepted by all.

But technically obscenity does cross the line, per forum rules. If we hadn't goaded Gruenberg as much as we have, we'd consider calling upon the mods to bounce them from this debate. Why? Because a great many minors visit these forums, and as we, all know, we must .... <cringes before saying it> ... “Think of the Children”©

So remember: hacking one's adversaries to death, burning their offices (while they're inside), nuking their countries, etc. are all permitted under the NSUN Rules of Disorder. But the use of obscenity is not (we're lookin' at you, Gruenberg).

Anyway, back to the brawl ... er, debate.

The Empire of Kirisubo is casting its vote in favour of this sovereignty friendly proposal that allows a government to govern its people without UN micromangement and freeing individuals so they're not restricted in their working hours.

Kaigan Miromuta
Kirisuban Ambassador to the UN

--snip--
OOC: I can't see any way of responding IC to this, so I'll go OOC. I know the forum rules are PG-13, and I know that excessive swearing is thereby prohibited. But, see, I don't think it is excessive. Moreover, you need to bear in mind these things are being said by a character - much as you refuse to refer to him by his name. That doesn't give him (or me) a blank slate, by any means, but it does mean that such things should be considered in context. Pyandran's a more fiery, and forthright, character - hence his being the "replacement" for Bausch, even though that would technically be Princess Jianna. If the mods tell me to cut it out, I will gladly do so, but I'd in all honesty rather not go there: why can't you just ask me to refrain?

Oh, and sweetie, if I was being "goaded", I certainly hadn't noticed. I have been in arguments before.

It means I am demonstrating how this proposal is relatively flexible.“Relatively flexible” is good in a hairband; we question whether it's good in legislation.[Referring to the use of the word “their” in the first clause:] No, don't be a retard. That's still a restriction.Correct – and that's why it's absurd to say that this resolution only “frees” employees from regulation: it also frees employers from such regulation, even where any sane employee would want to see employers so regulated.I have no idea what the fuck this means. If, though, you're inviting me to ram a bird carcass down your throat, I'd be much obliged.What it means is that the meaning of the word “specific” is flexible enough that your “blocker” may not actually “block” anything. After all, as you (and everyone else) have pointed out, your interpretation of what this pile of offal means is irrelevant, just like anybody else's.

Since you haven't used the word “overtime” anywhere in this resolution, and you haven't said precisely what it was about the “40-Hour Workweek” resolution that you so deplored in your preamble (it could have been anything, you know – the thing was such a mess), the argument that you would have said “exclusive” if you didn't want to limit pay scale regulation - so “specific” means that we should interpret this resolution as covering such regulation - is pretty feeble (in fact, the word “laughable” comes to mind). We're willing to bet that the mods won't agree that this thing blocks overtime legislation the way you think it does.

<Ambassador smiles to self, makes note to author an international overtime resolution just to spite Gruenberg>Resolution #98, "Eradicate Smallpox". Is it a decent resolution? In my view - yes. I see biological terrorism as one of the principle threats of the modern age, and this is a useful component in the fight against it (although I'd probably support it being overlaid with a more general resolution on contagious diseases). But does it have the degree of unambiguity you cite as necessary in UN legislation? No...Chose that one entirely at random, didn't you?

<HIJACK>

(BTW, as an NSWiki editor, please look at today's modification to NSWiki on that resolution's gameplay effect; comments welcome.)

</HIJACK>Um, nothing in UN law - nor this one - recognises corporate personhood.Not yet, no. But it's one of those possible issues that could interact with this resolution synergistically. What if the NSUN saw corporations as “individuals”?

(Got some errands to run, some other posts to make, and a short treatise on relativistic physics to write; I'll return with more comments on ambiguity later, continuing where left off above.)

Get a fucking grip people. I said some naughty words - who, frankly, gives a shit?

You're right - it's not a hugely effective debating tactic. It's a very poor one, actually. So stop fucking concentrating on it! If you continue to complain everytime I dip into my Anglo-Saxon phrasebook, you're only allowing my poor debating tactic to win through - you're being distracted from the issue. Genuinely good debaters would ignore every word thrown about in anger, and carry on resolutely with their point. That you choose to start wagging your finger at me only indicates your inability to separate reason from emotion in this debate.

And again, you're right - it's not a good debating tactic. But really, you give me too much. I'm not using it as a tactic - it's just part of how I talk, who I am. It's how I've always addressed the GA. If it bothers you that much - I'm a reasonable guy. Ask me to cut it out, and I'll gladly do so. But whining like schoolchildren doesn't really endear me to your point of view.

Now, could we please get back to discussing the proposal?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC: Fuck you, Gruen. :p

“Relatively flexible” is good in a hairband; we question whether it's good in legislation.
If legislation is not flexible, how can it take account of the differing exigencies of member nations? How can a piece of legislation work without being flexible? I'd say it can't. It needs to be suitable for the really quite varied social, economic, cultural and as much as anything physical structures of the membership.

Correct – and that's why it's absurd to say that this resolution only “frees” employees from regulation: it also frees employers from such regulation, even where any sane employee would want to see employers so regulated.
Why the quotation marks around frees? Do you think it doesn't free employees from regulation?

I also might hazard to suggest that a sane employee wouldn't work for someone whose terms they found so bad they could only be rectified by the force of government...

(it could have been anything, you know – the thing was such a mess)
Don't make off-hand remarks like this without textual reference, or you do tend to sound like a dipshit who doesn't know what he's talking about. Cite how it's messy, explain the contradictions, spell out the logical errors. Vague, unsubstantiated generalisations? Sorry, not interested.

We're willing to bet that the mods won't agree that this thing blocks overtime legislation the way you think it does.
Should you adopt your usual approach, I'm not too sure the mods will be dancing with joy to hear from you.

<Ambassador smiles to self, makes note to author an international overtime resolution just to spite Gruenberg>
Ok, but that's pretty petty. I'm not sure I see the point.

Not yet, no. But it's one of those possible issues that could interact with this resolution synergistically. What if the NSUN saw corporations as “individuals”?
Clauses 1, 5 and 6 would still have no relevance. Clause 4 would still remain as a fallback protection for pro-regulation nations. Clause 2 would still be optional. Clause 3 would still be left pretty much up to the interpretation of other nations.

In my view, your analysis is becoming overly reliant on the might-bes and what-ifs of future proposals. Maybe an idea to go back to the text of the actual proposal?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC: I can't see any way of responding IC to this, so I'll go OOC. I know the forum rules are PG-13, and I know that excessive swearing is thereby prohibited. But, see, I don't think it is excessive. Moreover, you need to bear in mind these things are being said by a character - much as you refuse to refer to him by his name. That doesn't give him (or me) a blank slate, by any means, but it does mean that such things should be considered in context. Pyandran's a more fiery, and forthright, character - hence his being the "replacement" for Bausch, even though that would technically be Princess Jianna. If the mods tell me to cut it out, I will gladly do so, but I'd in all honesty rather not go there: why can't you just ask me to refrain?

Oh, and sweetie, if I was being "goaded", I certainly hadn't noticed. I have been in arguments before.OOC: I've toned my language down a lot since I started on these forums early last year. Still, there are times when you need obscenity for proper RP, and that's when I rely on underscores:“You g_d d_mn_d miserable m_th_rf_ck_ng s_n_f_b_tch_ng worthless piece of h_rs_sh_t automobile!” the Ambassador screamed at her broken-down car.

OOC: See, I consider that sort of visual butchery more obscene than actually saying the word.

I also might hazard to suggest that a sane employee wouldn't work for someone whose terms they found so bad they could only be rectified by the force of government...

Sure skilled labor jobs have a harder time getting skilled labor and offer reasonable terms of employment. But what about unskilled labor jobs? A high school grad doesn't have a lot of options and if the industry(say fast food) sees advantage in it to themselves, then what other option is available to the employee? He can work 12 hour shifts at Mickey Dees or at Wendy's. That doesn't solve the problem.

In my view, your analysis is becoming overly reliant on the might-bes and what-ifs of future proposals. Maybe an idea to go back to the text of the actual proposal?

Ignoring potential developments is a poor way to run a government. Good leadership looks ahead for pitfalls.

Actually, it's not without reason that we've been needling Gruenberg about obscenity: It's one thing to invade another country for disagreeing with you in a floor debate or threatening to set the opposing delegate on fire; these are standard NSUN debating tactics, accepted by all.

But technically obscenity does cross the line, per forum rules. If we hadn't goaded Gruenberg as much as we have, we'd consider calling upon the mods to bounce them from this debate. Why? Because a great many minors visit these forums, and as we, all know, we must .... <cringes before saying it> ... “Think of the Children”©

So remember: hacking one's adversaries to death, burning their offices (while they're inside), nuking their countries, etc. are all permitted under the NSUN Rules of Disorder. But the use of obscenity is not (we're lookin' at you, Gruenberg).

Anyway, back to the brawl ... er, debate.

Well, now.... the representative of Community Property is offended by the use of obscenity in this debate. Frankly, we are too. We see no reason for its use here and we would prefer it not be used.

But now let's put the shoe on the other foot. we are equally offended by the childish and churlish conduct of the representative of Community Property in continually "needling" and "goading" rather than engaging in thoughtful debate. And, knowing that this puerile conduct would undoubtedly be answered with obscenity, he deliberately continued it. And now he has the unmitigated gall to voice a complaint.

Was this a deliberate attempt to get the representative of Gruenberg banned from this discussion? Whatever the motive, it is an affront to this Assembly, and our delegation deeply resents it. We consider flaming and flamebaiting to be equally reprehensible.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It was written as a sort of concluding note, to summate the intentions of the proposal as a whole. In actual effect, it's terminably vague, and essentially has no legislative force, so it would be better served as a preambulatory clause, arguably, but I felt it was an acceptable note on which to end the proposal, emphasising that the proposal was taking into account both the needs of individuals, and the needs of nations...and seeking a compromise between the two.


Well, thank you for your answer.
I do understood your position, but I imagined the more concise & precise a resolution is, the -let say- best it is.
Anyway, and instead of debating on a detail, The Nomadic People of Golden Atlantid will vote for the resolution.

Now, I have more points to see with you all:
1- After a proposal is submited for a vote: do you have the possibility to change it? Is the whole debate only to "accept" or "refuse" it?

2- Is it normal to see that the author of the resoltution is the only person who has to fight? Nobody for help, to defend, no initiative???

3- Personal fights are really really boring.........
I'm not talking of the rude language you people sometimes use (which indeed is a great help to nourish my poor english)... just that, come on, stick to the subject!


Respect!
Still have to lead -only- 6 Millions nomads,
Find someone to endorse me in order to represent my poor & low power Atlantide region as UN delegate,

Misce stultitiam consiliis brevem ; Dulce est desipere in loco ;)

Now, I have more points to see with you all:
1- After a proposal is submited for a vote: do you have the possibility to change it? Is the whole debate only to "accept" or "refuse" it?

No you don't. Once it's submitted, it's "locked in concrete". It is possible, though, to withdraw it by asking the Mods to delete it from the list. That's been done at least twice that we can recall.


2- Is it normal to see that the author of the resoltution is the only person who has to fight? Nobody for help, to defend, no initiative???

It's really hard to define what's "normal" around here. It depends pretty much on the proposal. We've seen all sorts of cases.... There have been times when the author of the proposal didn't even bother coming here to defend it. Other times, the author (and perhaps co-author) were almost the only ones speaking out in its behalf. We've seen other cases in which many members pitched in on both sides of the argument. It also depends on who authored the proposal. We've seen cases where it was obvious that supporters of the proposal felt the author was best capable of defending it and stayed out of the way, except to post one or two messages stating support. Perhaps the best answer is:"It all depends". ;)


3- Personal fights are really really boring.........
I'm not talking of the rude language you people sometimes use (which indeed is a great help to nourish my poor english)... just that, come on, stick to the subject!


We couldn't agree more. Welcome to the NSUN.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Sure skilled labor jobs have a harder time getting skilled labor and offer reasonable terms of employment. But what about unskilled labor jobs? A high school grad doesn't have a lot of options and if the industry(say fast food) sees advantage in it to themselves, then what other option is available to the employee? He can work 12 hour shifts at Mickey Dees or at Wendy's. That doesn't solve the problem.
What do you want me to do? Give him a job as a neurosurgeon?

Ignoring potential developments is a poor way to run a government. Good leadership looks ahead for pitfalls.
I'm not running a government...

1- After a proposal is submited for a vote: do you have the possibility to change it? Is the whole debate only to "accept" or "refuse" it?
It can't be changed - so yeah, it's FOR, AGAINST, or if you're in the mood for wild eroticism, ABSTAIN.

(It's an in-joke...)

2- Is it normal to see that the author of the resoltution is the only person who has to fight? Nobody for help, to defend, no initiative???
Well...
1. No, it's not necessarily usual, though equally it's not especially unusual.
2. In general, people will only comment in disagreement, other than a general "yep, me like".
3. Other people have actually been involved in this debate.
4. My style doesn't really endear me to people, and I suspect the tone the debate has adopted has turned off some people from commenting.
5. This proposal underwent quite a bit of drafting, so quite a number of the regulars have already had their say.
6. Maybe they just think I'm doing ok - not necessarily winning or holding even, mind - on my own?

3- Personal fights are really really boring.........
I'm not talking of the rude language you people sometimes use (which indeed is a great help to nourish my poor english)... just that, come on, stick to the subject!
I could not agree more.

Misce stultitiam consiliis brevem ; Dulce est desipere in loco
Horace. I think I like your style. Stick around - the next debate might be more interesting.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC:
I think a few players are missing the chance to really keep the NationStates UN forum fun. One way to make debates interesting is to pretend that you are acting in the role of a UN Ambassador. Many players have created imaginary characters (or a cast of characters) to represent their nation in these debates.

When you reply in a UN debate thread:
Sometimes saying *less* means your post is more likely to be read.
Adding a bit about your country and reasons your government might support or not support an issue tells more of a story than, "I don't like this."
Reacting to statements said by other players, if they've given their character a nation, thinking that you are an actor responding to an actor may streamline things.

While Cardiland is all for allowing businesses to require employees to put in 80 hours a week or face summary termination, this bill does seem to cut into our mandatory 20 hours/week community service program which has kept Cardiland green and crime free.

As such, unless we can be assured that this proposal will not affect our community service programs we must vote no.

We are already struggling under the tax increases forced on us by the last resolution in order to clean up space junk placed in orbit by other nations. We have no interest in enacting yet more taxes in order to pay for programs currently done voluntarily by our joyous citizens.

What do you want me to do? Give him a job as a neurosurgeon?

No, I would the ability to regulate my industries so as not to unfairly take advantage of the unskilled. They deserve protection as much as any other, and will only receive through government mandate, and supply exceeds demand in that job area.

I'm not running a government...

Your political opponents would love to hear that.

OOC: I chose to run the government as I would always like to run a government so my character is myself. I might make a different sort of U.N. ambassador persona eventually, but I'm still getting my feet wet and I'm still new at this with and new government so in the early stages, Jimayo Oyamitch runs his own government. And no, that is not my real name.

As such, unless we can be assured that this proposal will not affect our community service programs we must vote no.
I'm going to say it doesn't. Such doesn't really seem to qualify as "employment", given it's community service - and would anyway clearly qualify under the "general public interest" of Clause 4. So your schemes could continue.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

We have no interest in enacting yet more taxes in order to pay for programs currently done voluntarily by our joyous citizens.
OOC: I think it's unlikely this category will increase your taxes. I'll be interested to see its effect. Of course, that has no bearing on its IC implementation...but you don't seem overly interested in such distinctions.

No, I would the ability to regulate my industries so as not to unfairly take advantage of the unskilled. They deserve protection as much as any other, and will only receive through government mandate, and supply exceeds demand in that job area.
That sounds to me like a clear case of "general public interest".

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Your political opponents would love to hear that.

OOC: I chose to run the government as I would always like to run a government so my character is myself. I might make a different sort of U.N. ambassador persona eventually, but I'm still getting my feet wet and I'm still new at this with and new government so in the early stages, Jimayo Oyamitch runs his own government. And no, that is not my real name.
OOC: Ok...but what I mean is, Rono Pyandran is Chief of Staff to the Gruenberger Office of UN Affairs. He's a diplomat, essentially - not a politician. He really isn't running a government - he's running a UN office.

That sounds to me like a clear case of "general public interest".

That term is currently undefined though. Someone could later define the term to prevent me from protecting my people from the profit-driven corporations(who are only accountable to shareholders, not employees), so I dislike leaving the potential abuse open.

OOC: Ok...but what I mean is, Rono Pyandran is Chief of Staff to the Gruenberger Office of UN Affairs. He's a diplomat, essentially - not a politician. He really isn't running a government - he's running a UN office.

OOC: I see, but even still shouldn't his leader then be worrying about this? Unless he's a laissez-faire capitalist I guess.

<The Ambassador glances at the note slipped in front of her by one of her aides>For: 5,931
Against: 4,545
Expected Total: ~14,000
Not Yet Cast: ~3,500
Split Required for Defeat: 70/30 Against
Probability of the Foregoing: <5%<Scowling, the ambassador covers her microphone and leans over to another aide to begin a whispered conversation>“We're not going to make it on this one.”
“No.”
<pause>
“So how important is this – really?”
“The General Secretary isn't going to lose any sleep over this. We have no private enterprise anyway; we can offer people whatever working hours we please as employers without it ever becoming a matter for litigation or regulation.”
“And our neighbors? Nations whom we are trying to guide down the path to socialism?”
“The Foreign Ministry believes that the 2nd and 4th clauses can be exploited to mitigate most of the negative effects of the 1st and 3rd. There is some concern that the 1st clause could be construed as a 'right to work' mandate, but most experts think that the 'general interest' section of the 4th clause can eliminate this threat.”
“Still, it widens the gap between laissez-faire and socialist regimes.”
“That can't be helped. As long as the polarization is kept to a minimum, there is little risk of it getting out of hand.”
<pause>
“What does the Foreign Ministry think of preemptive pro-sovereignty legislation aimed at avoiding right-wing initiatives on that front?”
“That's still being decided. It's likely that such efforts will be viewed with more favor after this, however.”
<pause>
“So it's down to appearances.”
“Pretty much, yes.”
<pause>
“It would be nice if we weren't pretty much the only vocal opposition.”
“Can't be helped.”
“I suppose that we can just ride it out, while trying not to take too much political damage.”<Uncovers microphone, seeks recognition>

We are gratified to hear that this legislation was not endorsed by the NSO. If the principle of national sovereignty is to be taken seriously, it must divorce itself from efforts to advance a particular agenda, whatever that agenda might be. The NSUN – like our entire world – is too diverse to permit such divisive moves, even where divisiveness is not intended.

This resolution, whether intended to do so or not, is an affront to socialist states: it carries with it the implicit assumption that government is evil or – at the very least – misguided. Were socialist regimes more numerous, such effrontery might well provoke exactly the result this initiative was intended to prevent: the re-imposition of an international overtime statute.

You are lucky that this hasn't happened, but your actions leave bad blood in their wake all the same. A mild and ineffectual resolution endorsing the right of states to regulate hours would have spared you this fight and made the difference between a resolution that passes by a 55-45 margin and one enjoying a clear supermajority. Now you will always need to be on your guard for a repeal and and, in its wake, a move to reimpose the very regime you don't want.

Nothing can be done to change this now, but perhaps in the future more care will be taken to make such efforts less ideologically obnoxious.

[Count Anton Suntower puffs contentedly on his cigarette as the Ambassador speaks. When she is finished, he applauds and then gestures for a microphone in his own turn].

The Lady Ambassador from Community Property is correct. By all means let us recognize the fact that government is evil, but ladies and gentlemen let us please keep in mind that it is an evil that allows us to be employed in jobs that involve indoor work with no heavy lifting at the taxpayer's expense. My servants tell me that such jobs are considered desirable. And "Undue government interference in making decisions governing...personal lives," is the very reason that the UN ultimately exists. To deny this is to strike at the very employment that makes our pampered lives possible.

In addition, there is another reason to vote against this act. The 40 hour week is something that the common rabble has become used to in all our realms and they would surely revolt if they were deprived of it now. Nor would I blame them for it as it is an aristocrat's duty to know the limits beyond which a commoner may not be pushed. Human biological constraints are universal and most of the UN does belong to that species.

For these reasons I do vote no and urge all fellow member nations to follow my example.

[Count Anton Suntower sits down once more and lights another cigarette].

*Jimayo Oyamitch steps up to podium for the The United Socialist States of Jimayo*

As many of you know, my government is newly formed. I only recently overthrew the tyrannical Zhou dynasty that ruled our land. I seek only what is in the best interests of all of my people. Of all people everywhere. This resolution as it stands is clearly designed to bust unions. For those of us who seek to protect their citizens from the avarice of Multi-National corporations, that will not matter much, but the wording is such that future proposals could be used to prevent us from that regulating. I urge you all to reconsider your votes.

Thank you.

We are gratified to hear that this legislation was not endorsed by the NSO.Of course not. The National Sovereignty Organization does not "endorse" proposals. I can tell you now, though, the NSO poll is currently running in favor of this bill.

Nothing can be done to change this now, but perhaps in the future more care will be taken to make such efforts less ideologically obnoxious.Does this mean you're finally going to shut up now?

This resolution as it stands is clearly designed to bust unions. For those of us who seek to protect their citizens from the avarice of Multi-National corporations, that will not matter much, but the wording is such that future proposals could be used to prevent us from that regulating. I urge you all to reconsider your votes.Um, are you ignoring the standing UN resolution which explicitly protects union rights, or are you merely recycling Community Property taking points here?

We are heartened, though, at your attempt to speak to the actual proposal for once, and not the language employed by its author.

*Jimayo Oyamitch steps up to podium for the The United Socialist States of Jimayo*

As many of you know, my government is newly formed. I only recently overthrew the tyrannical Zhou dynasty that ruled our land. I seek only what is in the best interests of all of my people. Of all people everywhere. This resolution as it stands is clearly designed to bust unions. For those of us who seek to protect their citizens from the avarice of Multi-National corporations, that will not matter much, but the wording is such that future proposals could be used to prevent us from that regulating. I urge you all to reconsider your votes.

Thank you.

Ambassador Pendankr rises in responce to the (Jimayoan? Oyamitchian? Whatever.) ambassador.

"We recognize the United Socialist States and their autonomy, but we take issue with their assertion that this resolution is designed to bust unions. I challege all delegates to find the clause that is anti-union or anti-worker."

He continues.

"This bill gives the worker the rights! It takes the decision from the hands of the United Nations and gives it to the nations, creating a dialoguge between worker and manager, between worker and government. This strengthens the nation's right to choose how long a person should work! This resolution supports the right of all inahibants of Jimayo Oyamitch to have a say in how long they can work, and does not prevent them from choosing. In the name of His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty, we implore the ambassador from the United Socialist States to reconsider their vote."


OOC: Incidentally - were you ever involved with SimRTK? Your name rings a bell.

Ambassador Pendankr rises in responce to the (Jimayoan? Oyamitchian? Whatever.) ambassador.

"We recognize the United Socialist States and their autonomy, but we take issue with their assertion that this resolution is designed to bust unions. I challege all delegates to find the clause that is anti-union or anti-worker."

He continues.

"This bill gives the worker the rights! It takes the decision from the hands of the United Nations and gives it to the nations, creating a dialoguge between worker and manager, between worker and government. This strengthens the nation's right to choose how long a person should work! This resolution supports the right of all inahibants of Jimayo Oyamitch to have a say in how long they can work, and does not prevent them from choosing. In the name of His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty, we implore the ambassador from the United Socialist States to reconsider their vote."


OOC: Incidentally - were you ever involved with SimRTK? Your name rings a bell.

OOC: Yes. I used to GM it and I designed the rules that were previously used for the game.

Um, are you ignoring the standing UN resolution which explicitly protects the right to form labor unions, or are you merely recycling Community Propoerty taking points here?

We are heartened, though, at your attempt to speak to the actual proposal for once, and not the language employed by its author.

I suspect that the point being made here isn't that this resolution will prevent the formation of unions, but the third activating clause actually may cause some nations to feel that certain jobs can no longer have closed shops.

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

This is admittedly a liberal interpetation of this clause ... where I'm essentially suggesting that one interpetation is "mandates the removal of working time regulations that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level". Essentially unions do this to a degree.

The reason I say this is a liberal interpetation of this clause, as it could (and hopefully will be) argued that what it really says is focused on the conditional "and". The real weak point of my argument (a point I'm hoping to be challenged on and yielding) is the notion that a working time regulation is tied to other work related regulations.

-Katzman

I suspect that the point being made here isn't that this resolution will prevent the formation of unions, but the third activating clause actually may cause some nations to feel that certain jobs can no longer have closed shops.


We would respectfully point out to our distinguished colleague from Mikitivity that closed shops are already prohibited by Clause 7 of NSUN Resolution #149.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Um, are you ignoring the standing UN resolution which explicitly protects union rights, or are you merely recycling Community Propoerty taking points here?

We are heartened, though, at your attempt to speak to the actual proposal for once, and not the language employed by its author.

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

This clause could be interpreted to mean that unions(as they are not individuals) could not negotiate working hours on behalf of the employees in the union.

"This bill gives the worker the rights! It takes the decision from the hands of the United Nations and gives it to the nations, creating a dialoguge between worker and manager, between worker and government. This strengthens the nation's right to choose how long a person should work! This resolution supports the right of all inahibants of Jimayo Oyamitch to have a say in how long they can work, and does not prevent them from choosing. In the name of His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty, we implore the ambassador from the United Socialist States to reconsider their vote."

Rhetoric. Nothing more. The right of nations to determine working hour regulations is just as strong now as it will be after this resolution is passed. There are no resolutions governing this issue, and as such the nations ability to regulate it's own industries is as strong as it can be.

As I community property has said though, future resolutions defining such terms as terms of employment, working time, working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, this could then be used to force member nations to deregulate industries in regards to working hours.

This legislation is unneccessary at present and can only become worse for socialist states.

We would respectfully point out to our distinguished colleague from Mikitivity that closed shops are already prohibited by Clause 7 of NSUN Resolution #149.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: What's a closed shop?

We would respectfully point out to our distinguished colleague from Mikitivity that closed shops are already prohibited by Clause 7 of NSUN Resolution #149.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Ambassador Ahlmann,

You are completely correct, and thus I feel any objections I raised with respect to clause three are not valid.

Katzman

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

This clause could be interpreted to mean that unions(as they are not individuals) could not negotiate working hours on behalf of the employees in the union.
Nope. Unions don't make decisions. Workers do. Unions just help workers get corporations to agree to their wishes.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

This legislation is unneccessary at present and can only become worse for socialist states.
The commies deserve it.

Is this microphone still on?

OOC: What's a closed shop?

OOC: A "closed shop" is a business where a person has to be a union member before he or she can be hired.

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

This clause could be interpreted to mean that unions(as they are not individuals) could not negotiate working hours on behalf of the employees in the union.


There is no way that this clause could reasonably be interpreted to mean any such thing. It restricts the actions of government, not unions.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Nope. Unions don't make decisions. Workers do. Unions just help workers get corporations to agree to their wishes.

Never been in a union, have you? Since unions vote on resolutions that means that not every employee agrees with the contract voted upon, thus if working hours are included then it removes decision-making power from the individual level.

Jimayo Oyamitch
Shi Huang Di
The United Socialist States of Jimayo

The commies deserve it.

Is this microphone still on?

OOC: Better not be. Thems fighting words.;)
Seriously though, socialists and commies are different. That's like saying all right wing government are fascists.

And to answer the question, my people are taoists. I've decided the previous regime was a religious theocracy based on taoism and citizens of the Zhou empire were called Taoists. I didn't bother to change the name, cause Jimayoans sounds gay, and naming the country after myself was as arrogant as I was willing to be.

This is admittedly a liberal interpetation of this clause ... where I'm essentially suggesting that one interpetation is "mandates the removal of working time regulations that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level". Essentially unions do this to a degree.

The reason I say this is a liberal interpetation of this clause, as it could (and hopefully will be) argued that what it really says is focused on the conditional "and". The real weak point of my argument (a point I'm hoping to be challenged on and yielding) is the notion that a working time regulation is tied to other work related regulations.Our suspicion is that it will do precisely this. In and of itself, such a measure would not eliminate the value of unions, and the 2nd clause does offer some further relief, but overall the resolution might be construed as to: Bar unions from participating in negotiations on matters pertaining to working hours and compensation (effectively restricting them to grievances and non-temporal work conditions), or...


Permit individuals in closed shops to demand a “right to work” without union representation (which is actually reinforced by the 2nd clause).¹The sole recourse to this is a 4th clause appeal to the “general public interest”, to the effect that closed shops avoid certain iniquities stemming from non-union members simulatenously piggybacking off and eroding the power of unions representing other persons in the same shop.

Again, this probably wasn't a deliberate effect of the proposed legislation (and then again....). The point is that we shouldn't be voting on a piece of legislation with the prospect of eroding the bargaining power of unions under the guise of something that's supposed to make it easier for workers to enjoy greater freedom in their choice of working hours.

¹We're not entirely convinced that NSUN #149 bars closed shops; we interprete it as preventing employers from retaliating against union members, and as requiring unions to accept all employees in a shop as members upon certification.

OOC: I've toned my language down a lot since I started on these forums early last year. Still, there are times when you need obscenity for proper RP, and that's when I rely on underscores:OOC: Bloody hell, this is NationStates not fucking Wheel of Fortune.:rolleyes:

OOC: See, I consider that sort of visual butchery more obscene than actually saying the word.OOC: Agreed.

Of course not. The National Sovereignty Organization does not "endorse" proposals. I can tell you now, though, the NSO poll is currently running in favor of this bill.
IC: Yeah, with myself as the lone against vote. Anyway, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites voting against this resolution as our interpertation of Clause 3 would require us to do away with our nation's 40 hour work week legislation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Unions don't make regulations; governments do. The resolution places limits on government regulation, not the actions of unions.

Closed shops are illegal under Clause 7 of NSUN Resolution #149.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: What's a closed shop?

OOC: Jobs where an employee is *required* to join (and often pay dues) to a union are called "closed shop", meaning you can't work at the place unless you are part of the union. Some common real-life examples: teachers, police officers, firefighters, and many other government employees (including people like me -- I'm an engineer, and a union that never asks for my opinion pulls a few bucks out of my paycheck each month).

Think of it like "closed job", meaning "you must sit in the back of the bus". It is a discriminatory type of employement. Hollywood tends to actually be closed shop in practice. If you aren't part of the Writers Guild, you essentially get blacklisted. Actors get it as well, as there are codes of conduct involved in their pay scales, though many actors can find ways to get paid *less* by not taking credit for their work (usually done because they like something). Actors who break the will of the guild are fined.

Open shop unions are the opposite. You can work at a place and you can choose if you want to join the union or not. Technically speaking, Ausserland is correct to point out that the Right to Form Unions Resolution (#149) really should move most government positions to being open shop unions. Unfortunately there is a real-life example of a stupid work around for that ... unions that are closed shop but wish to appear "open" simply make two levels of membership: members and fee-payers. Members pay slightly more. My job falls into this category ... and the union has access to my home address -- a fact that I'm aware of as once a month they spend $0.39 asking for me to give them an addition $3. They don't laugh when I tell them that I could feed a starving child in Honduras for the price of union membership each month and that Sally Struthers will win over them any day of the week. (OK, I do tell them that, but the truth is I give much more per month to a local suicide prevention hotline, and believe that if I've got an extra $3 / month, that I can honestly find some charity that is better deserving than many of my underworked co-workers.)

In the SciFi world, I believe that Firefly's "Companions Guild" is closed shop ... as there was an episode where a number of women and men left the guild and founded a whore house. One of the best episodes of the series. And therin is another loophole for those of us that want "guilds" ... turn the profession into a religion. It is alluded to that is exactly how the women and men in the Firefly universe did it.

Unions don't make regulations; governments do. The resolution places limits on government regulation, not the actions of unions.

And that is good why?

Unions don't make regulations; governments do. The resolution places limits on government regulation, not the actions of unions.

Closed shops are illegal under Clause 7 of NSUN Resolution #149.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

In a closed shop union (which is illegal by that resolution), the union represents the employee in matters concerning disputes and reneogitations of the contracts. Closed shop unions can in fact wield a great deal of decision making power. Another example, professional sports players associations. When you are a MLB player and you throw your bat at anybody, you are fined by MLB ... it is a condition of your employement. Not even Barry Bonds could argue that he has the right to play baseball *without* being subject to fines like that. The players association, however, does have the power to neogitate with MLB what that fine should be.

3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;

This clause could be interpreted to mean that unions(as they are not individuals) could not negotiate working hours on behalf of the employees in the union.

Could be interpreted. In Allech-Atreus? Maybe. In Gruenberg? Maybe. In Jimayo Oyamitch? Only if your legal system interprets it that way. Our position is that this clause can be interpreted widely by individual nations, which allows you to decide if unions are unfairly removing decision-making power, or are simply a collective voice of the workers. It's still your call.


Rhetoric. Nothing more. The right of nations to determine working hour regulations is just as strong now as it will be after this resolution is passed. There are no resolutions governing this issue, and as such the nations ability to regulate it's own industries is as strong as it can be.

Oh, and what was it that I was responding to? Not rhetoric? Please. Ambassador Olembe has already pointed out that a previous UN Resolution fobids a closed shop.That's not rhetoric, that's the law. It's ridiculous if you argue about union-busting when the UN has already passed resolutions limiting the power unions can have.

As I community property has said though, future resolutions defining such terms as terms of employment, working time, working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, this could then be used to force member nations to deregulate industries in regards to working hours.

This legislation is unneccessary at present and can only become worse for socialist states.

I don't understand what you said, but I'll take a stab anyway.

This resolution IS Labor Deregulation. That's what the category is. Don't let that fool you, though, into thinking that it's bad for socialists, commuists, and all that lot, because it's not. In fact, this is completely in keeping with socialist thought, being that the worker (read: proletarian) is now able to bargain with the businessman (read: bourgoisie) as to how long he works.

The resolution is only as bad as your country lets it be, as Jimayo Oyamitch's interpretation of the law will be vastly different from what Gruenberg's is, or Ausserland's is, or Community Property's is.


Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

IC: Yeah, with myself as the lone against vote. Anyway, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites voting against this resolution as our interpertation of Clause 3 would require us to do away with our nation's 40 hour work week legislation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


I strongly suspect that the vast majority of no votes share similar concerns.

... And yet, your "suspicion" has already been deemed moot by Resolution #149. Discredited before you even posted. That's delicious.Is it?

<Checks with aide before continuing>

In Community Property, union membership is mandatory, both for citizens and resident aliens. We're sure that we're not the only nation around here that does this; the odds against that are infinitesimal.

So your statements about NSUN #149 are clearly incorrect. We can think of a host of other ways (besides the method we use) for ensuring that closed shops can - and indeed, do - exist.

<HIJACK>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,Discrimination, in the context of #149 ¶7, applies solely to enterprise management; it does not prevent government from mandating union membership upon acceptance of a job in a closed shop or simply (as we do) mandating it globally (we have only one union - the CPCP [Community Property Communist Party]). If the employee doesn't have the right to refuse union membership, then the whole “open shop/closed shop” question is moot.

</HIJACK>

So yes, in this context, ¶2 could be seen as removing the right of unions in closed shops (or any shop) from negotiating working hours on behalf of some (or all) of the employees in question.This message has been deleted by Omigodtheykilledkenny (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=554609). Reason: Fuck this shit.Yes, it's always a good plan to back out before you get egg on your face...

I know the forum rules are PG-13, and I know that excessive swearing is thereby prohibited. But, see, I don't think it is excessive.Neither do I, honestly. I've had characters swear a blue streak before that would leave your rep blushing. It's all about context. The context I'm seeing is a frustrated diplomat running on too much caffeine and nicotine and too little sleep. Also, you're not using in character statements as a thin shield to abuse someone out of character. I don't really see any problem here that can't be solved from an in character standpoint.

6. Maybe they just think I'm doing ok - not necessarily winning or holding even, mind - on my own?That would be Dr. Leary's stance.

OOC: See, I consider that sort of visual butchery more obscene than actually saying the word.Agreed. I'd much rather have people just type it.

Yes, it's always a good plan to back out before you get egg on your face...Right, buddy. Quit trolling, and get back to your fishing. I'm sure there are plenty other past resolutions your government can deliberately misinterpret just so you can misinterpret this one. :rolleyes:

The Sometimes Coherent Conclave of Ardchoille has shamefacedly voted FOR this proposal.

Shamefacedly, because we believe the UN should be trying to make the world a better place, and we don't think this does. So we're trying to avoid the reproachful eyes of our comrades in countries so lost to human decency that they exploit their workforce.

But, nonetheless, FOR, because, if it doesn't make things better, it doesn't make them worse, either. Given the possibilities that were being discussed after the 40-hour work week was repealed, we consider this the best of a bad bunch (not the drafting, however; the drafting's excellent). Oh, and we don't mind that it's a blocker, since it blocks the unjust as well as the just.

FOR, also, because there is nothing our Secretary for Situations Like This enjoys more than crawling in and out of loopholes, and he is looking forward to employing his talent if the direst readings of Clause 3 et al apply. Which, in our opinion, they don't.
_____________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has changed her vote back to AGAINST on this resolution in accord with the wishes presented to her by the citizens of the region, after reviewing the recent developments in the offsite poll. If you have any questions or comments on this, feel free to contact me.

Hellar Gray

Or maybe the resolution allows employees a greater amount of freedom to determine how long they work. Rather than "enslaving" them.

That's a typical objection when someone raises anti-deregulation questions. Quite short-sighted.

In a contract, the two sides almost never have equal strength. Expecially in employment contracts: do you think that a mid-sized enterprise (let's say 50 employees and some millions ghells budget) has the same contractual strenght of a single citizen looking for a decent workplace? Of course not. So much for employees determining their own work times.

A typical scenery upon introduction of no-worktime-regulation:
Group A of workers chooses to work let's say 12 hours a day instead of 8.
Group B chooses to stay on 8.
The enterprise, of course, rises the wages of group A in a move to persuade group B to work more.
Group A gets more buying power. This leads immediately to inflation. End-consumer prices rise.
Group A, after a few weeks, discovers that it's got the same buying power that it had when it worked 8 h/d. Group B has now less buying power. To mantain its previous buying power, group B is COMPELLED now to choose the 12 h/d worktime.
So labour deregulation has:
1.Created inflation
2.Compelled people to work more
3.Failed to improve workers' buying power and welfare levels
4.Made the largest enterprises make a lot of money, thus giving their stakeholders a lot of unjustified profits (what did they do? nothing and they're getting the money)
5.Because of large enterprises on the rise, small enterprises, family enterprises, artisans and small shops are heavily hit and must close down (and look for work)
...

Then someone elects to work 13 h/d.... then someone else makes people go to work at 14 years... then some enterprise offers better wages to those people who don't adhere to unions and fire the union activists... average wages shrink, internal demand for consumer goods collapses, enterprises work just for export and a small bunch of CEOs and tycoons get always richer and richer...

If you want this crazed capitalist distopia, do it in your own country, and do not try to impose that on more socially-minded countries. We'll await for your people revolting against you, and we won't need to wait a long time.

Oppose the labour deregulation NOW!

This resolution IS Labor Deregulation. That's what the category is. Don't let that fool you, though, into thinking that it's bad for socialists, commuists, and all that lot, because it's not. In fact, this is completely in keeping with socialist thought, being that the worker (read: proletarian) is now able to bargain with the businessman (read: bourgoisie) as to how long he works.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

Uh? From what he says, it seems to me that the Ambassador needs to re-read more accurately (if he ever did once) some "minor" political texts, like the "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei", "Das Kapital" or the "Grundrissen der deutschen Ideologie".
The point of communism and socialism is about abolishing bourgoisie and its political power as the class who detains economical power. Not having proletarians trying to bargain with enterpreneurs. That is capitalism, in its classical (see Smith and Ricardo) interpretation.

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has changed her vote back to AGAINST on this resolution in accord with the wishes presented to her by the citizens of the regionFickle bunch, ain't'cha?


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

That term is currently undefined though. Someone could later define the term to prevent me from protecting my people from the profit-driven corporations(who are only accountable to shareholders, not employees), so I dislike leaving the potential abuse open.
Such an attempt would almost certainly trip up on a House of Cards violation. Why don't we, for now, deal with this proposal - any others can come later.

This resolution as it stands is clearly designed to bust unions.
Again, Clause 2? "Calls upon member nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;"

This clause could be interpreted to mean that unions(as they are not individuals) could not negotiate working hours on behalf of the employees in the union.
Despite the fact the resolution explicitly states they can? That would an unconventional reading...

And nothing in this resolution can override existing UN law. It cannot negate any of the obligations or terms of Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions".

Our suspicion is that it will do precisely this. In and of itself, such a measure would not eliminate the value of unions, and the 2nd clause does offer some further relief, but overall the resolution might be construed as to:
Such an intepretation would be idiotic. I can't legislate against people being idiots. Your argument is coming down to: "if nations completely ignore what everything in this proposal means, they might screw themselves with it". No, really? Find a new tune to play; this one's gotten old.

--snip--
Textual. Reference.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC: Bloody hell, this is NationStates not fucking Wheel of Fortune.:rolleyes:

"Once you buy a prize ... it's your's to keep!" :cool:
Oh wait, that was the original Wheel of Fortune. I miss those early days. :(

We're fully delighted with that resolution. Tallented should work more. Exploit their genius!

OOC: I think it's unlikely this category will increase your taxes. I'll be interested to see its effect. Of course, that has no bearing on its IC implementation...but you don't seem overly interested in such distinctions.


OOC I'm not overly interested in making distinctions between what they THINK a motion means and what the game effects will be. I feel that game effects are part of the roleplay, and if they are seperate the roleplay is lacking.

So if a resolution will have the in game effect of raising taxes, than the in charector debate should acknowledge that and roleplay that - thus my nation considers nations which say there will be no impact as liars and con artists. Otherwise, you end up with 2 games with no real linkage between them. One is pure roleplay that doesn't acknowledge the mechanical game, and one is pure mechanics. This is not an invalid way to play, but if that was to be my gaming style I would choose NOT to have my mechanical nation enter the pure roleplay UN, I could roleplay as an interested observer and make the same points.

Fickle bunch, ain't'cha?


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

I totally misread that and was about to rant.

It's "Labor Deregulation". That's not exactly a category that screams "tax hike".

OOC I'm not overly interested in making distinctions between what they THINK a motion means and what the game effects will be. I feel that game effects are part of the roleplay, and if they are seperate the roleplay is lacking.

So if a resolution will have the in game effect of raising taxes, than the in charector debate should acknowledge that and roleplay that - thus my nation considers nations which say there will be no impact as liars and con artists. Otherwise, you end up with 2 games with no real linkage between them. One is pure roleplay that doesn't acknowledge the mechanical game, and one is pure mechanics. This is not an invalid way to play, but if that was to be my gaming style I would choose NOT to have my mechanical nation enter the pure roleplay UN, I could roleplay as an interested observer and make the same points.
OOC: No, it's not an invalid way to play. Nor, though, is it the only valid way to play.

Anyway, if it passes, we'll have to wait and see on the effects.

"Once you buy a prize ... it's your's to keep!" :cool:
Oh wait, that was the original Wheel of Fortune. I miss those early days. :(

I just want the ceramic Dalmatian.

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has changed her vote back to AGAINST on this resolution in accord with the wishes presented to her by the citizens of the region, after reviewing the recent developments in the offsite poll. If you have any questions or comments on this, feel free to contact me.

Hellar Gray

We hope those nations in Gatesville that have been observing the current vote and debate are touting the virtues of this legislation to the many who are not. The people of Cluichstan have always had good relations with our friends in Gatesville and trust that, at the end of this vote, our friends will be in the FOR column, supporting this excellent resolution.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Uh? From what he says, it seems to me that the Ambassador needs to re-read more accurately (if he ever did once) some "minor" political texts, like the "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei", "Das Kapital" or the "Grundrissen der deutschen Ideologie".
The point of communism and socialism is about abolishing bourgoisie and its political power as the class who detains economical power. Not having proletarians trying to bargain with enterpreneurs. That is capitalism, in its classical (see Smith and Ricardo) interpretation.

OOC: Citing real world texts in an IC forum. Okay, I'll bite.

Marx's entire basis was the empowerment of the worker, which is what his idea of dialectical materialism was based on. In Marx's day laissez-faire capitalism was the norm, with the worke being exploited and having no say in his job. Marx's ideas grew into his anti-bourgeousie rantings spoused in the manifesto.

Really, Marx's ideas are a precursor to those of Farmer and Sen with their theories about power structures and how power is applied. But, economically speaking, this resolution is as close as you can get to Marx's thought without being shouted down for being a dirty commie.

IC:

What books are those? The closest thing to socialism the Empire has ever had was the Great Republic of the Vardacian Commonwealth. Hundreds of nobles and businessowners died during that conflict. It's hard for the people of my nation to relate to your rantings about books they've never heard of.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

[OOC: If Harry Potter and the Bible can exist in NationStates, then surely Marx's writings can.]

nd nothing in this resolution can override existing UN law. It cannot negate any of the obligations or terms of Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions".That's not entirely true. Where a resolution fails to delineate its terms or scope clearly, other acts can change its meaning.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,“Collective representation” means what, precisely? Does it mean representation in all matters or just some? In our opinion, it is perfectly proper to say that, with the passage of the legislation now before us: Unions may represent workers in negotiations pertaining to working hours (¶2),


Unions may still negotiate collective labor agreements (#149 ¶1),


Such agreements are non-binding where working hours are concerned
(¶3),


Where workers elect to disregard collective bargaining agreements with respect to work hours, they may then proceed to negotiate their own individual agreements without reliance on union resources, with the help of any other counsel or representative they wish to employ (¶2).The practical effect of this would be to take unions out of the business of negotiating contracts that affect hours or compensation, since such contracts would be unenforceable.Such an intepretation would be idiotic. I can't legislate against people being idiots. Your argument is coming down to: "if nations completely ignore what everything in this proposal means, they might screw themselves with it". No, really? Find a new tune to play; this one's gotten old.If a nation looks at this and says, “This is trouble,” you want them to neglect their own inner counsel? They know what their laws look like far better than you do.OOC: Citing real world texts in an IC forum. Okay, I'll bite...

What books are those? The closest thing to socialism the Empire has ever had was the Great Republic of the Vardacian Commonwealth. Hundreds of nobles and businessowners died during that conflict. It's hard for the people of my nation to relate to your rantings about books they've never heard of.Allech-Atreus would be well advised to note that not all Real Life™ entities are fictional in NationStates. Pepsi, Nazis, and the Catholic Church exist in both RL and NS (to name just a few crossovers), and there's quite a bit of RP basis for asserting that Marx and Marxism do, too. That said, we'll accept that Allech-Atreus might be ignorant of Marx's writings or the tenets of Marxism.Marx's entire basis was the empowerment of the worker, which is what his idea of dialectical materialism was based on. In Marx's day laissez-faire capitalism was the norm, with the worke being exploited and having no say in his job. Marx's ideas grew into his anti-bourgeousie rantings spoused in the manifesto.

Really, Marx's ideas are a precursor to those of Farmer and Sen with their theories about power structures and how power is applied. But, economically speaking, this resolution is as close as you can get to Marx's thought without being shouted down for being a dirty commie.No, the concept of “employers” and “employees” is not one that lends itself easily to Marxism: “management” and “workers” might, but that's stretching it. Remember, in Marx's view of the way the world ought to be, the means of production are not owned by a separate “entrepreneurial” class, but rather collectively by society as a whole. There's no “boss” who tells us what to do and when, but rather (at most) someone charged with the task of organizing work that needs to be organized, and then only at the pleasure of those doing the work.

It's therefore quite a stretch to say that this legislation advances Marxist ideals, especially when you consider that “government”, to whatever extent it exists under perfect Marxism, is nothing more than an expresssion of the will of the people. To say that the people should have no role in the organization of work at their workplaces, but that instead individuals (who might be acting in selfish disregard for the greater good) should be free to do whatever they please is as absurd as saying that workers should be able to ignore their bosses' wishes in the capitalist workplace for the sake of individual pleasure and gratification.

Allech-Atreus would be well advised to note that not all Real Life™ entities are fictional in NationStates. Pepsi, Nazis, and the Catholic Church exist in both RL and NS (to name just a few crossovers), and there's quite a bit of RP basis for asserting that Marx and Marxism do, too. That said, we'll accept that Allech-Atreus might be ignorant of Marx's writings or the tenets of Marxism.

You as well as Kenny are correct, and I concede my error. However, not even the greatest of our libraries have any of his texts. We simply haven't heard of him, so it's completely reasonable for one such as myself to be ignorant of his philosophies. However, the same could be said for any of our own philosophers. Imperial Philosophy appears alien to most outsiders, and since you are hell-bent on the entire union shtick, it's quite obvious that you wouldn't understand the common Imperial citizen's mindset.


No, the concept of “employers” and “employees” is not one that lends itself easily to Marxism: “management” and “workers” might, but that's stretching it. Remember, in Marx's view of the way the world ought to be, the means of production are not owned by a separate “entrepreneurial” class, but rather collectively by society as a whole. There's no “boss” who tells us what to do and when, but rather (at most) someone charged with the task of organizing work that needs to be organized, and then only at the pleasure of those doing the work.

Yes, I stand corrected.

It's therefore quite a stretch to say that this legislation advances Marxist ideals, especially when you consider that “government”, to whatever extent it exists under perfect Marxism, is nothing more than an expresssion of the will of the people. To say that the people should have no role in the organization of work at their workplaces, but that instead individuals (who might be acting in selfish disregard for the greater good) should be free to do whatever they please is as absurd as saying that workers should be able to ignore their bosses' wishes in the capitalist workplace for the sake of individual pleasure and gratification.

Of course it would be a stretch, but as I have already conceded the point it's moot.Really, my intent was to compare it more to socialism, but that is neither here nor there.

However, now I understand your position. Really, all you want is a communistic form of government/economic system imposed on everyone. This is quite clear from your rabid insistence that this resolution would somehow prevent your nation from creating unions, a right which is already guaranteed by other UN resolutions.

I don't think it can get anymore clear than that. You keep trying to twist out of the legal proof from resolution #149, but you just come off looking foolish and petty.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

However, now I understand your position. Really, all you want is a communistic form of government/economic system imposed on everyone. This is quite clear from your rabid insistence that this resolution would somehow prevent your nation from creating unions, a right which is already guaranteed by other UN resolutions.We frequently see this sort of knee-jerk reaction: “You're communists - you want to take over the world!” There is, of course, not an iota of support for this assertion, yet that never stops anyone from making it.

At issue is not whether we (or anybody else) can form unions. At issue is what these unions can do. Again, thanks to our unique situation, we are not adversely impacted by this resolution, but that is no reason for holding it harmless: our sense of social conscience requires us to consider its impact on others.

The right to organize under NSUN #149 is worthless if unions are excluded from participating in negotiations on working hours and other, related issues. This would not be a violation of #149 per se: the resolution guarantees the right to form unions; it doesn't guarantee the right to form effective ones.

Your failure to appreciate this subtle point speaks more to your political agenda than ours.