NationStates Jolt Archive

National Overtime Standards
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Community Property

Description: NOTING that this body has previously gone on record as supporting individual choice in working hours, and yet

REALIZING that unfettered choice in such matters might lead to an imbalance between hours spent at and away from work, and that such an imbalance might have detrimental effects upon society,

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

DECLARE laws requiring the payment of overtime to be a legal and acceptable means of reconciling individual choice in working hours with the general public interest, and

EXPRESS THE OPINION that such laws in no way represent an impediment to individual choice in working hours; so doing, we therefore

URGE AND ENDORSE the use of overtime laws as a means of encouraging employers to spread work more evenly among the pool of available workers, thus avoiding excessive reliance a few overworked individuals,

RESERVE to this body's Members sole right to legislate on such matters within their respective territories, recognizing this jurisdiction to include but not be limited to such matters as compensation and eligibility for, and limits on the use of overtime, as well as the broader question of whether to implement such laws at all; and having done this we also

INVITE non-Members to agree to abide by these rules in the name of global unity, understanding that they are under no obligation to do so.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION, WE DEFINE

“OVERTIME” as the provision of some award, bonus, premium, or other consideration above and beyond normal compensation, issued when an individual eligible to receive such a benefit works beyond a certain number of hours within a defined period; such rewards may include, but are not limited to, a lump-sum bonus or increased rate of pay, additional time off, preferential treatment in scheduling, citations or other forms of recognition, or anything else of value, pecuniary or otherwise.

Approvals: 16 (Liber Constantinopolis, Ellenburg, Ala cuisene, Kytheros, The Derrak Quadrant, Daisetta, S u n, Hughesington, Novo Sibirsk, Tarmsden, The Delphinic Peoples, Mancialcha, Saint Revan, Mitch Mitchellson, United People of Peace, Firebert)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 105 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Tue Sep 12 2006

Character Count: 1898Explanation of the Proposed ResolutionThe purpose of this proposed resolution is to reserve to members the right to implement overtime laws when and in whatever fashion they may wish, without requiring all members to do so. The resolution endorses the use of overtime as a means of curbing the excessive exercise of individual choice; yet while it expresses the opinion that such choice might produce undesirable societal effects, it still respects the opinions of those nations that differ on the subject, and wish to take no action to curb such behavior.

No nation should find itself forced by this resolution to implement laws that it doesn't wish to implement; furthermore, by stating that – as far as the United Nations are concerned – overtime is not an impediment to individual choice, it allows nations adversely effected by Individual Working Freedoms to correct some (if not all) of the damage done by that resolution.Is This Proposed Resolution Legal?At the moment, yes: Individual Working Freedoms has not yet been implemented. But we believe that even when IWF is law, NOS will still be legal. Why? Because the words “overtime” and “compensation” never appear anywhere in IWF.


Because these same two words never appear in the repeal cited in the preamble of the IWF (Resolution #165, “Repeal 'The 40 Hour Workweek'”).


Because the resolution justifies itself by reference to the “general public interest”, the exact words employed in the IWF with regards to potential overrides of its impact.


Because the resolution explicitly states that overtime laws are no impediment to individual choice, and if the NSUM says it's so, then it's so.Is this Proposal Necessary?Yes. The failure of the IWF to address the issue of overtime means that a new international overtime law could still be implemented at any time. We need to resolve this problem immediately to avoid further ideological infighting within the NSUN.But I Hate Overtime! Why Should I Vote For This?Because it will keep someone else from jamming an overtime law down your throat. With this resolution, you can still keep your capitalism sweatshop overtime-free.But All Workers Are Entitled to Overtime! Why Should I Vote For This?Because it will keep the evil capitalist b_st_rds from taking the right to overtime away from your people, like you know they want to.But This Proposal Doesn't Do Anything! Why Should I Vote For This?Because right now the balance of power between right- and left-leaning Members is close enough to par to produce an incessant series of increasingly nasty ideologically-driven proposals, repeals, and counter-proposals; the result will be a legislative “war” that will be very hard for either side to win. If the overwhelming sense of the NSUN were in favor of one position or the other, then there'd be a clear winner in fights like the one over the IWF and the losers would either agree to let the winners “run” their countries or bolt the organization. Absent that kind of consensus/victory/purge, a cease-fire is probably the wisest course of action.SummaryWe don't expect this resolution to make quorum on the first go; if good changes are proposed between now and the expiration of the first reading, we'll incorporate those in the second. For now, we'll see how it flies as is.

I like this one. It will take away the worries I have from the current proposal.

Is This Proposed Resolution Legal?Well, no, not really.

This has nothing to do with Social Justice, for one. Also, it has a lot of puffed up language, but doesn't really seem to do a damned thing aside from define a term and restate the UN's right to do UN things.

Well, since it's already been submitted (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=overtime), does it get the boot?

Well, no, not really.

This has nothing to do with Social Justice, for one. Also, it has a lot of puffed up language, but doesn't really seem to do a damned thing aside from define a term and restate the UN's right to do UN things.Why wouldn't it be a SJ resolution? The whole point of overtime is to reduce unemployment by forcing employers to divide available work among larger numbers of workers, rather than working a few people to death and leaving the rest without anything to do.

Also, there are lots of resolutions that don't use “requires”, “mandates”, “directs”, or any other forceful action word. “Urging”, “calling upon”, “recommending”, and other such terms are frequently the only things a proposal does. Of course, I could always add a “mandates” or two if I wanted - but I'm not sure that's necessary.

(Actually, in the original draft, I considered mandating a study by each nation of its social and economic situation with an eye towards detremining whether overtime laws were appropriate in its case, as requiring periodic reviews of such legislation on a basis to be determined by each member state. But that's probably not what you had in mind...)

Well, since it's already been submitted (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=overtime), does it get the boot?

I wouldn't recommend that. I'd let it run its course through the queue and only zap it if it approaches quorum. I think with a bit of tweaking it could be legal.

For example, changing the activating clause:

DECLARE laws requiring the payment of overtime to be a legal and acceptable means of reconciling individual choice in working hours with the general public interest, and

to a preambulatory clause:

CONVINCED laws requiring ...

would beef up the justification, and focus on the real activating clause:

URGE AND ENDORSE the use of overtime laws as a means of encouraging employers to spread work more evenly among the pool of available workers, thus avoiding excessive reliance a few overworked individuals,

Which also needs a rewrite ... as I'm not sure I understand what it is suggesting. In any case, it is honestly better to stick to using numbers and active present tense verbs to denote activating clauses. The above should start with words such as URGES or ENDORSES. The reason this is the case is a resolution is technically one frakkin huge run-on sentence, with "The NationStates United Nations" being the singular noun / subject, and everything else being a string of actions / verbs that the noun will do.

Or at least wait until Saturday evening to see if I'm right about IWF not covering overtime. If I'm wrong, then it would be deleted at that time as redundant.

As for the suggested modifications, I'll roll them into the second draft. I wanted to get this thing up and running first, though - I've never seen one of these reach quorum in a single pass, especially as I'm not going to use a TG campaign in search of endorsements until the second round (that's my usual tactic).

Correct me if I'm wrong, by why wouldn't it be a SJ resolution?

Also, there are lots of resolutions that don't use “requires”, “mandates”, “directs”, or any other forceful action word. “Urging”, “calling upon”, “recommending”, and other such terms are frequently the only things some proposals do. Of course, I could always add a “mandates” or two if I wanted - but I'm not sure that's necessary.

(Actually, in the original draft, I considered mandating a study by each nation of its social and economic situation with an eye towards detremining whether overtime laws were appropriate in its case, as requiring periodic reviews of such legislation on a basis to be determined by each member state. But I'm not really sure that those things are necessary.)

I think I answered your second question in my above response (typed at the same time you submitted this). Look at some real-life UN resolutions. When you add -ing to a verb you are talking about something that is already in progress, but not placing a legal "call to action".

For example, "Taking note of the danger of asteroids ..." is not the same thing as "Takes note of the danger of asteroids". The difference is extremely subtle, but the first clause is a preamble ... an argument or justification that is usually based on a popular opinion or in some cases a fact that can be documented (which doesn't really exist in NationStates). The second clause is a call to action ... it really is a directive or instruction.


As for your third point, passing a resolution that "CALLS UPON member nations to conduct studies ..." or "ENCOURAGES member nations to promote extra compensation for extra effort in the workplace ..." are good ideas to build into a resolution.

The trick here is that Social Justice isn't about rewarding people, but it is more often thought of as a way to balance incomes (welfare). As a real-life government employee, I'm paid the same as some certifable "slow" engineers. An imaginary UN resolution that would give me an end of the year bonus or overtime isn't going to decrease the earning potential between me and Mr. Slow Engineer, but rather increase it. I honestly agree with Hack that this isn't a cut and dry Social Justice proposal.

The trick here is that Social Justice isn't about rewarding people, but it is more often thought of as a way to balance incomes (welfare). As a real-life government employee, I'm paid the same as some certifable "slow" engineers. An imaginary UN resolution that would give me an end of the year bonus or overtime isn't going to decrease the earning potential between me and Mr. Slow Engineer, but rather increase it. I honestly agree with Hack that this isn't a cut and dry Social Justice proposal.Well, let me look at the categories again and see if there's a better place for it...

<Goes surfing>

Nah, I can't see it. It's not “Advancement of Industry”, because the only subcategory there that's even close is “Labor Deregulation”, and I don't think thst relly applies here (if there were a “Labor Regulation” subcategory, that would work. And obviously nothing else (beyond “Social Justice”) is even close.

The effect is clearly “Mild”, because it is theoretically possible for no one to have to make any changes if this passes (although I think that some people who were affecetd by the IWF would probably make compensating changes if this were passed).

I see your point above verbal forms. It is subtle, but definitely needed.

This is why we tell you to write the Proposal to the category as opposed to shoving it in after the fact.

This is why we tell you to write the Proposal to the category as opposed to shoving it in after the fact.That's pretty limiting...

“The 40 Hour Workweek” was an SJ proposal; on that basis, I can't see how this one wouldn't be.

It shouldn't have been in that category either.

"A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."

It's starting to sound like we need a "Labor Regulation" category.

I see nothing in this proposal that increases spending on basic welfare. Therefore, I agree with those calling it a category violation.
Well, let me look at the categories again and see if there's a better place for it...
I did point out, repeatedly, that you need to write to the category.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Well, let me look at the categories again and see if there's a better place for it...

<Goes surfing>

Nah, I can't see it. It's not “Advancement of Industry”, because the only subcategory there that's even close is “Labor Deregulation”, and I don't think thst relly applies here (if there were a “Labor Regulation” subcategory, that would work. And obviously nothing else (beyond “Social Justice”) is even close.

The effect is clearly “Mild”, because it is theoretically possible for no one to have to make any changes if this passes (although I think that some people who were affecetd by the IWF would probably make compensating changes if this were passed).

I see your point above verbal forms. It is subtle, but definitely needed.


Yup, therein is the problem. What you've written is a labor regulation, which several types of proposals can be, but as we imagine the net impacts, giving out overtime pay is kinda creating an income inquality. The other tact is to simply declare "overtime pay" a fundamental civil right that all workers are entitled to -- and maybe if you get it done right, Hack will see it as a Human Rights proposal. But Hack and Gruen are giving solid advice to write to a category.

I'll modify their advice. Write an absurdly long preamble, and stop. That is a statement of a problem. Illustrate that there is some international context justifying action.

Then see if one person shares that opinion. Then the next step is to make a long list of actions. We can delete activating clauses until you are left with a proposal that is about 1 to 1.5 pages in MS Word. Anything more will like result in complaints from less patient players.


As for the subtleties (sp?) of using verbs in resolutions, I honestly would not expect most college *students* to really grasp the difference (fortunately the calliber of players that visit these forums is much higher -- that is a compliament to anybody reading this post). :) The best way to learn the difference is to visit the real UN site and scan (not actually read) ~ a dozen resolutions. You'll immediately see the way they form resolutions. Now take what they do, and shorten it for NationStates and also drop real-life references (two things you've already demostrated you can do well with your above proposal).

The other reason to look at real UN resolutions, they may give you inspiration for ideas. Newspapers work well too. :)

Writing a solid proposal actually interests me more than establishing quorum. The quorum is hard to achieve, but it is the flood of hate telegrams and morons that pop up afterwards that have convinced me that I'm more satisfied with proposals than resolutions.

The other tack is to simply declare "overtime pay" a fundamental civil right that all workers are entitled to -- and maybe if you get it done right, Hack will see it as a Human Rights proposal.

I wonder whether simply starting the preamble with a clause along the lines of
"RECOGNISING that employees deserve fair recompense for their labour,"
would be enough for this?

It shouldn't have been in that category either.

"A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."What, are you saying that in the world of NationStates, our only options are to redistribute income and deregulate industry? That's daft!

<Growls, dusts off collegiate degree [B.A. Economics, University of Michigan]>

The reason you would want to require the payment of overtime as a public policy measure is to force employers to hire more workers. Let's suppose that Firm A needs 30,000 hours of labor a week; left to its own devices, it might (and probably would) simply hire 500 workers and give them each 60 hours work of work each week (in the form of, say, 6 daily shifts of 10 hours each). This is because there's a per capita cost involved in hiring people.

Now, for the sake of simplicity, let's suppose that this employer is the only firm in town (the classical “factory town” problem), and that the town has 800 able-bodied workers. With only 500 workers employed, our community is suffering from 37½% unemployment. Yes, the 62½% of able-bodied workers with jobs are doing well (ignoring their fatigue) - but then, isn't that the point of schemes to reduce income inequality? To get more wealth into the hands of those who aren't presently enjoying it, possibly at the expense of those who are?

Continuing this idea, suppose that we would prefer for Firm A to hire 750 workers (250 more than is currently the case) and give each of them 40 hours or work each week (5 daily shifts of 8 hours each, only ⅔ the work they're getting now). This would reduce unemployment to a more manageable 6¼%, vastly improving life for the families of those now unemployed. It would also bring the entire community closer together in its income distribution (ignoring the owners of Firm A), since work (and therefore pay) would now be more evenly distributed.

Indeed, from an income inequality point of view, such a measure would be exactly the same as imposing a 33⅓% tax on workers and then giving the proceeds from that tax to 83⅓% of the unemployed workers. The only difference is that the recipients have to work for their (new) income.

Clearly, then, this is an income redistribution scheme.

Second, it is a demonstrable fact that exhaustion has a negative impact on society. Fatigue is the second greates cause of automobile accidents in America (after alchohol); I can't imagine exhausted drivers do a lot better in the world of NationStates. Time away from home weakens marriages and families and leads to unhappiness on the party of all parties; exhausted people are more prone to disease; stressed people have a greater tendency to indulge in drugs and alcohol to “unwind”.

Reducing fatigue is therefore beneficial to the community's basic welfare.

To the extent that overtime therefore induces employers to shift work from overemployed to underemployed laborers, it can therefore be considered a way of reduc(ing) income inequality and increas(ing) basic welfare. In short, if it's not a “Social Justice” measure, then I'll be dipped in horse manure if I know what is.

Please don't tell me that the only things in your mind that classify as SJ are welfare schemes.I see nothing in this proposal that increases spending on basic welfare. Therefore, I agree with those calling it a category violation.Excuse me, but where in the category definition does it say “increase spending on basic welfare”?

It says “increase basic welfare”. There's a huge difference. If I can think of a way to increase basic welfare without raising taxes, then why would that not be a form of “social justice”?

That NationStates is a parody is obvious. But it doesn't have to be a parody in which all leftists are welfare-state activists.Yup, therein is the problem. What you've written is a labor regulation, which several types of proposals can be, but as we imagine the net impacts, giving out overtime pay is kinda creating an income inquality. The other tact is to simply declare "overtime pay" a fundamental civil right that all workers are entitled to -- and maybe if you get it done right, Hack will see it as a Human Rights proposal.If we assumed that Firm A was unable or unwilling to respond to the fact that the cost of using their 500 workers an “extra” 20 hours of week has just gone up, you'd be right (although we could argue that this still reduces income inequality in so far as the owners of Firm A probably make more money than their workers do). But it seems unlikely that the increase in pay for those 500 workers won't induce the firm to turn to the less expensive alternative of hiring 250 more workers and cutting each week's work back to 40 hours.

IOW, overtime pay is intended to disincentivize firms from relying too heavily on the same workers and instead spread the available work (and with it, pay) among a larger worker base.

*snip*

<Growls, dusts off collegiate degree [B.A. Economics, University of Michigan]>

*mega-snip*

OOC: Is that supposed to impress us? :rolleyes:

OOC: Is that supposed to impress us? :rolleyes:No, if I'd said “Stanford University” then I'd have expected you to be impressed. :p

What, are you saying that in the world of NationStates, our only options are to redistribute income and deregulate industry? That's daft!

<Growls, dusts off collegiate degree [B.A. Economics, University of Michigan]>

The reason you would want to require the payment of overtime as a public policy measure is to force employers to hire more workers. Let's suppose that Firm A needs 30,000 hours of labor a week; left to its own devices, it might (and probably would) simply hire 500 workers and give them each 60 hours work of work each week (in the form of, say, 6 daily shifts of 10 hours each). This is because there's a per capita cost involved in hiring people.

Now, for the sake of simplicity, let's suppose that this employer is the only firm in town (the classical “factory town” problem), and that the town has 800 able-bodied workers. With only 500 workers employed, our community is suffering from 37½% unemployment. Yes, the 62½% of able-bodied workers with jobs are doing well (ignoring their fatigue) - but then, isn't that the point of schemes to reduce income inequality? To get more wealth into the hands of those who aren't presently enjoying it, possibly at the expense of those who are?

Continuing this idea, suppose that we would prefer for Firm A to hire 750 workers (250 more than is currently the case) and give each of them 40 hours or work each week (5 daily shifts of 8 hours each, only ⅔ the work they're getting now). This would reduce unemployment to a more manageable 6¼%, vastly improving life for the families of those now unemployed. It would also bring the entire community closer together in its income distribution (ignoring the owners of Firm A), since work (and therefore pay) would now be more evenly distributed.

Indeed, from an income inequality point of view, such a measure would be exactly the same as imposing a 33⅓% tax on workers and then giving the proceeds from that tax to 83⅓% of the unemployed workers. The only difference is that the recipients have to work for their (new) income.

Clearly, then, this is an income redistribution scheme.

Second, it is a demonstrable fact that exhaustion has a negative impact on society. Fatigue is the second greates cause of automobile accidents in America (after alchohol); I can't imagine exhausted drivers do a lot better in the world of NationStates. Time away from home weakens marriages and families and leads to unhappiness on the party of all parties; exhausted people are more prone to disease; stressed people have a greater tendency to indulge in drugs and alcohol to “unwind”.

Reducing fatigue is therefore beneficial to the community's basic welfare.

To the extent that overtime therefore induces employers to shift work from overemployed to underemployed laborers, it can therefore be considered a way of reduc(ing) income inequality and increas(ing) basic welfare. In short, if it's not a “Social Justice” measure, then I'll be dipped in horse manure if I know what is.

Please don't tell me that the only things in your mind that classify as SJ are welfare schemes.Excuse me, but where in the category definition does it say “increase spending on basic welfare”?

It says “increase basic welfare”. There's a huge difference. If I can think of a way to increase basic welfare without raising taxes, then why would that not be a form of “social justice”?

That NationStates is a parody is obvious. But it doesn't have to be a parody in which all leftists are welfare-state activists.If we assumed that Firm A was unable or unwilling to respond to the fact that the cost of using their 500 workers an “extra” 20 hours of week has just gone up, you'd be right (although we could argue that this still reduces income inequality in so far as the owners of Firm A probably make more money than their workers do). But it seems unlikely that the increase in pay for those 500 workers won't induce the firm to turn to the less expensive alternative of hiring 250 more workers and cutting each week's work back to 40 hours.

IOW, overtime pay is intended to disincentivize firms from relying too heavily on the same workers and instead spread the available work (and with it, pay) among a larger worker base.

What you're arguing right now belongs in the Technical or Moderation forums, not in the UN. Hack has said that right now this isn't really even legal, and you've been given examples and advice to help with the problem. Stop arguing about how NS "isn't fair to leftists because not all of us are welfare activists" and start changing your resolution to something that people might support, because right now it doesn't do a damn thing.

What you're arguing right now belongs in the Technical or Moderation forums, not in the UN. Hack has said that right now this isn't really even legal, and you've been given examples and advice to help with the problem. Stop arguing about how NS "isn't fair to leftists because not all of us are welfare activists" and start changing your resolution to something that people might support, because right now it doesn't do a damn thing.It is not unusual for threads on pending legislation in this forum to address these issues.

I wonder whether simply starting the preamble with a clause along the lines of
"RECOGNISING that employees deserve fair recompense for their labour,"
would be enough for this?

It would certainly help a great deal. But I'd still make the langauge in the activating clauses talk about the "right to overtime" and not "overtime". A liberty is just a paper thing ... how it is put into practice and realized is another. For example, we can say everybody has the equal right to a free and quality education ... but in practice it will always come down to the wealthy taking care of their children, so unless you set up robin hood regulations, the ideal and reality will be different. (Texas did have a robin hood system for a while when I was there -- but now that we have an education category, using a Social Justice resolution for that is tricky too.)

IOW, overtime pay is intended to disincentivize firms from relying too heavily on the same workers and instead spread the available work (and with it, pay) among a larger worker base.

I disagree. Overtime pay is (as it is used these days) how you keep quality employees. It is typically given to hard workers not lazy bums. Seriously, when emergencies happen in the state (currently floods, though I'm on a seismic response list as well), my name pops up and I'm generously rewarded ... many of my co-workers are sent home. Managers aren't stupid.

At the point when an employeer begins to work any employee too hard, the employee's quality and productivity goes down. The original intent of overtime pay was to allow employeers to work the same guys they would have put on long shifts, but when labor laws said, "8 hour days are safer" shrunk the pool of skilled labor.

Think of it this way ... who would become a police officer is you were told, "You'll be paid X / hour, you'll be shot at, liberals will try to call you Nazis, and sometimes you'll not be allowed to go home ... and instead have to work 12 to 15-hour shifts." It happened in New Orlearns about a year ago that a number of offices felt that they were not going to be compensated enough for something they never expected ... they left their jobs. But for some people, saying, "When this is over, we *will* be fair and compensate you," is often enough to retain some good cops.

The important thing to bear in mind is that as an employeer, unless your business is about moving a simple product, the chances are good that the number of skilled workers you have access to is limited.

The trick here is that Social Justice isn't about rewarding people, but it is more often thought of as a way to balance incomes (welfare). As a real-life government employee, I'm paid the same as some certifable "slow" engineers. An imaginary UN resolution that would give me an end of the year bonus or overtime isn't going to decrease the earning potential between me and Mr. Slow Engineer, but rather increase it. I honestly agree with Hack that this isn't a cut and dry Social Justice proposal.Ah, I see what you're thinking. Let me suggest that it's a matter of whether you are looking at overtime as a reward for extra effort, offered as an encouragement of more of the same, or whether you're looking at it as both compensation to the employee for an imposition by management on said employee (for being asked to work beyond what is considered “normal” or “proper” working day or week), as well as a disincentive to the employer from overutilizing its workers to the detriment of society.

We're clearly classifying it as the second - compensation and disincentive/penalty, intended to make a bad situation less obnoxious and to deter a repetition of the same. In that sense, it's more like asking polluters to clean up their messes or requiring the payment of unemployment compensation than a bonus system for hard work.I disagree. Overtime pay is (as it is used these days) how you keep quality employees. It is typically given to hard workers not lazy bums. Seriously, when emergencies happen in the state (currently floods, though I'm on a seismic response list as well), my name pops up and I'm generously rewarded ... many of my co-workers are sent home. Managers aren't stupid.I don't think it's used that way everywhere, and I'm sure that it wouldn't be used that way in the absence of an established 40-hour work week. This last point is important, in that we are in exactly that position in the world of NationStates.

Consider that we have just demolished “The 40 Hour Work Week”, which was the closest thing NationStates had to an international overtime law. In thousands of countries, workers lost their eligibility to recieve such pay and firms gained the right to work people around the clock if they wish. Then “International Working Freedoms” passed, with its suggestions (regardless of what proponents say) that nothing should be done to interfere with the possibility of a person agreeing to work until they fall over dead; not union rules, not overtime laws, not even managers telling them to go home (depending on how radical your interpretation of that legislation may be).

Effectively, NationStates has now moved back to the 19th Century as far as labor relations are concerned, except that we can still have unions (but without any guarantee that these unions can actually do anything). Lest you say that I'm exagerrating, this is Max Berry's world, a world of parody and exagerration (“Congratulations! We're please to hear that you just volunteered for another 72-hour shift, Bob! This is your fifth such shift in a row, and for that we're going to offer you the Bronze Back Award. How does that make you feel, Bob? Bob? Bob?!?!? Wake up, Bob!!!!!”). Thus, while I'd agree that - in a world where 40-hour weeks are such a long-standing tradition that we don't really even question them (why 40 and not 45 or 32?) - overtime may seem like a plum (half a dozen years back a UAW rep here in Michigan called overtime “economic cocaine”), we're closer to the world as it was when the concept was invented.Most nations have overtime laws designed to dissuade or prevent employers from forcing their employees to work excessively long hours. These laws may take into account other considerations than the humanitarian, such as increasing the overall level of employment in the economy (emphasis mine - CP). One common approach to regulating overtime is to require employers to pay workers at a higher hourly rate for overtime work. Companies may choose to pay workers higher overtime pay even if not obliged to do so by law, particularly if they believe that they face a backward bending supply curve of labour.

- “Overtime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime)”The important thing to bear in mind is that as an employeer, unless your business is about moving a simple product, the chances are good that the number of skilled workers you have access to is limited.If you're an employer and the number of skilled workers you have access to is limited, your best strategy is to race your overall wage scale; offering overtime as a hiring incentive isn't likely to fill the positions you need.

But that aside, the fact remains: in the years before overtime (in RL America, anyway), work weeks averaged 70+ hours. We're in that same position in NS today, because we've duplicated the very conditions that led to such work weeks. Thus overtime is less likely to be an effective reward to good employees as a way to force employers to hire more workers rather than overworking the ones they have.

We're clearly classifying it as the second - compensation and disincentive/penalty, intended to make a bad situation less obnoxious and to deter a repetition of the same.

I'll mostly agree. That it also is sometimes handed out as a reward. "Boss, I have a house payment. I've done good work, so if the opportunity arises, I would not mind making additional money."


Consider that we have just demolished “The 40 Hour Work Week”, which was the closest thing NationStates had to an international overtime law. In thousands of countries, workers lost their eligibility to recieve such pay and firms gained the right to work people around the clock if they wish.

Effectively, NationStates has now moved back to the 19th Century as far as labor relations are concerned, except that we can still have unions (but without any guarantee that these unions can actually do anything).

I think the important thing to remember is the repeal of a law simply means that the international community is no longer impossing its opinion on member states. When the repeal of "Protect Dolphins" was adopted, that does not mean that Mikitivity was obligated to remove its laws prohibiting its citizens from hunting dolphins. (Well, OK, Mikitivity never adopted any such laws, as the only dolphins in Mikitivity are in aquariums ... my nation is landlocked.)

My government is not convinced that repeals necessarily roll back the clock or undo resolutions. They certainly weaken the opinion and intent of a resolution, but the saying goes ... "the damage has already been done".

This proposal may yet prove to be a decent blocker and counter-measure against the extremes of IWF. Yes, IWF was a largely ineffective piece of legislation that can be fudged by very capitalist nations to whack out labor laws. So, why not hit back with a largely ineffective piece of legislation that can be equally fudged by very leftist nations to beef up labor laws? It's a swing of the pendulum back towards the center. At least with this labor-countries can hit back against extreme interpretations of IWF.

It has my approval, for now.

This proposal may yet prove to be a decent blocker and counter-measure against the extremes of IWF. Yes, IWF was a largely ineffective piece of legislation that can be fudged by very capitalist nations to whack out labor laws. So, why not hit back with a largely ineffective piece of legislation that can be equally fudged by very leftist nations to beef up labor laws? It's a swing of the pendulum back towards the center. At least with this labor-countries can hit back against extreme interpretations of IWF.

It has my approval, for now.One of the things I'm looking to do with this proposal is eliminate any possibility of implementation through litigation. While some of the supporters of IWF argued that litigious societies get what they deserve, that's a narrow-minded view: judicial review of legislative acts is a valuable tool for a society that believes in checks and balances to have in place. Disregarding the impact resolutions have on such societies is just another form of the same old “I-don't-care-about-what-this-does-to-anybody-else's-society-they-can-all-go-hang” song and dance. Just because my society is extreme enough that I can sneer at laws like IWF doesn't mean that I should care about the impact they have on other countries.

What, are you saying that in the world of NationStates, our only options are to redistribute income and deregulate industry?Yes. Yes I am.

That's daft!I'll forward this stunning analysis to Max.

<Growls, dusts off collegiate degree [B.A. Economics, University of Michigan]>Oh, we're playing this game now? Okay.

<Growls, dusts off credentials [Chief Author and Compiler of the NationStates United Nations Proposal Rules]> I win.

Please don't tell me that the only things in your mind that classify as SJ are welfare schemes.Yeah. Backhanded insults are a great way to convince me of your position.

Yeah. Backhanded insults are a great way to convince me of your position.Try not to be so touchy. No offense was intended, just astonishment. And you must have missed the wisecrack about Stanford...

O.K., there are two possibilities (well, more than that - but just two that immediately spring to mind): Overtime is a “right”, meaning this needs to be resubmitted as a “Human Rights” or “Moral Decency” measure, or


The NSUN has no authority to enact overtime laws, and therefore the “40 Hour Work Week” was a one-of-a-kind mistake that can not be repeated.Both rulings have profound consequences.

Let's take the first:If overtime is a “Human Rights” or “Moral Decency” issue, then passing overtime laws can't have any economic impact; they only serve to move a society's Civil Rights score up or down. But what has overtime got to do with Civil Rights? Are we freer if we get paid overtime or if we don't? Or is it the civil rights of businessmen we're talking about here (the right to decide to pay overtime or not, as they see fit)?

Then too (inverting this logic), since “Human Rights” and “Moral Decency” are opposites, is the granting of overtime a moral imperative, or a form of moral degeneracy?

None of these make any sense at all. True, NationStates is a surrealistic parody - but if that's true, maybe we should ditch category violations altogether and see who can come up with the most laughably Orwellian ways to miscategorize their resolutions (e.g., permiiting CCW rights to all citizens and classifying that as the “Legalization of Gambling” [you're gambling that you don't get shot by your neighbors, coworkers, etc.] and that sort of thing)? No, if categories mean anything, we should try to assign resolutions to them as best as possible.

On that basis, overtime laws are “Social Justice” legislation: employers don't like paying overtime, so work hours will be cut and work will be spread out among more potential workers. Unemployment will be reduced and - if reduced far enough - wages will rise. Since total work affects total pay, we've redistributed income (from businessmen to workers through higher wages and from overemployed workers to unemployed ones through a shift in work, and with it, pay). If taxes rise, it's not to support “Robin Hood” redistribution schemes, but to part for increased law enforcement and litigation.Now let's take the second:If the NSUN no longer has authority to write overtime laws, then we've just been sold a bill of goods with IWF: it's a “blocker” aimed at stopping an illegal resolution, and as such should be immediately repealed. It would be nice to know that right now, before we get much further, so we can get the word out while it's fresh on everybody's mind.

But I don't think that's the case: otherwise someone would have pointed that out by now, and R&R wouldn't have wasted the effort pushing the IWF as a means of preventing the passage of another “40 Hour Work Week”.

O.K., there are two possibilities (well, more than that - but just two that come to mind): Overtime is a “right”, meaning this needs to be resubmitted as a “Human Rights” or “Moral Decency” measure, or
The NSUN has no authority to enact overtime laws, and therefore the “40 Hour Work Week” was a one-of-a-kind mistake that can not be repeated.Both rulings have profound consequences.Categories are limited. If a Proposal does not fit into a given category, it should not be submitted.

On that basis, overtime laws are “Social Justice” legislation: employers don't like paying overtime, so work hours will be cut and work will be spread out among more potential workers.Only if you completely ignore the concept of benefits. It's cheaper to pay two employees overtime than to hire a third and give him all the other things a worker needs.

Real world, meet theory. Theory, meet real world.

Since total work affects total pay, we've redistributed income (from businessmen to workers through higher wages and from overemployed workers to unemployed ones through a shift in work, and with it, pay).You are really, really reaching with this. By this definition, all employment is "welfare".

If the NSUN no longer has authority to write overtime laws, then we've just been sold a bill of goods with IWF: it's a “blocker” aimed at stopping an illegal resolution, and as such should be immediately repealed.Pity legality isn't grounds for a Repeal, huh? But, keep flogging that horse.

Only if you completely ignore the concept of benefits. It's cheaper to pay two employees overtime than to hire a third and give him all the other things a worker needs.

Real world, meet theory. Theory, meet real world.We're merely repeating the argument made by overtime proponents in the latter half of the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th (in Real Life™). That's not to say that it was bogus; in the 19th Century, people worked 70+ hours a week; a century later, they were working 40. We should not base our assessments of things on recent experience, especially in NationStates, where exaggeration is the order of the day. Who knows? In NationStates, they probably are nations where people work 70+ hours a week (if not more!).

(As a matter of fact, in the Great Depression [again in Real Life™], Congress considered imposing a 30-hour overtime law to spur employment; so it's not as farfetched as it sounds to expect overtime laws to promote shorter hours and hence greater employment.)You are really, really reaching with this. By this definition, all employment is "welfare".No, it is not. But the meaning of the word “welfare” is not restricted to the dole:

Pity legality isn't grounds for a Repeal, huh? But, keep flogging that horse.We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.OMG!!!! It's right there in the Constitution!!!! The Framers intend America to be a welfare state!!!! Commie b_st_rds!!!!

<Pause>

Obviously, that's not a good interpretation of the word “welfare”, is it?A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.IOW, if it reduces income inequality (or attempts to do so) and improves the well-being of the public, then it's a Social Justice resolution.

So, our proposal: Discourages overwork and the negative societal consequences therefrom (“increases the basic welfare”),


Encourages employers to reduce working hours and hire more workers to compensate for the labor shortfall, thus reducing unemployment and levelling out wages (“reduces income inequality”).How much more in category can this thing get?

But it's your call. You want to bounce it, bounce it: but say why you're bouncing it and suggest a way that it can be fixed; that's the positive thing to do. And if you want to ding us for submitting an illegal resolution, go ahead; you can mark the other one illegal and chuck us out of the NSUN if you want, and if it will assuage your anger. But either way, your tone seems way too sharp, and what's baffling is that there doesn't seem to be any good reason for it.

increase basic welfare.
I've always taken that part of the Social Justice category definition to mean welfare as in well-being, not welfare as in welfare benefits, the dole, etc.

OMG!!!! It's right there in the Constitution!!!! The Framers intend America to be a welfare state!!!! Commie b_st_rds!!!!Keeping digging that hole.

Obviously, that's not a good interpretation of the word “welfare”, is it?IOW, if it reduces income inequality (or attempts to do so) and improves the well-being of the public, then it's a Social Justice resolution.I still don't see mandating overtime pay as "reduc income inequality". You can wax poetic about how forcing employers to hire more people is income redistribution, but so far, you haven't done a thing to convince me.

You've brought up a lot of irrelevencies, though, and you've made yourself look like you're raving, so congratulations on that, I guess.

You want to bounce it, bounce it: but say [i]why you're bouncing it and suggest a way that it can be fixed;I have; and it's not my responsibility to redraft your Proposal.

And if you want to ding us for submitting an illegal resolution, go ahead; you can mark the other one illegal and chuck us out of the NSUN if you want, and if it will assuage your anger.Yes, of course. I'm doing this because I'm "angry". How's the weather up on that cross?

I have; and it's not my responsibility to redraft your Proposal.No, I guess you don't. Nobody does, after all. You can simply criticize without being helpful. Plenty of people do.

That said, what you do have an obligation to do is explain the rules, since you enforce them (we might even say that you create them, although that might be going too far). Therefore, I will ask explicitly. Must all “Social Justice” resolutions involve government subsidies, stipends, handouts, or some other program in which some agency cuts checks or hands out goods to people directly in order to satisfy the condition that they must “reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare”?


If overtime resolutions aren't “Social Justice” measures, what are they?


Are overtime resolutions even permissible under NSUN rules, or are all such resolutions automatically category violations?

what you do have an obligation to do is explain the rules, since you enforce them
The rules are very well explained in Sticky: Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). Obligation fulfilled

Therefore, I will ask explicitly
We don't do 'explicit'. None of us will make a blanket declaration including or excluding entire classes of concepts from consideration, nor fine-tune the category descriptions so that only x, y, and z may be permitted. I've seen proposal writers come up with clever proposals that legally bypass restrictions that everyone else thought were impossible to bypass. Some of them are now law.

We've stated repeatedly that proposals must be written towards categories, not the reverse. There are a limited number of categories, with a limited series of effects. Some things that people repeatedly request (UN Army come to mind) are simply not permissible in the framework of the game. That's fact, and you simply have to live with it.

It's your job to sell your concepts to the General Assembly. The Mods act as the judiciary, pointing out illegalities and removing proposals that break rules, but we're not responsible for creating laws.

I agree with Hack that what you've written doesn't fit into the framework provided. We're not going to stretch the framework out of shape to accomodate your proposal. It's up to you to adjust your proposal to fit our defined framework. We'll try to offer advice when you post in Draft mode, but that's volunteering, not obligation.

Have at it.

Proposals to create an NSUN army are a bad example; we both know that the reason why such measures are not allowed has nothing to do with categorization (an NSUN army would be “International Security - Strong”), but rather the fact that the mods would have to run the thing.

That said, you've answered my question: It is the position of the mods that the word “welfare” literally means “government cheese” (or its equivalent), and so all “Social Justice” resolutions require a direct government-administered income transfer, in cash or in kind. That's a good thing to know; we'll be watching to may sure that this logic is enforced.

In the meantime, we would like to inform all concerned parties that, upon the expiration or deletion of this proposal, it will be resubmitted as “Moral Decency - Mild” (with appropriate preamble changes to inveigh against the evils of work-life imbalance).I've always taken that part of the Social Justice category definition to mean welfare as in well-being, not welfare as in welfare benefits, the dole, etc.Obviously that is not a correct interpretation; an increase in the dole is a category requirement.

Obviously that is not a correct interpretation; an increase in the dole is a category requirement.
OOC: Yes, it would seem so. I've been mistaken all this time. I wonder how many others thought it meant that?

That said, you've answered my question: It is the position of the mods that the word “welfare” literally means “government cheese” (or its equivalent), and so all “Social Justice” resolutions require a direct government-administered income transfer, in cash or in kind. That's a good thing to know; we'll be watching to may sure that this logic is enforced.
You've exceeded normally abrasive argumentative behavior and descended into out-right lying. I'll tell you the one mod decision you can take away from this closed thread:

"Don't attempt to put words into our mouths. You won't like the results".