NationStates Jolt Archive

Two-Part Poll Question:
Did you vote FOR or AGAINST the recently passed resolution "UN Fair Wage Convention"? If UN Fair Wage Convention were repealed, the final clause omitted, all provisions of UNFWC made mandatory, a mandatory provision added that required nations to pass legislation that ensured that wages were equal to or greater than the sum of the costs of the factors which UNFWC encourages nations to consider when evaluating what a fair wage is, would you vote FOR or AGAINST this new piece of legislation?

Thank you for your time.

This could have been posted in this (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512864) thread. Actually, it should have been.

Not to piss on your bonfire too early, but:
- Whatever, this won't be a representative sample. Nations that come to the forum are disproportionately active, and disproportionately small in number relative to the total UN. So this poll will tell you, possibly, what UN forum members think; it won't tell you what the UN as a whole does.
- You're forgetting that delegates cast more than a single vote. Kivisto's vote in this poll will count 1 in the poll, but 12 in a UN vote.
- A lot of people, myself included, would be unwilling to comment on a proposal without actually seeing its text.
- Further bear in mind that you are reverting to black/white mode. Every provision of UNFWC made mandatory? A proposal wouldn't have to be like that to be a) damaging and b) successful.

I understand that this poll is not perfect. My vote counts as 1 here, but would actually count as 9. I also understand that the members of this forum are unusally active.

You need to calm down, Gruen.

I never claimed it would be perfect. I understand that there will be error involved. It will be, however, the best evidence available to solve this issue.

Every provision made mandatory and the last clause removed is exactly what (as he told me in a telegram)Iron Felix plans to propose if UNFWC were repealed. The added mandatory provision is not really a new provision at all, but a mandatory version of the recommendation clause.

In addition, I plan not to look at direct data, but at the ratios of FOR versus AGAINST in the two UNFWC categories, and expand these ratios out to the actual voting record (60% FOR 40% AGAINST) to determine whether or not such a proposition would pass.

In order to clarify and make this poll more accurate, I will post UNFWC on this thread. If I am continuously asked write out the new legislation in full, I will, but looking at the poll question and UNFWC, it seems obvious (at least to me) what this new legislation would be.

Don't worry, I'm plenty calm (though I'll admit taking a disagreement on a private off-site forum onto a public one has mildly piqued my ire). It's just you don't seem to have much of a grasp on statistics, so I'm trying to preempt any disappointment from this not being of much help.

For example: the proposal you are setting out as "the nightmare option" isn't the only "really bad dream option" possible. If one or two provisions are toughened, that is enough for the new proposal to be most definitely more detrimental to both individual and national economic rights. But it wouldn't qualify under this poll, and hence some of the people who vote AGAINST as their second option might still vote for that kind of legislation.

So as long as bear in mind that inasmuch as this poll tells us anything it only does so regarding the proposal you have in mind, and absolutely nothing about other worse versions of UNFWC, we're fine.

I planned only to take this poll, not to talk about this disagreement on this forum. (A poll at the alliance about UNFWC doesn't make sense though does it?) I'm surprised that the movement of our debate irks you; It seems that by your earlier post you wanted to take this disagreement to this forum.

This poll will, as I said earlier, be useful, but not perfect.

Also, If you want to talk about the validity of this poll in relation to our debate, do so on the ACCEL forum, not here. This thread is for discussing the merits of UNFWC, the importance of national sovreignty, and asking for clarification about the poll.

I eagerly await your perfect poll that has no error whatsoever, takes into account all possible propositions (and lays them out word for word), samples the entire UN, takes into account delegate votes, and proves you 100% correct. Until I see that happen, we have this poll.

And I understand statistics, and am confused as to how you have judged that I do not.

I apologize to anyone who takes this poll for the misplaced discussion between Gruen and me.

I am not sure that it should have been posted on a Illantir's thread, as this poll is independent of Illantir's repeal.

Also, it contains a poll, and therefore had to be submitted in a new thread.

OK, I've read through this twice now and while I am admittedly intoxicated, the reason for this thread and this poll is not readily apparent to me. Would someone care to explain this asshatery?

I'm assuming, David6, that this has something to do with your recent misguided attempts to repeal UNFWC, and a disagreement which took place on the ACCEL board. Or does it have something to do with Ilantir's repeal attempt? In either case, what is it doing here?

Let me be crystal clear about this. If UNFWC is repealed, it will be resubmitted in its original form without Article (VIII) and with the provisions in Articles (II) and (III) made mandatory, The United Nations Wage Adjustment Advisory Commission given draconian powers and any other pro-worker provisions I can think to include. Hell, I may even work with Ilantir on the replacement. He has some innovative ideas about adapting the consumer price index to NS.

So for fuck's sake yes, please do go ahead and repeal it. It will give me the opportunity to submit and pass the resolution I should have submitted in the first place.

Okay...thanks for the update Yelda.

This means three things...

1. This poll will be more accurate than I thought.

2. I now concur with Gruen. (I still find it hard to accept UNFWC, but Yelda's recent terroristic intoxicated rant has really scared me).

3. I'm going to stay away from Yelda.

I don't think you want Gruen or I to waste your time and ours explaining the purpose of this poll and post.

Okay, I have now voted in the poll, going for "FOR" everything because Yelda is just so damn sexy when he scares people with terroristic intoxicated rants.

But consider:

AM I just voting that way to skew the poll because I hate pollsters?

AM I voting that way for some obscure regional politics reason unrelated to the issue?

DO I want to disguise the existence of some rabidly NatSov puppet to which I may switch my UN vote at a crucial point (why, I can't imagine, but I am assured this sort of thing goes on)?

ARE you, in short, setting yourself up for the same disillusion that hit some pollsters who believed they had uncovered a RL electoral fraud (http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/07/19/of_public_opinion_exit_polls_and_fraud_or_the_lack_thereof_part_3) some few years back?

Furthermore, I am deeply disappointed you didn't include a giraffe-in-a-bathtub option.

Would the giraffe in the bathtub option be along the lines of...

1. "My giraffe is in the bathtub."

2. "I need to give my giraffe a bath."

3. "I need to take a bath, get the giraffe the heck out of the bathtub."

4. "I am skewing the results of this poll because I hate pollsters or voting in the interest of regional politics unrelated to this issue, and seriously regretting that Yelda's terrorist intoxicated rant forced me to either get the giraffe out of the bathtub or allow a resolution to pass that would make you, me, and baby Jesus cry."

I'm still trying to figure out what the hell the question is.:confused:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm still trying to figure out what the hell the question is.:confused:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It's a brand new year. Do you know where your giraffe is? Further, are you aware of what a dirty, dirty giraffe you've raised?

Part One: Did you vote FOR or AGAINST UN Fair Wage Convention.

Part Two:
If FWC is repealed, it will be resubmitted in its original form without Article (VIII) and with the provisions in Articles (II) and (III) made mandatory, The United Nations Wage Adjustment Advisory Commission given draconian powers and any other pro-worker provisions I can think to include.

If UN Fair Wage Convention were repealed, and if Yelda submitted what he threatened to submit in this quote, would you vote for or against it?

if Yelda submitted what he threatened to submit
Not a threat. A promise.

Just out of curiosity (and because it hasn't come up yet in this thread), what are your reasons for wanting to repeal UN Fair Wage Convention?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Because it encourages member nations to be socialist, and I am not comfortable being in the UN when it encourages nations to be socialist in its legislative body (not to say I am comfortable with the plethora of other stupid resolutions either).

I've pretty much decided I'm not going to repeal UNFWC now though, due to your "helpful update"


I hope the representative from Ilantir understands that I do not support this repeal effort and that I do not think UNFWC should be repealed. I was merely giving my blessings in the sense that should you succeed, it will afford me the opportunity to submit a replacement.

yes, please do go ahead and repeal it.

So you give us any potential "repealer" your blessings, hope they will succeed in repealing UNFWC, and yet at the same time do not support UNFWC repeal...how logical?!

Because it encourages member nations to be socialist,
But..but...but, Ilantir thinks it doesn't do enough. You think it does too much. One of you must be wrong.

I've pretty much decided I'm not going to repeal UNFWC now though, due to your "helpful update"
No, no! Please, go ahead and repeal it. I dare you. I double dare you!

So you give us any potential "repealer" your blessings, hope they will succeed in repealing UNFWC, and yet at the same time do not support UNFWC repeal...how logical?!
Figure it out yourself. Now, what specifically are your reasons (< note the plural) for wanting to repeal it? And don't you fucking dare say "waaaah, it's just too socialist".

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Sufferer of Hangovers
Minister Of Losing Patience With People Who Don't Understand What A Blocker Does

This illustrates pretty handily why taking fights off private forums onto public ones is such a monstrously bad idea: and given that the aforementioned private forum is just that, I'm not inclined to enlighten the context of this debate, beyond saying that really, you don't want to go through another fifteen rounds of arguing about why he wants to repeal UNFWC.

Gruen, it was you that took this to the public forums.

I am done trying to repeal UNFWC, due to Yelda's update. I still hate it, but I won't repeal it. End of story.

Repealing UNFWC would cause Libertarians and capitalists to rejoin the UN. UNFWC encourages socialism. These are my real reasons to repeal it. Of course, I stated different reasons in my repeal, that a socialist like Yelda would agree with...

I don't want to go through 15 more rounds about UNFWC. Neither do you, Yelda.

Gruen, it was you that took this to the public forums, with your "don't want to piss on your bonfire to early" post. It is a bad idea.

I am done trying to repeal UNFWC, due to Yelda's update. I still hate it, but I won't repeal it. End of story.

Repealing UNFWC would cause Libertarians and capitalists who left the UN due to UNFWC to rejoin the UN. UNFWC encourages socialism. Yes, it's a blocker, but it blocks resolutions that wouldn't pass anyway, unless Yelda has a clever way to disguise a mandated FWC up his sleeve (which I now believe he does). These are my real reasons that I want to repeal it. Of course, I stated different reasons in my repeal, that a socialist like Yelda would agree with...

I don't want to go through 15 more rounds about UNFWC. Neither do you, Yelda.

By the way, David6- the name in your signature is spelled "Kivisto," not "Kistivo."

I've been sig-quoted again! That's awesome!

Back on topic, realizing I wasn't really there to begin with...

Gruen did not bring this to the General Assembly, he is simply the first to mention that it started somewhere else.

UNFWC does nothing to promote, encourage, or mandate any form of socialism. If anything, it promotes capitalism in that is advocates the use of money and being paid a fair wage instead of working for bread. Past that, it allows nations to decide upon wage matters entirely for themselves. Socialist? No. I'm fairly certain that the Elleltian delegation is laughing at you.

Gruen, it was you that took this to the public forums, with your "don't want to piss on your bonfire to early" post. It is a bad idea.

I am done trying to repeal UNFWC, due to Yelda's update. I still hate it, but I won't repeal it. End of story.

Repealing UNFWC would cause Libertarians and capitalists who left the UN due to UNFWC to rejoin the UN. UNFWC encourages socialism. Yes, it's a blocker, but it blocks resolutions that wouldn't pass anyway, unless Yelda has a clever way to disguise a mandated FWC up his sleeve (which I now believe he does). These are my real reasons that I want to repeal it. Of course, I stated different reasons in my repeal, that a socialist like Yelda would agree with...

I don't want to go through 15 more rounds about UNFWC. Neither do you, Yelda.

In what manner does the UNFWC promote socialism? I fail to understand this and I hold a degree in Marxist Economics from the University of New Stalingrad.

What the UNFWC does do is mandate that a pay shall be equivalent to the cost of living for the worker and one Dependant (determined according to local prices). That hardly promotes socialism...rather if anything it prevents socialist revolutions in capitalist countries.

As a Marxist-Leninist, I fail to see your argument as valid. And we do laugh at you as Kivisto said we probably would be doing.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aiserpov/procommie.jpg

Demitri Petrolovich
Secretary to Ambassador Khernynko,
United Socialist States of Ellelt.

Furthermore, I am deeply disappointed you didn't include a giraffe-in-a-bathtub option.

"Dicey! Why would you ask for that when you can have invisible-wabbit-in-a-jacuzzi whenever you want?"
(Harry McWabbit)

:fluffle:

Invisible Wabbits;12162277']"Dicey! Why would you ask for that when you can have invisible-wabbit-in-a-jacuzzi whenever you want?"
(Harry McWabbit)

:fluffle:

Oh, Harry, you've got rid of the hippo for me! You're such a comfort!

http://www.cathouse-fcc.org/gifs-jpegs/southafrica/giraffe.jpg
"What does everyone have against me keeping myself clean?"

UNFWC encourages wages to be based on need, not on production. It puts all decisions concerning wages in the hands of the government, stating that national governments retain the right to have the final decision in all matters concerning wages (a right which belongs to individuals, not governments). It doesn't mandate anything, but it encourages socialism.

I'm not repealing it now though, as Yelda will write a new resolution which that he will slip past the UN in its place.

Thank you, I know it's spelled Kivisto (I wasn't aware I misspelled it at that time of night).

I eternally bless all clean giraffes.

UNFWC encourages wages to be based on need, not on production. It puts all decisions concerning wages in the hands of the government, stating that national governments retain the right to have the final decision in all matters concerning wages (a right which belongs to individuals, not governments). It doesn't mandate anything, but it encourages socialism.

I'm not repealing it now though, as Yelda will write a new resolution which that he will slip past the UN in its place.

Thank you, I know it's spelled Kivisto (I wasn't aware I misspelled it at that time of night).

I eternally bless all clean giraffes.


First off the UNFWC stipulates that the acceptable minimum wage shall be defined internationally as the cost of living for one worker and one dependent for that worker. Does this mean that wages are tied to production or not. Yes and no, that very much depends on the nation in question.

In some nations it is possible for an employer to pay more productive workers more money through the use of raises and promotions...which are protected under the Individual Working Freedoms act. Further under the Right to Form Unions resolution, workers can form unions and demand raises from their employers.

Does the UNFWC mandate that governments set a wage? Yes, it mandates that they set a minimum wage. That wage being minimum that an employer must pay a worker. Many capitalist nations have minimum wages. Why? Because it aids in keeping the cycle of production and consumption going in those countries, provides a floor for workers so they will be able to have basic necessities (hopefully), and increases the tax base by setting a floor on wages.

Does that promote socialism? Absolutely not. What it does do is set a minimum wage. If a worker wants to make more than that he is more than free to discuss the rate of pay with either his union (RtFU) or employer (IWF).

While resolutions must be written in a vacuum, the most assuredly do not operate in a vacuum.

Demitri Petrolovich
Secretary to Elleltian Ambassador to the UN, Vladimir Khernynko,
Acting Representative of the Elleltian Delegation.

First off the UNFWC stipulates that the acceptable minimum wage shall be defined internationally as the cost of living for one worker and one dependent for that worker.

Wrong.

Factors to be considered when calculating fair wages should include the cost of food for one worker and one dependent, housing for one worker and one dependent, local utilities (gas, water, electricity, telecommunications, etc.), schooling for one dependent and reasonable and appropriate discretionary spending. (Source: UNFWC clause III)

This also is absolutely ridiculous because...

It suggests a 14-year old kid working at the local mom-and-pop toy shop enough should receive money for his own food, a dependent's food, his own housing, a dependent's housing, all local utilities, schooling, and enough money to go to the movies a couple times a week on top of that. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think its 14-year olds use their McDonald's aren't paying for their food, a dependent's food, housing, a dependent's housing, and local utilities. They spend it on school, the movies, and Caribou. This means we're forcing small business to give a teenager this much money as a minimum wage, which you claim will probably be raised due to promotions and such. Other than destroying small business and the economy, wasting tazpayers' money, and making teenagers excessively rich, of course UNFWC is a reasonable limit on capitalism, of course it is tied to production, and of course it increases social justice!

I'm not saying regulated capitalism = socialism. And I'm not saying a reasonable minimum wage system is socialism. I am saying that a minimum wage as large as that in which small business (especially in the retail market) has no hope of increasing wages due to production, much less surviving is socialistic. (In fact, it's more absolutely stupid than it is socialistic.) I don't know about you, but I, for one, do not consider what UNFWC promotes to be a reasonable regulation of any economic system. I'm saying that UNFWC promotes socialism (and an extravagantly disastrous form of it).

First off the UNFWC stipulates that the acceptable minimum wage shall be defined internationally as the cost of living for one worker and one dependent for that worker.

This means we're forcing small business to give a teenager this much money as a minimum wage, which you claim will probably be raised due to promotions and such. Other than destroying small business and the economy,<snip>more nonsense<snip>
You're both wrong.

One, it doesn't stipulate any definition for an acceptable international minimum wage. Where on earth did you get that? The "Factors to be considered" in Article (III) are just that. Factors to be considered. They are not mandatory, they are merely suggestions and they can be followed to the letter, partially adopted, or ignored completely.

Two, how the hell is it forcing small business to do anything? Your government can follow the recommendations of the commission if it sees fit, it can also ignore them and tell the commission to go straight to hell. If teenagers in David6 are being paid "this much money as a minimum wage" and small businesses are being destroyed as a result it is because your government chose to do so.

I am charmed to learn that UNFWC promotes socialism and believe me, I don't take it as an insult. Apparently we sneaked one past the General Assembly without even realizing we were doing so. All this time we were under the impression that we had written a blocker to prevent any future misguided attempts to implement an international minimum wage/living wage law.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

I didn't say it forced governments to force small business to do these things. I said it encouraged governments to follow stupid and socialistic recommendations.



I know UNFWC a blocker. It also promotes socialism and encourages (not mandates) stupid minimum wage laws. It's kind of like if a resolution passed that said something like, I don't know, "to give everybody under 18 the right to a free education." It doesn't force any legislation, but it's absolutely stupid, and should be repealed. Initially I thought UNFWC was an unneeded blocker, but now I realize you could slip something worse in its place, and possibly manage to slyly get it passed by the UN. So, I'm not repealing UNFWC, even though I hate it. End of story.

Ambassador Spotyiu (sorry about the missing accents), you evil, nasty, underhanded, sly socialist, you, why don't you come and hang out with the rest of us reprobates and we can plot the downfall of capitalism, the undermining of all that is moral and decent and the bloody persecution of the True Religion (plus, if we have time, the heat death of the universe) at a secure undisclosed location not too far removed from the Strangers' Bar?

Besides, after a sentence like that, we'll both need a drink.
______________________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-Prsident of Ardchoille.

Ardchoilleans;12165976'](sorry about the missing accents)
OOC: Oh don't worry about that. I can't make them with keystrokes either. I have a .sxw document with all my ambassador's sigs that I copy and paste from. :)

Ardchoilleans;12165976']Ambassador Spotyiu, you evil, nasty, underhanded, sly socialist, you, why don't you come and hang out with the rest of us reprobates and we can plot the downfall of capitalism, the undermining of all that is moral and decent and the bloody persecution of the True Religion (plus, if we have time, the heat death of the universe) at a secure undisclosed location not too far removed from the Strangers' Bar?

Besides, after a sentence like that, we'll both need a drink.
______________________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-Prsident of Ardchoille.
A secure undisclosed location? Sounds intriguing. I have some experience with such places from my days in the Committee for State Security. I believe I shall investigate this place. And it's secure, you say?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador