NationStates Jolt Archive

Deploring the practices of forced labour, bonded labour, indentured servitude and other forms of unfree labour, and

Believing that all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer,

The United Nations

1. Defines "unfree labour" as a situation in which individuals are required to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence, detention or destitution.

2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt or transportation to a desired destination and is held in that situation against their will by force, threat of force or coercion.

3. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations.

4. Declares that all persons have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, and other forms of coercion by their employers.

5. Prohibits the practices of bonded labour and indentured servitude.

6. Prohibits the imposition of unfree labour on political prisoners and prisoners of war, as defined by international law.

7. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of unfree labour or bonded labour as stated in this resolution.

8. Excludes from the provisions of this resolution:

a. Persons performing (1) military service or (2) alternative national service required by law.

b. Persons serving sentences of imprisonment or community service imposed in accordance with standing NSUN resolutions.

Co-authored by Ausserland

First off, thanks to Ausserland, Quintessence of Dust and Ardchoille who assisted in the drafting of this at the Reclamation forum. I have taken the liberty of listing the Ausserlander delegation as co-author.

I had intended to submit this as one of two replacements for End Slavery, pending the repeal of that resolution. However, the Quintessence of Dust delegation has expressed a desire to postpone their repeal of End Slavery.

Before we proceed any further, I ask for a mod ruling on the legality of submitting this prior to the repeal of End Slavery. There is some overlap, specifically in the areas of right to leave one's job, prior notice and violence at the hands of an employer.

For reference, here is the text of End Slavery with the parts that overlap bolded:

The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.

If we have to wait for a repeal of End Slavery that's fine, but I wanted to get this out in the open now (1) to get a mod ruling on legality so as to know how to proceed, and (2) to allow some of the other forum regulars to have input and spot any possible problems that we may have overlooked.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

From what it looks like, Unfree Labor looks a lot like slavery. So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a NSUN Resolution that deals with slavery in all its forms.

The Minister of Sauceatia stands up and scratches his nose

A very well written proposal, as I cannot see anything particularly wrong with it, I will support it if the End Slavery resolution is repealed.

The Minister offers a thumbs up

It might be well to include the right to form and belong to labor unions, excluding the concept of a closed shop.

We already have a Right to Form Unions resolution.

From what it looks like, Unfree Labor looks a lot like slavery. So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a NSUN Resolution that deals with slavery in all its forms.
Yes, there is a flawed "End Slavery" resolution on the books which doesn't actually ban the ownership of slaves. You just aren't allowed to buy or sell slaves. As stated in my first post, it is to be repealed at a later date.

It might be well to include the right to form and belong to labor unions, excluding the concept of a closed shop.
As pointed out by the representative from New Anonia, there already is a Right To Form Unions resolution. Even if there were not, such subject matter is well beyond the scope of this proposal and would not be included.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

As written, this bit would include resident advisors in college dormitories:

2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt or transportation to a desired destination.

As written, this bit would include resident advisors in college dormitories:

As written, it also includes traditional apprenticeships, I think.

Good start, though.

As written, this bit would include resident advisors in college dormitories:
Indeed. What if it was edited in this way:
2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt or transportation to a desired destination and is held in that situation against their will by force, threat of force or coercion.

Can't say that I agree with banning indentured servitude. If people enter into such contracts willingly, it's their own stupid fault. Also, they might have no other way to pay off some debt or what-have-you.

Also, also, this seems to ban hard labor as a punishment for crimes committed. "Bust rocks or it's back into solitary," would be coercion and could be viewed as "threat of extreme hardship to themselves".

No, wait, I missed 8.a. However, the "required by law" bit is a little confusing. Does this mean that only conscripted soldiers are immune to this, but volunteer forces aren't?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack


Replacing the player hat with a modly one: I'll have to think about the legality and such, but I'm leaning towards it being allowed, especially since the two points of overlap are so bloody general in tone regardless.

Category and strength?

Can't say that I agree with banning indentured servitude. If people enter into such contracts willingly, it's their own stupid fault. Also, they might have no other way to pay off some debt or what-have-you.

Also, also, this seems to ban hard labor as a punishment for crimes committed. "Bust rocks or it's back into solitary," would be coercion and could be viewed as "threat of extreme hardship to themselves".

No, wait, I missed 8.a. However, the "required by law" bit is a little confusing. Does this mean that only conscripted soldiers are immune to this, but volunteer forces aren't?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack


Replacing the player hat with a modly one: I'll have to think about the legality and such, but I'm leaning towards it being allowed, especially since the two points of overlap are so bloody general in tone regardless.

Category and strength?


"Required by law" modifies "alternative service", not both cases. But maybe we should make that clearer. How about this...

a. Persons performing (1) military service or (2) alternative national service required by law.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

1. Defines "unfree labour" as a situation in which individuals are required to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence, detention or destitution.

This doesn't quite work out. If in a court case, it may be argued that a poor man is forced to work at x and y because if they did not, they would be under extreme hardship.

Otherwise, the Dominion expresses its approval of this proposal, which is surprising, as it does not do so often.


Respectfully,
The Dominion

Category and strength?
Human Rights, probably significant.

a. Persons performing (1) military service or (2) alternative national service required by law.
Yes, that's better. I hadn't noticed that before but it could have caused some to think it applied to conscripts only, not volunteers.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Well what can I say. It is definately well written. I can see the stamp of Reclamation all over it.

However let comb this with a fine tooth comb.

1. Defines "unfree labour" as a situation in which individuals are required to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence, detention or destitution.

There is a serious flaw with this definition. In capitalist nations destitution is the natural result of persons not working who did not inherit their wealth or earn it themselves previously, as in like retirement. Sure many nations do have a "Social Welfare" system (put into quotes as it doesnt promote the actual welfare of the society but rather simply transfers money from thoses who do work to those who do not--reguardless of the circumstances involved).

Also this definition would negate the use of labor in a prison setting. I dont know how anyone can say differently. In a prision situation, like Zyrwick's prisons, one has a choice they can perform the work they are assigned or they can go without food, and be placed in solitary confinement until such time as they agree to perform their assigned work.

2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt or transportation to a desired destination.


First off we totally disagree with this section. Many nations including Zyrwick have contractual agreements. Most nations these contracts are only legally binding when signed by a person/sentient being of the National/sub-National Age of Majority and made while not under duress. Further not everyone is in a situation where they can cancel a debt with money, either because they cannot possibly make enough money to do so (as is common in nations with a very weak and undeveloped economy) or due to the way that that nation's economic systems are set up.

Second, Zyrwick does not feel that it is in the perview of the UN to prohibit or promote choices by individuals. We reject this section on the grounds of Individual and National Sovereignty. Nations and their sub-divisons (if any) are more than able to regulate contractual laws themselves.

3. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations.

I could be mistaken but this is already covered under current UN resolutions involving labor laws. Furthermore, Nations are more than capable of drafting and exicuting national labor laws. We Reject this section on the grounds of National Soverignty.

4. Declares that all persons have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, and other forms of coercion by their employers.


Again, Labor Laws can be best determined by indvidual nations. While most nations already prohibit violence under criminal laws, usually considered to be battery and/or assault, under those codes, other forms of "coercion" concern me. In Zyrwick we have a law known as the Nationally Vital Industry Code. This code prohibits workers from going on strike, quitting or otherwise terminating or disrupting their place of work, in a listed industry (all of them are defense, utility, and health related) during times of National, Regional, Local emergency or declared war.

We again reject this section on the grounds of National Soverignty.

6. Prohibits the imposition of unfree labour on political prisoners and prisoners of war, as defined by international law.

If these provisions are already covered by international law than this resolution is redundant.

Otherwise I must say good job it is very well written even if we will oppose it and debate against it on the UN floor.

Alexei Gramiko
Zerwickian UN Ambassador.

This doesn't quite work out. If in a court case, it may be argued that a poor man is forced to work at x and y because if they did not, they would be under extreme hardship.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

It might be well to include the right to form and belong to labor unions, excluding the concept of a closed shop.
It's true we already have legislation on this. But, if only to assuage the doubts of those unaware of this, or in case of repeal, perhaps something like 'nothing in this resolution shall prevent nations from enacting more stringent legislation to prevent other forms of unfree labour not recognised as such by this resolution'? Ok, that's abhorrently worded, but someone can surely wordsmith out a better job. My point is, while it would add nothing substantive to the proposal, it might sooth the alarm that, for example, a nation that viewed all forms of wage labour as unfree labour would have by virtue of this de facto recognition of free wage labour as legit. If people don't think that's worth pandering to, though, then I'm sure that's reasonable.

Needless to say, we support this without such an addition.

-- Samantha Benson

But, if only to assuage the doubts of those unaware of this, or in case of repeal, perhaps something like 'nothing in this resolution shall prevent nations from enacting more stringent legislation to prevent other forms of unfree labour not recognised as such by this resolution'?
I may add something like that at the last minute but I'd like to hold off on it for now in case any other major additions become necessary.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

OOC: Sorry, I just noticed this today. Must have been a moderated post.

There is a serious flaw with this definition. In capitalist nations destitution is the natural result of persons not working who did not inherit their wealth or earn it themselves previously, as in like retirement.
IC: The point is that they are being threatened with destitution by their employer. Whether or not they became destitute after leaving the unfree labour situation is uncertain, but the employer is using the threat of destitution to keep them there.

Also this definition would negate the use of labor in a prison setting. I dont know how anyone can say differently.
Here's how someone could say differently:

"You're wrong. Look at Article 8.b."



First off we totally disagree with this section. Many nations including Zyrwick have contractual agreements. Most nations these contracts are only legally binding when signed by a person/sentient being of the National/sub-National Age of Majority and made while not under duress.
Sorry. The whole point of the proposal is to outlaw unfree labour/indentured servitude/bonded labour etc.

I understand that individuals enter into these contracts voluntarily. We believe they shouldn't be able to

Second, Zyrwick does not feel that it is in the perview of the UN to prohibit or promote choices by individuals. We reject this section on the grounds of Individual and National Sovereignty.
It is the purview of the United Nations do exactly that.



I could be mistaken but this is already covered under current UN resolutions involving labor laws. Furthermore, Nations are more than capable of drafting and exicuting national labor laws. We Reject this section on the grounds of National Soverignty.
I've stopped reading your arguments.



Again, Labor Laws can be best determined by indvidual nations. While most nations already prohibit violence under criminal laws, usually considered to be battery and/or assault, under those codes, other forms of "coercion" concern me. In Zyrwick we have a law known as the Nationally Vital Industry Code. This code prohibits workers from going on strike, quitting or otherwise terminating or disrupting their place of work, in a listed industry (all of them are defense, utility, and health related) during times of National, Regional, Local emergency or declared war.

We again reject this section on the grounds of National Soverignty.
See above.



If these provisions are already covered by international law than this resolution is redundant.
Thank you for your assessment.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Labor can only be free when production is geared toward consumption and not profit, until that time the inevitable crisis of over production will occur until capital economies collapse, giving rise to communism.

Labor can only be free when production is geared toward consumption and not profit, until that time the inevitable crisis of over production will occur until capital economies collapse, giving rise to communism.
And thank you for your assessment. Unfortunately, I've already reached my daily quota for listening to absurd communist claptrap so it went in one ear and out the other.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We appreciate the representative of Zyrwick's taking the time to lay out his objections to the proposal. We'd just like to correct two misreadings of the draft.

Also this definition would negate the use of labor in a prison setting. I dont know how anyone can say differently.

Not true. Requiring labor of prisoners is clearly stated as an exception in Section 8b.



6. Prohibits the imposition of unfree labour on political prisoners and prisoners of war, as defined by international law.

If these provisions are already covered by international law than this resolution is redundant.

The modifying phrase, "as...law" refers to definition of the terms "political prisoners" and "prisoners of war". It does not refer to the provisions of the proposal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

First, please allow me to congratulate the authors for a finely constructed proposal that I hope to support.

I am, however, concerned by the following article:

8. Excludes from the provisions of this resolution:

a. ... (2) alternative national service required by law.
This, in my eyes, grants overly generous leeway for nations to exploit in potentially harmful manner. If national service requires, for example, sexual activity of a kind most of us would regard as exploitative, then would not this clause grant governments the right to abuse their citizenry - especially the young - with no recourse to UN action?

Please forgive me if I have misread or interpreted poorly.

Benedictions,

If national service requires, for example, sexual activity of a kind most of us would regard as exploitative, then would not this clause grant governments the right to abuse their citizenry - especially the young - with no recourse to UN action?
I'll have to look at some of the passed resolutions which would (hopefully) already ban such a thing. I'd like to stick with the "reasonable nation theory" here, but if necessary that clause can be expanded upon to allay your concerns.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

First, please allow me to congratulate the authors for a finely constructed proposal that I hope to support.

I am, however, concerned by the following article:

8. Excludes from the provisions of this resolution:

a. ... (2) alternative national service required by law.


This, in my eyes, grants overly generous leeway for nations to exploit in potentially harmful manner. If national service requires, for example, sexual activity of a kind most of us would regard as exploitative, then would not this clause grant governments the right to abuse their citizenry - especially the young - with no recourse to UN action?

Please forgive me if I have misread or interpreted poorly.

Benedictions,

We appreciate the respresentative's concern, but we do not share it. We believe this proposal, like others, must be read in the context of all the other legislation on the books. If the type of service required was prohibited by some other resolution, then this proposal would not affect that prohibition.

But now, let's look at the broader picture. This provision of the proposal grants governments no rights. It simply lets what they have now stay in place. As it is now, my government has every right to require its citizens to perform military service or alternative service. We do it in Ausserland. If this proposal is adopted, nothing changes. We consider performance of service to the nation (military or an alternative) to be a legal obligation of every citizen. We're afraid that to allow people to walk off their assignments with the blessing of the NSUN would negate the whole concept.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Labor can only be free when production is geared toward consumption and not profit, until that time the inevitable crisis of over production will occur until capital economies collapse, giving rise to communism.


I would like to thank our Comrade from Andaras Prime.

Now on to the meat of the matter.

I am opposed to any mesure that is based on a world view than my own. And to wit, whether labor is "free" or "unfree" in a capitalist setting is irrelevent. The facts are that under capitalis methods of production the workers work or they starve.

This is because the Proletariat under the capitalist class system have no means of sustanance other than to sell their labor.

Now after reviewing the comments by the Ambassador of New Leicestershire, must say that this draft-proposal is worse than just meddling. Meddling is after all what the UN does best. It is blataint fluff, and devoid of even resonable critical thinking of the points raised by the Communist Opposition.

Further, upon reading other comments about the "resonable nation standard" I would like to know what just is a resonable nation. To a Zyrwickian a resonable nation would be one that provides for its people, where production is based on consumption rather than an idvidual's profit. I assume that the author of this draft-proposal would have a very different standard.

I would like thank the Ambassador from Ausserland for her clarification of section 8b. While I cannot speak for other nations, prison is a place of punishment in Zyrwick. And that form of punishment is for the criminal to repay his debt to society, that is the cost of his crime (as much as that can be determined--we do not feel that any monitary amount can replace someone's son, brother, father, mother, etc. Nor do wee feel that the honor of a woman {in cases of rape} or the innocence of a child {in cases of molestation and other abuse} can have a price tag in terms of Leke). The method for this repayment is to work.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassdor.

*Waves at Ellelt*

*Waves at Ellelt*

Ellelt? Where? *looks around*

Zyrwickia seems to be spontaneously channeling the spirit of our dear departed Ellelt.

Zyrwickia seems to be spontaneously channeling the spirit of our dear departed Ellelt.

OOC:
Channeling more than the spirit my friend. The same Ideology as well. Ellelt went under due RL situations and I forgot the password. Anyway the ACS ended up defunct after my departure and....well I decided I would prefer to start fresh.

And its Zyrwick there isn't an "ia" at the end. :p

Bump.

I'd like to thank all of those who have offered constructive comments so far.

I think it would be best to hold off on this until after the repeal of "End slavery" is passed.

Are there any further comments other than "I'm a commie pseudo-NatSover and I don't like it"?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

5. Prohibits the practices of bonded labour and indentured servitude.

7. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of unfree labour or bonded labour as stated in this resolution.
Is the mention of bonded labour in 7 necessary, given you have already prohibited bonded labour in 5? Otherwise, we have no real concerns with this: it is an excellent proposal, well done, and we hope to assist in its passage as soon as possible.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

Is the mention of bonded labour in 7 necessary, given you have already prohibited bonded labour in 5? Otherwise, we have no real concerns with this: it is an excellent proposal, well done, and we hope to assist in its passage as soon as possible.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust
You're right, that actually doesn't need to be there.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Here's what we have to date:

"Snappy Title"
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant?

Deploring the practices of forced labour, bonded labour, indentured servitude and other forms of unfree labour, and

Believing that all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer,

The United Nations

1. Defines "unfree labour" as a situation in which individuals are required to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence, detention or destitution.

2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt or transportation to a desired destination and is held in that situation against their will by force, threat of force or coercion.

3. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations.

4. Declares that all persons have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, and other forms of coercion by their employers.

5. Prohibits the practices of bonded labour and indentured servitude.

6. Prohibits the imposition of unfree labour on political prisoners and prisoners of war, as defined by international law.

7. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of unfree labour as stated in this resolution.

8. Excludes from the provisions of this resolution:

a. Persons performing (1) military service or (2) alternative national service required by law.

b. Persons serving sentences of imprisonment or community service imposed in accordance with standing NSUN resolutions.

Co-authored by Ausserland

BUMP.

There is a very good chance that the "End Slavery" repeal/replace effort will be getting underway shortly. That being the case, are there any last minute suggestions for this half of the replacement?

For one thing, we need a suitable title. I really don't want to just call it "Unfree Labour". How about "Abolition of Unfree Labour"?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

“Wassail!

I’ve looked in on this discussion from time to time, but haven’t been able to take enough time away from promoting my own government’s recent proposals and various other duties to comment here before now. The basic idea involved is certainly one that not only I but the governments of both the St Edmundan Antarctic and St Edmund itself too could support, because freedom from forced servitude (except with the possible exceptions that you're already allowing, for convicted criminals or as ‘national service’, of course...) for sapient beings is SUCH a fundamental right that it’s one of the very few ones which those governments are prepared to accept as over-riding National Sovereignty: However there are several details in your current draft — and points that aren’t covered there, yet, although we think that they should be — about which I’d like to make some suggestions…

Firstly, as a fairly minor point, I note that your current definition of ‘indentured servitude’ refers to the rewards for that work as possibly including certain “limited benefits” such as the payment of debts or transport to new locations: Leaving aside any quibble about just how "limited" in importance those factors might really be, I and my superiors agree that both “training for a career” and “the provision of farmland” are further examples that it would be nice to see included in that list if the length limit would allow this…

Secondly, and more importantly, we would be decidedly happier if this proposal also included a definition of ‘Serfdom’ (which is effectively an hereditary form of unfree labour, in most respects, after all…), made it clear that this practice was also banned henceforth across the NSUN, and required all member-nations to free any & all people who might have been bound into that condition within their territories. Clause# 7 probably does cover this, anyway, but we'd be happier if it was specifically made clear.

Thirdly, regarding the proposed rules about how people could enter into and leave such contracts in future: If it had been us writing these then they’d probably have said something more closely along the lines that _
“Henceforth people may only enter into indentured service either as the result of sentencing by a law-court or by a freely-agreed contract, and all such contracts shall be defined as having specified durations: These periods of service may be neither extended nor shortened except by either the mutual consent of both the employer and the employee or by an order from a relevant court. No such contract shall bind any dependants or descendants of the signatory to enter into such service, except that the parents or legal guardians of children who are legally old enough to work may agree to contracts of apprenticeship on their behalf in cases where those children consent to this but applicable laws say that children’s consent is not enough by itself.”
If there are any ideas or phrases there that you think might be useful, feel free to help yourself to them.

Fourthly, and quite importantly, regarding the obligations of employers to indentured employees: We definitely think that the employers should have a legally-required responsibility to provide those employees with adequate food & drink, adequate clothing & shelter, and possibly at least “basic” medical care too — except in any cases where national or local laws specifically give somebody else (such as, perhaps, the parents or legal guardians of apprentices…) the responsibility for part or all of these matters — and should be legally barred from using this provision ( as there has been some precedent for the employers of indentured labour doing in RL…) to say those people now have extra debts to them that must be paid off with additional time in service… and possibly even extended into hereditary and increasing indebtedness, effectively creating new families of serfs or ‘peons’…

Fifthly, regarding the proposed ban (in Clause #4) on employers using violence, or the threat of violence, against their employees, which apparently — as currently written — protects all employees rather than just ‘indentured’ ones: We feel that this limitation definitely needs to be clarified a bit, because as currently written it could arguably be invoked to keep the governments of nations where the death penalty is still possible for people convicted of various crimes from charging public employees with any capital offence — no matter how grave the misdeeds involved might be — even if & when those people’s jobs had no direct connection with the fact that such charges would otherwise be considered…
H’mm, and then there’s the potential question of apprentices’ masters being “in loco parentis” to those youngsters in cultures where parents are legally allowed to chastise their children physically…
And also, now that I think about this, the fact that you would even be depriving employers of any legitimate right of self-defence against even unprovoked attacks by employers…
Perhaps adding a rider that this ban only applies in the contexts of forcing them to work and preventing their illegal departure (and that of gratuitous cruelty too, I suppose, if you’re worried that the employees might otherwise lack legal recourse against such behaviour) might be advisable?
Oh, and perhaps it might be worth adding a rider along the lines of “except as allowed under any earlier UN Resolution that is still in force” as well, to remove any possibility of (illegal) clashes with the Fair Sentencing Act? After all, presumably, a legal system that could sentence people to serve periods of indentured labour could also give their new employers the right to use forcible means for controlling them… You know, for once I actually wish that the FSA hadn’t come along yet and that it wouldn’t do so until after this proposal had been completed and passed…

As regards the title, changing it to 'Abolition of Unfree Labour' as you've just suggested does seem like an improvement."


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still required to wear this confounded penguin costume…)

BUMP.

There is a very good chance that the "End Slavery" repeal/replace effort will be getting underway shortly. That being the case, are there any last minute suggestions for this half of the replacement?

For one thing, we need a suitable title. I really don't want to just call it "Unfree Labour". How about "Abolition of Unfree Labour"?

Calling it "unfree labor" could be a bit misleading. Some might take it to mean labor that must be paid for. Silly, I know, but for those who only read titles...

Calling it "unfree labor" could be a bit misleading. Some might take it to mean labor that must be paid for. Silly, I know, but for those who only read titles...
Yeah, I'd thought of that but I'm not sure what else to call it. I don't think there's an "official" term for this.

Firstly, as a fairly minor point, I note that your current definition of ‘indentured servitude’ refers to the rewards for that work as possibly including certain “limited benefits” such as the payment of debts or transport to new locations: Leaving aside any quibble about just how "limited" in importance those factors might really be, I and my superiors agree that both “training for a career” and “the provision of farmland” are further examples that it would be nice to see included in that list if the length limit would allow this…
I think there's room to add them:

2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt, transportation to a desired destination, training for a career or the provision of farmland and is held in that situation against their will by force, threat of force or coercion.

That's sort of wordy. I'll try to break it into two sentences before submission.

Secondly, and more importantly, we would be decidedly happier if this proposal also included a definition of ‘Serfdom’ (which is effectively an hereditary form of unfree labour, in most respects, after all…), made it clear that this practice was also banned henceforth across the NSUN, and required all member-nations to free any & all people who might have been bound into that condition within their territories. Clause# 7 probably does cover this, anyway, but we'd be happier if it was specifically made clear.
We discussed the posibility of including serfdom, but I decided against it for two reasons.

One, I'm afraid it would require more than just a passing mention. I think in order to cover it adequately we would need two more articles and then we really would be up against the character limit.

Two, I'm afraid it might be seen as an ideological ban. There are certainly past-tech nations in the UN that are feudal monarchies and the abolition of serfdom would basically mean the end of their entire social, political and economic structure. The trouble with serfdom is that where it exists the entire society is pretty much based on it.

I'll give it some thought but I think I would rather just stick with the more general provisions of Article 7.

Thirdly, regarding the proposed rules about how people could enter into and leave such contracts in future: If it had been us writing these then they’d probably have said something more closely along the lines that _
“Henceforth people may only enter into indentured service either as the result of sentencing by a law-court or by a freely-agreed contract, and all such contracts shall be defined as having specified durations: These periods of service may be neither extended nor shortened except by either the mutual consent of both the employer and the employee or by an order from a relevant court. No such contract shall bind any dependants or descendants of the signatory to enter into such service, except that the parents or legal guardians of children who are legally old enough to work may agree to contracts of apprenticeship on their behalf in cases where those children consent to this but applicable laws say that children’s consent is not enough by itself.”
If there are any ideas or phrases there that you think might be useful, feel free to help yourself to them.
Thank you. I'll take that under consideration but remember that one of the goals of this legislation is to outlaw indentured servitude, not make provisions for how indentured servants must be treated. I think your proposed revision might be fine if applied to apprenticeships and I'll have to give some thought to that.

Fourthly, and quite importantly, regarding the obligations of employers to indentured employees: We definitely think that the employers should have a legally-required responsibility to provide those employees with adequate food & drink, adequate clothing & shelter, and possibly at least “basic” medical care too — except in any cases where national or local laws specifically give somebody else (such as, perhaps, the parents or legal guardians of apprentices…) the responsibility for part or all of these matters — and should be legally barred from using this provision ( as there has been some precedent for the employers of indentured labour doing in RL…) to say those people now have extra debts to them that must be paid off with additional time in service… and possibly even extended into hereditary and increasing indebtedness, effectively creating new families of serfs or ‘peons’…
Again, this legislation is intended to bring to a complete end the practice of indentured servitude, not make rules for how indentured servants must be cared for. Would you submit a resolution to outlaw slavery and include in it regulations for how slaves must be treated?


Fifthly, regarding the proposed ban (in Clause #4) on employers using violence, or the threat of violence, against their employees, which apparently — as currently written — protects all employees rather than just ‘indentured’ ones: We feel that this limitation definitely needs to be clarified a bit, because as currently written it could arguably be invoked to keep the governments of nations where the death penalty is still possible for people convicted of various crimes from charging public employees with any capital offence — no matter how grave the misdeeds involved might be — even if & when those people’s jobs had no direct connection with the fact that such charges would otherwise be considered…
Yes, "persons" needs to be changed to "employees".
H’mm, and then there’s the potential question of apprentices’ masters being “in loco parentis” to those youngsters in cultures where parents are legally allowed to chastise their children physically…
And also, now that I think about this, the fact that you would even be depriving employers of any legitimate right of self-defence against even unprovoked attacks by employers…
Perhaps adding a rider that this ban only applies in the contexts of forcing them to work and preventing their illegal departure (and that of gratuitous cruelty too, I suppose, if you’re worried that the employees might otherwise lack legal recourse against such behaviour) might be advisable?
Oh, and perhaps it might be worth adding a rider along the lines of “except as allowed under any earlier UN Resolution that is still in force” as well, to remove any possibility of (illegal) clashes with the Fair Sentencing Act? After all, presumably, a legal system that could sentence people to serve periods of indentured labour could also give their new employers the right to use forcible means for controlling them… You know, for once I actually wish that the FSA hadn’t come along yet and that it wouldn’t do so until after this proposal had been completed and passed…
OK, well, we're not going to get into all that. Unless someone else can convince me that we need to legislate on the granting of parental rights to apprentice's masters, self-defense in the workplace and all the rigmarole involving FSA I think I'll pass on all of that.

As regards the title, changing it to 'Abolition of Unfree Labour' as you've just suggested does seem like an improvement."


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still required to wear this confounded penguin costume…)
Thank you. I'll make the changes I've already agreed to and look over your comments some more to see if I can incorporate any of your other suggestions.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

OOC: St Ed, please please try to make your posts clearer and more concise. I very nearly just didn't even read that. Line breaks and proper punctuation are good. They're good I tell you!

Yeah, I'd thought of that but I'm not sure what else to call it. I don't think there's an "official" term for this.Risking a glance at the first sentence, "forced labour" might appeal to the lowest common denominator.

If you were worrying about character limit, you could always change "labour" to "labor". ;)

-the Plutonian ambassador (who supports this, and the repeal, and suchlike)

Risking a glance at the first sentence, "forced labour" might appeal to the lowest common denominator.
"Abolition of Forced Labour"? I like that.

If you were worrying about character limit, you could always change "labour" to "labor". ;)
But it's spelled labour. Anyway, it fits in the resolution name field on the submission page, so no problem with the character limit.

-the Plutonian ambassador (who supports this, and the repeal, and suchlike)
David Watts
(who thanks the Plutonian ambassador for his support)
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

But it's spelled labour.


Sure it is. Next you're gonna tell me that jail is spelled gaol?

/just kiddin' ;)

Sure it is. Next you're gonna tell me that jail is spelled gaol?

/just kiddin' ;)
We're not going to have a long discussion over the proper spelling of labour, or colour, or theatre. In fact, my part in such discussion will end with this post.

If you were submitting this and chose to spell it "labor", I wouldn't complain. In fact, I wouldn't even mention it. For that matter, if you wrote a resolution dealing with lifts and chose to spell it elevators I wouldn't mention that either.


David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We're not going to have a long discussion over the proper spelling of labour, or colour, or theatre. In fact, my part in such discussion will end with this post.

If you were submitting this and chose to spell it "labor", I wouldn't complain. In fact, I wouldn't even mention it. For that matter, if you wrote a resolution dealing with lifts and chose to spell it elevators I wouldn't mention that either.

Whoa, calm down; why do you think I said 'just kidding'? I fully recognize the dual accuracy of the English language, and NationStates is Australian, so if anything the Commonwealth spelling (yours, that is) should prevail here.

OOC:

St Ed: There's a lot to think about in your post. Thank you. I've grabbed a copy and will be discussing individual items with New Leicestershire. I agree with him on the issue of covering serfdom. There are difficulties there that would make me uneasy about trying to include it in this proposal.

Twafflonia: We can't spell it "labor". Our friend Cobdenia would get all whiny about it. Linguistic chauvinism is his hobby. :D

OOC:
Twafflonia: We can't spell it "labor". Our friend Cobdenia would get all whiny about it. Linguistic chauvinism is his hobby. :D

OOC: To be fair, I never suggested it be spelled 'labor' (that was Plutoni)... I just made a quip about the spelling of jail/gaol. ...Guess I should've held my tongue :eek:

We discussed the posibility of including serfdom, but I decided against it for two reasons.

One, I'm afraid it would require more than just a passing mention. I think in order to cover it adequately we would need two more articles and then we really would be up against the character limit.

"Maybe so. I'll think about possible wording."

Two, I'm afraid it might be seen as an ideological ban. There are certainly past-tech nations in the UN that are feudal monarchies and the abolition of serfdom would basically mean the end of their entire social, political and economic structure. The trouble with serfdom is that where it exists the entire society is pretty much based on it.

"That doesn't have to be the case: Medieval England* had a feudal system that always included at least some 'free' peasants as well as the serfs, both in mixed villages and in separate ones, and that 'free' element became an increasingly larger proportion of the total peasantry over time -- until serfdom was completely abolished -- without the feudal system ending. In fact, the last vestiges of feudal land-tenure for farmers weren't finally scrapped (in the relatively small number of manors where they'd persisted) in England until the 1920s, and I assure you that Serfdom had already been illegal in that nation for centuries before that happened."

Thank you. I'll take that under consideration but remember that one of the goals of this legislation is to outlaw indentured servitude, not make provisions for how indentured servants must be treated. I think your proposed revision might be fine if applied to apprenticeships and I'll have to give some thought to that.
Again, this legislation is intended to bring to a complete end the practice of indentured servitude, not make rules for how indentured servants must be cared for. Would you submit a resolution to outlaw slavery and include in it regulations for how slaves must be treated?

"Oops! Confused by the fact that you had two clauses containing differing definitions (#1 & #2), I somehow mis-read Clause #5 and so was under the impression that although you would be banning forced labour you would still be allowing people to enter indentured service by freely-agreed contracts or by court judgements. As you're trying to ban it completely I agree that that suggestion by me is unnecessary -- and that so are at least some of my remarks about apprentices, too -- but I really do think that you would need to worry more about contradicting the FSA. There are certainly historical precedents** for people being sentenced to periods of indentured service, either to pay off debts or as a punishment for actual crimes, with the authorities assigning (or selling) their contracts to private individuals or corporations rather than keeping them as public employees, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there are still some nations around here that still use the idea today as well...
If you aren't going to include a blanket "Except where any earlier resolution that is still in force says otherwise" clause then I think that you'll need to expand Clause #8.b. so it specifically covers such cases, because I don't see how they really fit within the categories of "imprisonment or community service" that are the only exceptions to the ban (apart from 'national service') that you are currently allowing there.

Actually, if you really are going so far as to try banning people from entering into indentures by freely-agreed contracts -- and not just to ban people being coerced into forced labour -- I'm not quite so sure that my government would support this proposal after all. We would prefer to see the contractural possibility still allowed, although with safeguards such as we have suggested."


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this confounded penguin costume...)

_________________________________________________________________

OOC

* On the Earth where Godwinnia and St Edmund had their original lands, as established in their back-stories in NSwiki & elsewhere, as well as on the RL Earth...
** On the RL Earth, 17th/18th-century England did this with criminals who were "transported" to the Americas. In NS, the version of England with which Godwinnia had contact in those days did so as well... and so did Godwinnia itself.

OOC: Color me clueless, but is the draft in the OP the most current?

The most current draft is this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12784040&postcount=33), on page 3 of the thread.

OOC: Thanks.

IC:

I'm still seeing a problem that was highlighted, I think, by the big dragon chick a while back. Indentured servitude can be a contract entered freely, so clauses 3 and 5 could be viewed as contradictory.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Thanks.

IC:

I'm still seeing a problem that was highlighted, I think, by the big dragon chick a while back. Indentured servitude can be a contract entered freely, so clauses 3 and 5 could be viewed as contradictory.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

We don't think there's any contradiction. Indentured servitude is specifically defined and then prohibited by Article 5. Article 3 applies to all employment contracts not prohibited by Article 5, and allows an employer to contractually require reasonable notice before leaving a job -- the common "two-weeks notice" sort of thing.

Perhaps moving Article 5 up between 2 and 3 would be good. We thank the representative for raising the concern.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

But if someone freely enters into a contract calling for indentured servitude...

You see why I have an issue with this? Moving the prohibition of indentured servitude as you suggested would solve the problem textually, I think, but I still don't like taking away an individual's choice to enter into such a contract.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Perhaps moving Article 5 up between 2 and 3 would be good. We thank the representative for raising the concern.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
I'll do that when I post the next draft.

But if someone freely enters into a contract calling for indentured servitude...

You see why I have an issue with this? Moving the prohibition of indentured servitude as you suggested would solve the problem textually, I think, but I still don't like taking away an individual's choice to enter into such a contract.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN
One of the purposes of this legislation is to outlaw indentured servitude. It doesn't matter that the individuals enter into the contracts freely. We believe they shouldn't be able to.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Here's what I have so far, pending further suggestions from Ausserland and St Edmundan Antarctic:
Abolition of Forced Labour
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant?

Deploring the practices of forced labour, bonded labour, indentured servitude and other forms of unfree labour, and

Believing that all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer,

The United Nations

1. Defines "unfree labour" as a situation in which individuals are required to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence, detention or destitution.

2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt, transportation to a desired destination, training for a career or the provision of farmland and is held in that situation against their will by force, threat of force or coercion.

3. Prohibits the practices of bonded labour and indentured servitude.

4. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations.

5. Declares that all employees have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, and other forms of coercion by their employers.

6. Prohibits the imposition of unfree labour on political prisoners and prisoners of war, as defined by international law.

7. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of unfree labour as stated in this resolution.

8. Excludes from the provisions of this resolution:

a. Persons performing (1) military service or (2) alternative national service required by law.

b. Persons serving sentences of imprisonment or community service imposed in accordance with standing NSUN resolutions.

Co-authored by Ausserland
Moved 5 as suggested. St. Ed, I'll probably be adding wording to 8.b or elsewhere to eliminate possible contradictions of FSA.

One of the purposes of this legislation is to outlaw indentured servitude. It doesn't matter that the individuals enter into the contracts freely. We believe they shouldn't be able to.

Ah, right...making people more free by limiting their choices... :rolleyes:

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Ah, right...making people more free by limiting their choices... :rolleyes:

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN
Drat! You've uncovered our secret agenda.

Seriously though, your solution would be to make people more free by allowing them to sign away their freedom?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Ah, right...making people more free by limiting their choices... :rolleyes:

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UNSurely, Ambassador Vel recognizes that some contracts should be unrecognized and unenforcible by their nature? Two come immediately to mind... a contract to have oneself killed (and eaten if historical events were accurately reported), and dominant/submissive contracts. Indentured servitude's similarities to such make it worthy of formal abolition.

6. Prohibits the imposition of unfree labour on political prisoners and prisoners of war, as defined by international law.We do have a question concerning article 6 and it's implementation in light of the Maritime Co[n]vention and other current and future resolutions concerning the role of neutral nations and prisoners of war, etc. We were assured that the convention, while requiring neutral nations to securely hold foreign troops that come within their jurisdiction and (certain) civilians for the duration of the conflict, would allow us to have such persons work to somewhat offset the costs of holding them. Article 6 appears on the face to contradict that interpretation.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

Surely, Ambassador Vel recognizes that some contracts should be unrecognized and unenforcible by their nature?

Only if they're illegal for other reasons, like a contract for murder. Otherwise, there's no reason for the law to nullify a contract that is entered into freely by competent parties.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I tend to agree with Ambassador Vel. If the contract is freely entered into, with full understanding of the consequences, then both parties should abide by the contract. This part of the proposal would deny individuals the right to pursue justice should their contract be broken by either party.

Perhaps a better solution would be to require that employment contracts contain clauses or allowances such that the employed party may resign against the contract. The resigning employee may still be subject to a deferred debt of some kind, but can at least escape the enslaving economic situations this proposal intends to correct.

Forgive me for the vagaries; I'm ruminating and I haven't thought through many specifics for my suggestion.

We do have a question concerning article 6 and it's implementation in light of the Maritime Co[n]vention and other current and future resolutions concerning the role of neutral nations and prisoners of war, etc. We were assured that the convention, while requiring neutral nations to securely hold foreign troops that come within their jurisdiction and (certain) civilians for the duration of the conflict, would allow us to have such persons work to somewhat offset the costs of holding them. Article 6 appears on the face to contradict that interpretation.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador
I really don't see anything in Maritime Neutrality that either allows or forbids that. Could you point it out to me?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I tend to agree with Ambassador Vel. If the contract is freely entered into, with full understanding of the consequences, then both parties should abide by the contract. This part of the proposal would deny individuals the right to pursue justice should their contract be broken by either party.

Perhaps a better solution would be to require that employment contracts contain clauses or allowances such that the employed party may resign against the contract. The resigning employee may still be subject to a deferred debt of some kind, but can at least escape the enslaving economic situations this proposal intends to correct.

Forgive me for the vagaries; I'm ruminating and I haven't thought through many specifics for my suggestion.
No, a better solution would be to outlaw the practice of indentured servitude. I haven't heard a compelling argument yet for doing otherwise, in fact the more I hear "please let us keep indentured servants" the more convinced I am to abolish it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

No, a better solution would be to outlaw the practice of indentured servitude. I haven't heard a compelling argument yet for doing otherwise, in fact the more I hear "please let us keep indentured servants" the more convinced I am to abolish it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I'm sorry, but I've yet to hear what I consider a compelling argument against letting citizens choose to work under such conditions, if they are fully aware of the conditions and consequences of their contract. We shouldn't force citizens to deal only in money if they'd just as gladly work for physical capital--such as real estate and sustenance. It seems like an unnecessary regulation, unless you also believe that all use of the barter system should be banned.

I never said "please let us keep indentured servants" and hasten to inform Ambassador Watts that the Twafflonian government does not employ indentured servants of any kind, nor utilize any debtor system that might take advantage of such. I simply do not feel that it is necessary or helpful to outright ban these types of contracts between individuals.

If two people want to do something together which doesn't harm anyone else or threaten anyone else's liberties, I do not believe that it is the government's place to stop them. Whether this is some kinky bondage in bed or some manual labor in place of monetary exchange does not matter. A willing contract should not be so quickly equated with slavery.

I decry the position that the government is responsible for making sure people make good decisions for their own welfare, such that it imposes limits on their freedom. It is a short jump from such arguments to saying that other things, such as recreational drugs, homosexual intercourse, or owning firearms should be proscribed "for the citizens' own good." Must the United Nations outlaw victimless 'crimes' when there are real injustices in the world?

In other words "don't submit this"? No.

I expected that there would be some opposition to this replacement. I can guarantee that some of those who are supporting the repeal of "End slavery" have no intention of supporting either this or Quods half of the replacement. It's to be expected.

It appears that you and I (and our governments) have a fundamental difference of opinion over the issue of indentured servitude. My only advice is for you to oppose this legislation because the abolition of indentured servitude is staying in.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Okey-dokey, that's your prerogative. I figured that this "DRAFT" was meant for constructive criticism, maybe a testing ground to see what should be changed, expanded or cut. I wasn't saying "don't submit this" so much as "I would change the indentured servitude part." It's a shame you're not willing to separate the issues, because I support all the rest of it, and anything that advances personal freedoms. Are you afraid that you won't be able to ban indentured servitude unless you sneak it in with slavery? I guess that makes sense.

In any case, no hard feelings.

Okey-dokey, that's your prerogative. I figured that this "DRAFT" was meant for constructive criticism, maybe a testing ground to see what should be changed, expanded or cut. I wasn't saying "don't submit this" so much as "I would change the indentured servitude part." It's a shame you're not willing to separate the issues, because I support all the rest of it, and anything that advances personal freedoms. Are you afraid that you won't be able to ban indentured servitude unless you sneak it in with slavery? I guess that makes sense.

In any case, no hard feelings.
OOC: I've stayed in character and addressed you as one diplomat to another. You'd better start signing your posts or I'm going to assume that stuff like this is OOC (and thus flamebait) and respond accordingly. Fair warning.

OOC: Apologies. My posts were intended as IC, but it's late and I get confused... this is still my first week seriously using these forums, and I didn't realize that In Character was enforced on The United Nations forum as it is in International Incidents. I have a bad tendency to merge IC and OOC in this kind of environment...

OOC: Apologies. My posts were intended as IC, but it's late and I get confused... this is still my first week seriously using these forums, and I didn't realize that In Character was enforced on The United Nations forum as it is in International Incidents. I have a bad tendency to merge IC and OOC in this kind of environment...
OOC: It's cool then. Yeah, we've all gotten in the habit of signing posts to make sure IC and OOC are clearly defined. Some of the characters people play are a little...harsh. It helps when you know that someone is just RPing.

OOC: Apologies. My posts were intended as IC, but it's late and I get confused... this is still my first week seriously using these forums, and I didn't realize that In Character was enforced on The United Nations forum as it is in International Incidents. I have a bad tendency to merge IC and OOC in this kind of environment...It's not enforced the way it is on II, at least not in my experience. It's just considered good etiquette to keep strong opposition and disagreements IC. Moderators do not take kindly to donning a flimsy IC mask in order to troll or abuse other players (as opposed to their characters), however.

I really don't see anything in Maritime Neutrality that either allows or forbids that. Could you point it out to me?That is true, the language doesn't appear in the convention. It was an assurance and suggestion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12566118&postcount=42) (toward the bottom of that section of transcript) when the question of how a "host" nation was to financially support internees and prisoners of war. Would having such persons (especially POWs, since they have committed no crime and thus are not adjudicated under our legal system) work, or even allowing such, since they would not be free to leave, violate the indentured servitude clauses of this proposal?

If two people want to do something together which doesn't harm anyone else or threaten anyone else's liberties, I do not believe that it is the government's place to stop them. Whether this is some kinky bondage in bed or some manual labor in place of monetary exchange does not matter. A willing contract should not be so quickly equated with slavery.The reality is that most such contracts (whether for labor or sex) involve an inability to accurately predict the conditions of the contract before entering into such. There is always a power differential that is leveraged against one party. The most pertinent question is whether your government is willing to enforce such contracts (not just "allow"), which your judicial system is obligated to do, if such are legal. Would your judges force a submissive back into a sex slave contract?

--L.T.

That is true, the language doesn't appear in the convention. It was an assurance and suggestion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12566118&postcount=42) (toward the bottom of that section of transcript) when the question of how a "host" nation was to financially support internees and prisoners of war. Would having such persons (especially POWs, since they have committed no crime and thus are not adjudicated under our legal system) work, or even allowing such, since they would not be free to leave, violate the indentured servitude clauses of this proposal?

OK, so it wouldn't actually contradict Maritime Neutrality. It's just a case of "you're allowed to do it now because there's nothing in place saying you can't". Is this correct?

I don't know. Do we want to allow POWs and detainees to be used as forced labour? I'd say no, but I'd like to hear some other opinions on the subject. As it is currently worded the resolution would prohibit that and I'm inclined to leave it that way.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[OOC: What does current RL international law say about this? I know that in the past POWs were used in forced labour situations, but is that still legal?]

Correct.

Given the lack of choice that neutral nations have in holding POWs (etc.) that come within their jurisdiction, I would favor the allowance of some form of limited forced labor. Though we would acknowledge that defining such and adequately limiting it may be more than this proposal can encompass.

OOC: International law seems to allow some limited forced labor both of POWs and civilians (occupied and interned). This seemed to be a fairly recent and concise summary.
The Fourth Geneva Convention specifies that, in occupied territory, civilians cannot be compelled ... to engage in certain kinds of war-related work, such as the production of munitions, and if under age eighteen they may not be forced to work at all.

Civilians under military occupation ... cannot be required to work longer hours or under conditions worse than the local norm. Civilian internees in a war between States cannot be required to work, unless they are medical personnel (who can be required to attend fellow internees) or are employed in administrative, kitchen, civil defense, or other work on behalf of other internees. Enforced prostitution is specifically prohibited in Article 27 of the Fourth [Geneva] Convention.

There are detailed rules in international law for the treatment of prisoners of war set out in the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Most of the restrictions on civilian employment detailed above also apply to them; beyond this, the Geneva Conventions specify that POWs forced to work must be paid a wage, unless their work involves only the maintenance or administration of their place of detention. They cannot be forced to do degrading, unhealthy, or dangerous work. Military officers cannot be forced to work.

from Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know / by Roy Gutman, David Rieff

There is always a power differential that is leveraged against one party. The most pertinent question is whether your government is willing to enforce such contracts (not just "allow"), which your judicial system is obligated to do, if such are legal. Would your judges force a submissive back into a sex slave contract?

--L.T.

In Twafflonia, trials are indeed required to determine whether a sexual relationship was mutually consensual or not, if and when one party claims that it was not. As for forcing them back into a relationship, that could only occur with a legally binding contract, the validity of which would likewise need to be determined by a court. As I mentioned earlier, I think it would be wise to require provisions for escaping such legal contracts, rather than flatly outlawing them.

~Assistant Ambassador Mirah Leinenkugel

Regarding the idea of 'forcing someone to be free', it's really not so unreasonable. The basic principle of the rule of the law is predicated on this idea: we are denied absolute freedom of choice, and submit to a sovereign government, in return for which our freedoms are more successfully defended than they might be absent any protecting agency. You could consider the following a rough analogue: compulsory education. It's an affront to liberty in itself to force someone to attend school, but our capacity to make rational choices for ourselves is greatly enhanced by doing so. Absent any form of education, it doesn't seem like people are going to be able to fully assess the possibilities open to them, or the full range of consequences of their actions. (Obviously, the Quodite philosopher Immanuel Qant used this kind of reasoning to justify banning suicide; some sillinesses it is ok to just ignore.)

Besides which, indentured servitude does not particularly seem like a victimless crime: the victim is fairly squarely the poor schmuck who ends up being subjected to force to remain in a job they dislike.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

Besides which, indentured servitude does not particularly seem like a victimless crime: the victim is fairly squarely the poor schmuck who ends up being subjected to force to remain in a job they dislike.

"You seem to be considering the terms 'indentured service' and 'forced labour' as identical in meaning, even though the proposal that's being discussed here actually acceptst that there is a clear difference between them and makes this clear by including separate & different definitions of them in its text. I disagree with your interpretation of the situation.
I will point out that as the situation currently stands, in at least some nations, 'indentured service' can be entered into by voluntarily agreed contracts, because the employees involved consider the long-term benefits (such as training for a career, for example, or transport to a colony and the provision of a patch of farmland there after they've spent the required period of time working for their employer) to be well worth the work involved. Furthermore, there is no reason why those people should automatically dislike those jobs; national laws would not necessarily allow the use of force against them by their employers; and, if the proposed resolution was altered to allow the continued use of voluntarily signed indentures, safeguards to ban undue coercion could presumably be included in its text.

By the way, would the contracts that participants in various professional sports in various nations are required to sign, which might offer them relatively high wages but that then give control over their movement between teams to their employers rather than to themselves, also count as a form of 'indentures'?"


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still, although hopefully not for much longer, required to wear this confounded penguin costume…)

By the way, would the contracts that participants in various professional sports in various nations are required to sign, which might offer them relatively high wages but that then give control over their movement between teams to their employers rather than to themselves, also count as a form of 'indentures'?"

I would direct Ambassador Sweynsson to article 2:

2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt, transportation to a desired destination, training for a career or the provision of farmland and is held in that situation against their will by force, threat of force or coercion.

My understanding of the resolution's wording--when it comes to employee contracts such as athletes and entertainers--is that being paid wages (especially relatively high wages) exempts them from being identified with indentured servitude, so long as they're paid in money, rather than food and housing.

Although, I suppose one could define the monetary payments as "subsistence". It depends on how the national government chooses to interpret the resolution.

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

Fifthly, regarding the proposed ban (in Clause #4) on employers using violence, or the threat of violence, against their employees, which apparently — as currently written — protects all employees rather than just ‘indentured’ onesHm. What about military personnel? Aren't verbal abuse and physical threats part of basic training?

Surely, Ambassador Vel recognizes that some contracts should be unrecognized and unenforcible by their nature? Two come immediately to mind... a contract to have oneself killed (and eaten if historical events were accurately reported), and dominant/submissive contracts.The Rubinian delegation is opposed to the BDSM subculture?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Hm. What about military personnel? Aren't verbal abuse and physical threats part of basic training?
8. Excludes from the provisions of this resolution:

a. Persons performing (1) military service or (2) alternative national service required by law.
The latest draft is a page or so back. The military is exempted.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

So it is. Thank you for the clarification, Ambassador Watts. I've been away on business these past few days and must have missed that.


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The Rubinian delegation is opposed to the BDSM subculture?Not at all, Madame Pejorative. We're quite fond of a bit of mutually arranged kink. However, we're bound to question not only the ability to formulate a legal, written contract concerning a permanent 24/7 power exchange relationship, but also the willingness of nations' court officers to enforce such when either party wishes to renege.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

I would direct Ambassador Sweynsson to article 2:

My understanding of the resolution's wording--when it comes to employee contracts such as athletes and entertainers--is that being paid wages (especially relatively high wages) exempts them from being identified with indentured servitude, so long as they're paid in money, rather than food and housing.

"H'mm, yes, I see: Although we would regard such contracts as a form of indentured service under Godwinnian 'common law', the government responsible for this proposal seems to base their definition of that term primarily on whether the workers receive any payment in money (as well as whatever other rewards are involved) rather than on how hard their contracts would make changing jobs against their employers' wishes.
Wouldn't the author's current definition make employing people just about incompatible with the existence of a "moneyless" society, such as some communist and anarchist philosophies call for? I doubt whether this point would actually be enough to get the proposal declared illegal for violating the rule against ideological bans, but it does seem a bit excessive in that respect... Especially when one considers that, as the employees receiving any payment in the form of money seems to be enough to lift them out of the 'indentured service' category by the author's definitions, it would presumably take only the introduction of fairly nominal monetary rewards to them to get around the intended ban anyway..."


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still, although hopefully not for much longer, required to wear this confounded penguin costume…)

We would suggest that Assistant Ambassador Leinenkugel (and, by extension Ambassador Sweynsson) err in their conclusions. If we may illustrate by emphasising a few more parts of the clause:

2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt, transportation to a desired destination, training for a career or the provision of farmland and is held in that situation against their will by force, threat of force or coercion.

The honoured gentlefolk are thinking too narrowly if they consider the addition of money to be either a sufficient or a necessary condition for removing a job from the category of indentured servitude. Whatever reward system a nation uses for its citizens must have some measure of value somehow, at its most basic in the ability of an employee to acquire things beyond basic sustinence. What the definition is doing, therefore, is requiring that to not fall into the category of indentured service, a job must offer rewards non-trivally above subsistence level. From that viewpoint, we would have to agree that being forced to carry out a job which pays only marginally in excess of the subsistence level is slavery in all but name.

We would suggest that Assistant Ambassador Leinenkugel (and, by extension Ambassador Sweynsson) err in their conclusions. If we may illustrate by emphasising a few more parts of the clause:
2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt, transportation to a desired destination, training for a career or the provision of farmland and is held in that situation against their will by force, threat of force or coercion.

The honoured gentlefolk are thinking too narrowly if they consider the addition of money to be either a sufficient or a necessary condition for removing a job from the category of indentured servitude. Whatever reward system a nation uses for its citizens must have some measure of value somehow, at its most basic in the ability of an employee to acquire things beyond basic sustenance. What the definition is doing, therefore, is requiring that to not fall into the category of indentured service, a job must offer rewards non-trivially above subsistence level. From that viewpoint, we would have to agree that being forced to carry out a job which pays only marginally in excess of the subsistence level is slavery in all but name.

Prince Rhodri Mawr, Master of the Red Hounds of Segontium,
speaking for the Gobbannaen Principalities


"I would suggest that His Highness seems to have misunderstood my words. I was emphatically not suggesting that the addition of monetary payments would be enough to remove a job from the category of 'indentured servitude', I was questioning the apparent assumption by this proposal's author that the absence of such payments would be enough to place a job into that category... because on the one hand I could think of several types of jobs (such as those 'sporting' ones that I mentioned) that would be relatively well-paid but to which the employees would be bound significantly more firmly than would be the case under more conventional terms of employment in many (or, I hope, "most") nations, and on the other hand there has been and still is ample precedent for lowly-paid jobs with contracts that would allow the employees to leave quite easily.
( Another example of a relatively well-paid job that left the employees with relatively little freedom once they'd signed their contracts comes from RL Scotland, from some stage during the last few centuries: I've forgotten exactly when it was, although late 18th/early 19th C seems most likely, but there were salt mines being operated in that country then and working in them was so unpleasant that the miners were [1] well paid, [2] bound to stay in the jobs for a number of years, & [3] required to wear iron collars -- like slaves in some other places -- so that they could be identified quite easily if they ran away... Under this proposal's definition, those miners would technically not be indentured, which is a point about which I'd disagree...)

Surely, what really matters in that respect is not the nature and level of rewards for the services rendered but the nature of the contract concerned and how easy that leaves it for the employee to change jobs? After all, as the author fails to define the term "coercion" in that clause, some people might try interpreting even the use of law (and the threat of legitimate contractural penalties for non-compliance with terms of employment) to uphold contracts as sufficiently coercive in itself to qualify: If that detail could be improved suitably then I would be slightly happier about the definition, but as things currently stand I regard that aspect of the definition as far too vaguely worded...

With regards to His Highness's suggestion that what the proposal's definition requires is that a job must offer rewards non-trivially above subsistence level I can see what he means but don't think that the proposal actually does that job properly:
Firstly, some of the listed alternatives might not actually be "trivial", at least by the reckoning of the cultures concerned; and secondly -- because no actual 'minimum wage' is specified -- those nations that have previously allowed employers to exploit employees could simply set the level of any additional recompense to be required at very low levels and thus effectively allow the exploitation to continue.
With regards to the idea that rewards significantly above the subsistence level should be required, what if the society as a whole is so poor that relatively few potential employers there actually [i]could offer that? This is possibility that has, after all, many historical precedents.
Insisting on such a rule, in those cases, would not only deprive those potential employers of the chance to hire anybody but also (assuming that the proposal's definition of "coercion" isn't tightened-up sufficiently to exclude normal legal proceedings) deprive the potential employees of the chance to earn even their subsistence! I realise that what levels of recompense actually counted as "significantly above the subsistence level" would presumably be lower in such situations than they would be in more affluent nations, but even so I consider this to be a potential problem...

Consequently both I and my government think that before this proposal gets submitted, even if its author doesn't accept our request to leave indentured servitude in general fully legal, and just introduce safeguards to protect the employees involved, its Clause #2 should be altered so that _
A/ the definition used for "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" is based on the duration & more-than-usually-binding nature of the contracts involved, rather than the nature of the employees' recompense;
B/ the definition of "coercion" is clarified so that it clearly excludes the normal legal rights of employers to hold employees to contractural terms.
These changes would still leave the several sorts of contracts that we currently label as "indentured service" but permit within our nation -- such as apprenticeships to legitimate crafts -- as fully legal under UN law, because our own laws don't permit the employers to carry out the sorts of coercion about which I presume the proposal's author is really concerned anyway, and I suppose we could find a new label to cover them..."


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

Surely, what really matters in that respect is not the nature and level of rewards for the services rendered but the nature of the contract concerned and how easy that leaves it for the employee to change jobs?
The ambassador has a valid point, although we would content that there is a level to which the nature and value of rewards are relevant. We seem to recall that the definition of 'indentured servitude' has grown somewhat organically as this draft has progressed; perhaps it is time to rework the definition from first principles?

The ambassador has a valid point, although we would content that there is a level to which the nature and value of rewards are relevant. We seem to recall that the definition of 'indentured servitude' has grown somewhat organically as this draft has progressed; perhaps it is time to rework the definition from first principles?

"As regards the nature and minimum desired level of recompense for work, considering the great diversity of the UN's member-nations, I doubt whether a genuinely workable & acceptable one-size-fits-all solution would even be possible. If one is possible, however, then I think that it would be better as the subject of a separate resolution all to itself rather than as a detail compressed into this one...
As regards the definition, perhaps it is: The real question as I see it is, is that is it really "indentured service" as such that the proposal's authors want to ban? After all, their latest published draft defines that term as referring specifically to those jobs with this general type of recompense in which people are held "against their will by force, threat of force or coercion", whereas there is actually ample precedent for its use to cover jobs that people entered by freely-agreed contracts and are held in purely by their own consent and ordinary contractual law as well...

My current thoughts on the matter, which I've put into the form of a formal draft purely for ease of comparison, are that the contents should be more along the lines of_


Abolish Forced Labour

Proposed by: New Leicestershire
(This suggested draft is one re-written heavily by the St Edmundan Antarctic, without consulting either the author or the co-author...)
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Deploring the practices of forced labour, bonded labour, debt-servitude and other forms of unfree labour, and

Believing that all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer,

The United Nations

1. Accepts that nations may allow work to be compelled from
a. Persons performing either military service or alternative national service, as required by law;
b. Persons who are sentenced to such labour as a punishment for crimes;
c. Prisoners of War, and civilians interned during wartime, within whatever limits on their labour are set by international law;

2. Defines "unfree labour" as a situation in which individuals who do not fall into any of the categories listed in clause #1 are required to enter jobs by any means other than freely-agreed contracts or to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence or detention;

3. Notes that for the purpose of this resolution the term 'coercion' shall be defined as excluding
a. the use of legal systems to enforce contracts;
b. the withdrawal of state-paid allowances from unemployed people who refuse to work although they are capable of doing so;

4. Declares that nobody shall be entitled to commit any other person to a contract, except as clause #1 allows, although in the case of minor children who are legally old enough to work the consent of a parent or other legal guardian may be required as well as the consent of the child itself;

5. Declares that anybody who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by their own consent has the right to leave that employer's service, and that if they are willing to remain in that service then they are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration;

6. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations;

7. Declares that the specified duration of a contract of employment may only be extended or shortened by the freely-given consent of both parties, or by an order from a relevant court;

8. Declares that all persons have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue coercion by their employers;

9. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of unfree labour as stated in this resolution.

Co-authored by Ausserland

I've changed the definition greatly (as you can clearly see, of course), moved the allowed exceptions from clause #8 to clause #1 because I think that that flows better, deleted the line about 'political prisoners' because as far as I'm aware there aren't any resolutions that would make the 'Fair Sentencing Act' inapplicable in their case, and added some of the additional safeguards that I suggested earlier...
With regard to the point that I raised previously about employers having a right of self-defence against (reasonably) unprovoked violence by their employees, I'm currently tending to the opinion that as clause #5 also refers to "other forms of undue coercion" it would allow the employers to use violence for reasons other than coercion... such as this one… anyway.
The term "enforced indebtedness" that I've added to the list of banned measures in clause #8 is meant to cover such situations as requiring employees to shop at the 'company store' and then keeping prices there too high [relative to their wages] for them to acquire the necessities of life without going into deeper & deeper into debt to their employers..."


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this confounded penguin costume...)

I've changed the definition greatly (as you can clearly see, of course), moved the allowed exceptions <snip wall of text>

You've written a new proposal, which you can feel free to submit in your name if you wish. You might want to consult Ausserland about that co-author credit though.

Here is the current text of my proposal:
Abolition of Forced Labour
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant?

Deploring the practices of forced labour, bonded labour, indentured servitude and other forms of unfree labour, and

Believing that all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer,

The United Nations

1. Defines "unfree labour" as a situation in which individuals are required to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence, detention or destitution.

2. Defines "indentured servitude" and "bonded labour" as situations in which an individual contracts or is placed under contract to work for a specific period of time for which they are paid only with accommodation and subsistence, or these essentials in addition to limited benefits such as cancellation of a debt, transportation to a desired destination, training for a career or the provision of farmland and is held in that situation against their will by force, threat of force or coercion.

3. Prohibits the practices of bonded labour and indentured servitude.

4. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations.

5. Declares that all employees have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, and other forms of coercion by their employers.

6. Prohibits the imposition of unfree labour on political prisoners and prisoners of war, as defined by international law.

7. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of unfree labour as stated in this resolution.

8. Excludes from the provisions of this resolution:

a. Persons performing (1) military service or (2) alternative national service required by law.

b. Persons serving sentences of imprisonment or community service imposed in accordance with standing NSUN resolutions.

Co-authored by Ausserland

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Submitted for a trial run as Abolition Of Forced Labour (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=labour).

Submitted for a trial run as Abolition Of Forced Labour (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=labour).

I thought that you had to wait until after the repeal of Resolution #6, to avoid contradicting its clause about when people would be entitled to leave jobs: No?

If you're not going to change any other details of your draft then would you at least specify that its definition of 'indentured servitude' only applies "for the purpose of this resolution", so that other people could still legally use that term in its wider sense?
And maybe clarify what sort of things do, and don't, count as "coercion"?

I thought that you had to wait until after the repeal of Resolution #6, to avoid contradicting its clause about when people would be entitled to leave jobs: No?
No. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12749409&postcount=10)

If you're not going to change any other details of your draft then would you at least specify that its definition of 'indentured servitude' only applies "for the purpose of this resolution", so that other people could still legally use that term in its wider sense?
No.
And maybe clarify what sort of things do, and don't, count as "coercion"?
No.

This will be submitted, eventually, pending the outcome of Quod's repeal of "End Slavery".

I'm not sure who will end up submitting it. I suppose Felix could do it, but I would really like for New Leicestershire to at least get a co-authorship. I may look at having someone else (ideally Ausserland) submit it with NL as co-author.

@ St Ed: to be fair, since NL won't be submitting this I'll go back and look over your suggestions and see if I can work any of them into the text.

We like this as many of our concerns on the issue are addressed in it and cleary to us presented. However we did see one possible clause in it that might give some problems...

5. Declares that anybody who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by their own consent has the right to leave that employer's service, and that if they are willing to remain in that service then they are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration; Woman and man in a contract marriage been married a number of years now have six kids one on way. Man never wanted marriage now has way out or she does... As if family set it up that two would be married.... where do the kids go? Both didn't want it and still don't.....

We like this as many of our concerns on the issue are addressed in it and cleary to us presented. However we did see one possible clause in it that might give some problems...

Woman and man in a contract marriage been married a number of years now have six kids one on way. Man never wanted marriage now has way out or she does... As if family set it up that two would be married.... where do the kids go? Both didn't want it and still don't.....
1. What?
2. That clause you're quoting is from one of St Edmund's proposed changes. Take it up with him.
3. What does contract marraige have to do with employment?
4. What?

Members of the General Assembly, steel yourselves, for I have read Comrade Doctor Sweynsson's proposed revisions and found them acceptable.

Abolition of Forced Labour

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Deploring the practices of forced labour, bonded labour, debt-servitude and other forms of unfree labour, and

Believing that all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer,

The United Nations

1. Accepts that nations may allow work to be compelled from
a. Persons performing either military service or alternative national service, as required by law;
b. Persons who are sentenced to such labour as a punishment for crimes;
c. Prisoners of War, and civilians interned during wartime, within whatever limits on their labour are set by international law;

2. Defines "unfree labour" as a situation in which individuals who do not fall into any of the categories listed in clause #1 are required to enter jobs by any means other than freely-agreed contracts or to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence or detention;

3. Notes that for the purpose of this resolution the term 'coercion' shall be defined as excluding
a. the use of legal systems to enforce contracts;
b. the withdrawal of state-paid allowances from unemployed people who refuse to work although they are capable of doing so;

4. Declares that nobody shall be entitled to commit any other person to a contract, except as clause #1 allows, although in the case of minor children who are legally old enough to work the consent of a parent or other legal guardian may be required as well as the consent of the child itself;

5. Declares that anybody who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by their own consent has the right to leave that employer's service, and that if they are willing to remain in that service then they are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration;

6. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations;

7. Declares that the specified duration of a contract of employment may only be extended or shortened by the freely-given consent of both parties, or by an order from a relevant court;

8. Declares that all persons have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue coercion by their employers;

9. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of unfree labour as stated in this resolution.

Co-authored by Ausserland

(and New Leicestershire)

(and St Edmundan Antarctic)
Annoyingly we now have the further complication of multiple co-authors, in addition to the uncertainty over who will submit the proposal. I will arrive at a decision on this in the coming days.


Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Easy, just don't list any co-authors, and acknowledge their help in the at-vote thread (if there is one). And just to be a nitpicky twit, I should point out that prepositions in proper titles are not typically capitalized:

Abolition of Forced Labor
Fairness in Broadcasting
Rockin' around the Christmas Tree

...and so forth.

3. What does contract marraige have to do with employment?

OOC-->

Unfortunately there are some who use marriage to justify a working partner in the house and imposition of one will over another becomes similar to current employer/employee relationships. It is just a matter of abuse of one's position for the sake of perverting the original intent.

Think of a father who comes in from work to take away his son's toy just so he can feel powerful over his son while he plays with the toy in front of his son. The intended role has been perverted because the normal behavior as intended would be for the father to join in with the son as they both play with the toy with the father imparting life's wisdom onto his son.

Employer/employee relations have been perverted in our society and some laws are trying to prevent this. Marriages have also been perverted in our society and we have given escape clauses (divorce) to run away from abusive behavior but like in all things, pendulums go in opposite extremes and for the case of marriages, any mundane issue becomes justification for divorce.

This rant was brought to you by too much coffee in the system while doing schoolwork on a deadline!

And just to be a nitpicky twit, I should point out that prepositions in proper titles are not typically capitalized.
Fixed.

OOC-->

Unfortunately there are some who use marriage to justify a working partner in the house and imposition of one will over another becomes similar to current employer/employee relationships. It is just a matter of abuse of one's position for the sake of perverting the original intent.

Think of a father who comes in from work to take away his son's toy just so he can feel powerful over his son while he plays with the toy in front of his son. The intended role has been perverted because the normal behavior as intended would be for the father to join in with the son as they both play with the toy with the father imparting life's wisdom onto his son.

Employer/employee relations have been perverted in our society and some laws are trying to prevent this. Marriages have also been perverted in our society and we have given escape clauses (divorce) to run away from abusive behavior but like in all things, pendulums go in opposite extremes and for the case of marriages, any mundane issue becomes justification for divorce.

This rant was brought to you by too much coffee in the system while doing schoolwork on a deadline!

We won't be addressing marriage in this proposal. May I refer you to the Marriage Protection Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973206&postcount=183)?

Members of the General Assembly, steel yourselves, for I have read Comrade Doctor Sweynsson's proposed revisions and found them acceptable.

OOC: :)

OOC-->

was agreeing with you.... just attempted to explain other people's logic as to why they might mix the two... I don't think contract marriage should be mixed in with employee relations... but others seem to think so... its like mixing apples with lasagna.... (completely unrelated... but some try to mix em because they're both edible).... so yes I agree with you

Many nations know that these days we modern nations are very short on men and women alike for the army. If this was to be passed that means that it would greatly diminish our army by a quarter at worst. We have contracts 5-10 years and they help keep our armies healthy, of course if our men are servilely injured they can discontinue their service if they wish so(which 99.9% of the time happens) what I'm trying to say is that this clause could affect our militarizes greatly even though we me think this won't and I would like this not to be passed very much so, unless we declare a second clause or if we put a exception into this clause stating that for the military is allowed to have contracts that if you sign with your own will you will be in service for this amount of years etc. But not to abuse this privilege.

From that viewpoint, we would have to agree that being forced to carry out a job which pays only marginally in excess of the subsistence level is slavery in all but name.Why should an employeer pay more than he feels he needs to? We bring you in to work and set up a pay for you to do certain tasks.. you do it we give you what is agreed on provided you did the tasks right and completely to standard.

I bring in six people house, feed, cloth, and care for them, as well as train them and expect them to work my farm or factory keeping it running and producing a product that I sale so can have funds to provide for them and myself. They get their food, cloting, shelter, medical care, and I get my two cars, big house, and am able to pay for all my wives shoes and kids bad teeth.... Then it could be anyone of them in my place and I in theirs... that is a choice made by individuals and thus should not be made by UN or anyone else... Nobody is being forced to work here they make a choice to survive which is not slavery just everyday life. When they have other choices then they can do what anyone might do... go elsewhere to work if they don't like the conditions at one job site.... or the pay/benifits or hours and type work.

Everyone can't be management or nothing will ever get done. Everyone can't be a lawyer or doctor or politician as we would then be in real trouble. Thus one has to take what is offered to survive and hope one day better comes along as can't give it to them if someone else has it today.

We fully agree that nobody should be forced to do what they choose not to.... unless it is to stop say abusing others or doing something a society feels it criminal or wrong and violates right they claim they have against others. Thus if anyone chooses to work and a verbal written contract/agreement is made between them and who they work for then nobody else should say it wrong.... again unless it breaks some law against society. Example I hire you to blow up the UN building then the crimes are not in the contract or agreement we made but in actions done.

what I'm trying to say is that this clause could affect our militarizes greatlyIf you look at clause 1a
1. Accepts that nations may allow work to be compelled from
a. Persons performing either military service or alternative national service, as required by law;Then look at 7. Declares that the specified duration of a contract of employment may only be extended or shortened by the freely-given consent of both parties, or by an order from a relevant court;We feel it lets one set the time one is in drafted to whatever and as in many that may have drafts there are set times one can reenlist in military service.. and since both agree to these the times and terms then it would by this be legal.. and not a problem to set it at what you have. Also notice the alternative service as we like that since anyone not able to serve in militay here goes into another service for a given time period. Many into medical fields especialy women who will marry and have kids as we feel they need to learn medical care for this. Here males generaly do two years service age 10 to 12 with females going into a medical service age 10-12... however we do not keep females out of the military nor males out of medical services... we determine what they best suited for and that is where they go.

From that viewpoint, we would have to agree that being forced to carry out a job which pays only marginally in excess of the subsistence level is slavery in all but name.
Why should an employeer pay more than he feels he needs to?
We draw the honoured ambassador's attention to the emphasised word, which he appears to have omited to note in his considerations.

the healthy relationship between an employer and an employee is this: the employee offers his free time for the employer's cash. Both are equal people, if the employer demands something inappropriate or is insulting then the employee says screw you and does not offer his time. The abuses happen because the employer in a position of power of holding onto the money--> degrades his employee ever so slightly over the ongoing generations where the employee has lost all dignity and the employer believes that the employee is an inferior person.

Would an employer accept the abuse that he himself dishes out? Never, and he would afford a lawyer to sue whoever dared to mistreat him. Now if the employee is paid a low wage because the employer is abusing his position, who's fault is it? The employee says no and he starves. The relationship is unhealthy and will only cause both to be enemies to each other and they'll both be on the lookout of each other and productivity will grind to a halt. Both will lose out in the end. But the employer will be set as responsible if we follow the employer's own logic.

I should point out that prepositions in proper titles are not typically capitalized:

Abolition of Forced Labor
Fairness in Broadcasting
Rockin' around the Christmas TreeI thought it had to do with word length, so that 'the', 'of', 'in' and such weren't capitalized, while 'around' would be.

I thought it had to do with word length, so that 'the', 'of', 'in' and such weren't capitalized, while 'around' would be.
I dunno. It does seem to look better without "of" capitalized though.

I'm going to submit this for a trial run, no TGs sent. I'll leave off the co-authorship for now too.

This has been submitted and I will begin sending TGs shortly.

It was submitted without including a co-author credit. It saddened me to have to do that as both St Edmund and Ausserland are deserving of recognition as co-authors. Unfortunately the rules allow for the inclusion of only one.

The Twafflonian Department of Foreign Relations has reviewed the new proposal and found it superior in its effectiveness. However, a question has arisen concerning the meaning of "enforced indebtedness" in article 8. We humbly beg for clarification.

The Twafflonian Department of Foreign Relations has reviewed the new proposal and found it superior in its effectiveness. However, a question has arisen concerning the meaning of "enforced indebtedness" in article 8. We humbly beg for clarification.
OOC: This was meant to cover situations such as those arising if the only place where people could shop was the 'company store', either because that was the only one within reasonable travelling distance or because they were paid in company-issued tokens that were only valid there, and prices in that store were set at levels that made buying the necessities of life without going deeper & deeper in debt to the company impossible... and those debts then made it legally impossible for those people to stop working for those companies. That happened in RL, in some cultures, so I think that it could plausibly happen -- if not barred by a resolution -- in NS too...
With this clause placed into binding UN law, companies operating within UN member-nations would then have to either keep the prices in 'company stores' more reasonable, allow their employees to shop elsewhere too, or allow people who were still in debt to them to leave their employ (although of course those people might still be legally required to pay off the remaining debts from their earnings elsewhere, as & when they could do so).

"You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?
Another day older, and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go:
I owe my soul to the company store."
(from 'Sixteen Tons', by Tennessee Ernie Ford.)

We strongly support this proposal and will do all we can to aid its passage. Good luck, comrade!

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

I may have chosen a bad time to submit this. It picked up approvals very quickly Thursday night/Friday then Saturday it just died. It is currently standing at 91 approvals, lacking 22 more to reach quorum. It is set to expire Monday but I don't know if it will expire on the Sunday/Monday update or the Monday midday one. If it stays up until tomorrow it might have a chance.

Here is the link for any of you who are Delegates and would like to approve it:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=labour

Anyway, if this fails to reach quorum I won't be resubmitting it again until after Christmas. I'm asking for volunteers to help with TGing so that we can next time cover the entire Delegates list. It is very important that this be gotten to quorum and passed.

It is more than likely a bad time. I've noticed a lot of the normal activity has become stagnant over the past few days. Even the resolution voting has fallen off. If it doesn't make on this go, I'll offer my help with TGing.

I will help.

It is more than likely a bad time. I've noticed a lot of the normal activity has become stagnant over the past few days. Even the resolution voting has fallen off.
Yeah it was just bad timing. I sent out 500+ TGs and it was on pace to reach quorum, then Saturday the approvals stopped coming.

If it doesn't make on this go, I'll offer my help with TGing.

I will help.
Thanks to the both of you! I'll set up the assignments later. Hopefully we can get 4 or 5 volunteers and nobody will have to cover more than 100 ~ 150 pages. I'll of course take a larger bloc than that if necessary.

Count me in again, especially if you're planning on doing this between Christmas and New Year.

Given there's still Sunday expirees in front of it, there's a good chance it will last at least through Monday mid-day. And you now lack 15 approvals.

If it doesn't make quorum, I will help with TGs.

Well, it didn't make it through the morning update so it looks like its gonna have to be submitted again. I did note that two delegates pulled their endorsements last night bringing the total down to 97. Defenstration anyone?:D

I did note that two delegates pulled their endorsements last night bringing the total down to 97. Defenstration anyone?:D
I doubt they pulled their approvals. More likely they lost their delegate position during the update.

No, they probably just lost the delegacy in their respective regions. In smaller regions it happens quite frequently. Did anyone happen to save the list of these 97 approvers? It might help with the next submission.

Did anyone happen to save the list of these 97 approvers? It might help with the next submission.
I didn't. I was dealing with other things at the time and honestly just missed it. I'd like to do a full, all delegates campaign next time anyway.

I haven't decided yet when to resubmit. I'm leaning towards doing it Wednesday. If that's a bad day for anyone, let me know. We could do it later.

So far, here are the people who have offered to assist in the TG campaign and tentative page assignments:

Felix: 1 - 238
Zarquon: 239 - 339
Gobbannium: 340 - 440
Quod: 441 - 541
Rubina: 542 - 638 (end)

OOC: As a suggestion, swap Gobbannium and I. His block overlaps a bit with the block he did for me; some of those delegates might tire of his contacting them. It's a tiny thing, but it might make a difference. Like my penis.

OOC: As a suggestion, swap Gobbannium and I. His block overlaps a bit with the block he did for me; some of those delegates might tire of his contacting them. It's a tiny thing, but it might make a difference. Like my penis.
Done.

No, they probably just lost the delegacy in their respective regions. In smaller regions it happens quite frequently. Did anyone happen to save the list of these 97 approvers? It might help with the next submission.

That does make sense, unlike most of what I say.:headbang: I forgot completely about the morning update, and figured if it was still up after 2am(EST) it would be up until this afternoon. I was going to copy the delegate list this morning when I got on. But, it was gone.

BTW: Wednesday is fine with me Felix. Do you have anything in particular that you'd like us to include in the telegrams?

I'm having serious doubts about being able to do this the day after Christmas. I think a Thursday (or maybe later?) submission is more realistic.

I'm going to hold off on this until after New Year's. If it's submitted now it will go over into the weekend, when NS is usually dead at any time of year. If I wait and submit it Monday then we'll have New Year's Eve/New Year's Day to contend with. I don't expect activity to be very high then.

What does everyone think about submitting it sometime late New Year's Day/evening? We could send out the TGs Tuesday night/Wednesday morning and hopefully catch a lot of delegates returning to NS after the holidays.

New Year's Day itself would not be great for me, but anytime after the 2nd would be fine.

The 2nd would be fine, that would give it part of Wednesday, all of Thursday, all of Friday and maybe part of Saturday. I'd like to submit it RIGHT NOW, but I don't want to risk another failed submission. I want to ensure that this makes quorum next time.

Well, if you want to submit it RIGHT NOW, I could take on the TG blocks of anyone who couldn't help. For the next 36 hours, I have plentiful internet; then there's a gap; then come the 2nd I can use it again. Maybe submitting it now wouldn't be optimal, given there are simply too many inactive delegates, but the free expression proposal rocketed to quorum.

Well, if you want to submit it RIGHT NOW, I could take on the TG blocks of anyone who couldn't help. For the next 36 hours, I have plentiful internet; then there's a gap; then come the 2nd I can use it again. Maybe submitting it now wouldn't be optimal, given there are simply too many inactive delegates, but the free expression proposal rocketed to quorum.
Nah, let's wait. I'd rather do it at a time when we know it's a slamdunk and just a matter of sending all the TGs.

I'm inclined to agree with Quod about this. The Freedom of Expression was on the list for less than 24 hours before it reached quorum. However, the decision is yours, Felix. The 2nd is fine with me.

I'm vanishing tomorrow afternoon (GMT), but I should have time to do my portion on the 2nd. Do you want to TG me an outline of what you want in the campaign telegram, or are you willing to risk me going all gobby? :-)

Do you want to TG me an outline of what you want in the campaign telegram, or are you willing to risk me going all gobby? :-)
I'll post a stock campaign TG and you can use it, or go all gobby. http://209.85.12.227/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I'll also post links with the starting pages for all of the blocks.

OK, I'll be submitting this late tonight and I'll go ahead and start sending my block of TGs then. The rest of you can start tonight or tomorrow, whenever is most convenient. I'll post here right after I actually submit it.

Here's a stock campaign TG you can use. Feel free to modify it or use one of your own creation:

Greetings [delegate name],

I'm contacting you today to inform you that the UN proposal "Abolition of Forced Labour" has been submitted for delegate approval. The purpose of the act is to outlaw the practices of forced labour, bonded labour, debt-servitude and other forms of unfree labour. This is part of the replacement effort for the recently repealed United Nations Resolution #6, End slavery.


You can read the proposal here: www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=labour
Thanks in advance for your support!

Sincerely,
[name]


Here are the telegramming assignments:

Me: 1 - 238
Zarquon: 239 - 339 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=list_regions/start=3570)
Gobbannium: 340 - 440 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=list_regions/start=5085)
Quod: 441 - 541 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=list_regions/start=6600)
Rubina: 542 - 638 (end) (http://www.nationstates.net/page=list_regions/start=8115)

Before submitting, I have a few minor suggestions. I really wish the Edmundan language could have been scrapped, but I can respect your wishes to retain it.

The text:

Deploring the practice of forced labour, including bonded labour, debt-servitude and other forms of unfree labour, and

Believing that all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer,

The United Nations

1. Abolishes the practice of forced labour in all UN member nations;

2. Defines "forced labour" as a situation in which persons are required to enter jobs by any means other than freely-agreed contracts or to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence or detention;

3. Notes that for the purpose of this resolution the term 'coercion' shall be defined as excluding
a. the use of legal systems to enforce contracts;
b. the withdrawal of state-paid allowances from unemployed persons who refuse work that is offered to them and that they are capable of performing;

4. Accepts that nations may allow work to be compelled from
a. Persons performing either military service or alternative national service, as required by law;
b. Persons who are sentenced to such labour as a punishment for crimes;
c. Prisoners of War, and civilians interned during wartime, as allowed under international law;

5. Declares that no person may be committed to a contract against their will, except as clause #4 allows. Additionally, in the case of minor children who are legally old enough to work the consent of a parent or other legal guardian may be required as well as the consent of the child itself;

6. Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by their own consent has the right to leave that employer's service, and that if they are willing to remain in that service they are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration;

7. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations;

8. Declares that the specified duration of a contract of employment may only be extended or shortened by the freely-given consent of both parties, or by an order from a relevant court;

9. Declares that all persons have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue coercion by their employers;

10. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of forced labour as stated in this resolution.
2. Defines "forced labour" as a situation in which persons are required to enter jobs by any means other than freely-agreed contracts or to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence or detention; ...

8. Declares that the specified duration of a contract of employment may only be extended or shortened by the freely-given consent of both parties, or by an order from a relevant court;"Freely agreed" and "freely given" are not hyphenated.

5. Declares that no person may be committed to a contract against their will, except as clause #4 allows. Additionally, in the case of minor children who are legally old enough to work the consent of a parent or other legal guardian may be required as well as the consent of the child itself;Just say "minors."

6. Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by their own consent has the right to leave that employer's service, and that if they are willing to remain in that service they are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration;Split this sentence; something like: "Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by their own consent has the right to leave that employer's service. Persons willing to remain in such service [...] are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration;"

In addition, there's a problem with "person ... their" in clauses 5 and 6; one is singular; one is plural. Changing "any person" to "anyone" and "no person" to "no one" might cover it.

Heh. I thought I had more, but I think that's about it.

All excellent suggestions. I used "his or her" in 5 and 6.

The text which will be submitted:

Deploring the practice of forced labour, including bonded labour, debt-servitude and other forms of unfree labour, and

Believing that all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer,

The United Nations

1. Abolishes the practice of forced labour in all UN member nations;

2. Defines "forced labour" as a situation in which persons are required to enter jobs by any means other than freely agreed contracts or to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence or detention;

3. Notes that for the purpose of this resolution the term 'coercion' shall be defined as excluding
a. the use of legal systems to enforce contracts;
b. the withdrawal of state-paid allowances from unemployed persons who refuse work that is offered to them and that they are capable of performing;

4. Accepts that nations may allow work to be compelled from
a. Persons performing either military service or alternative national service, as required by law;
b. Persons who are sentenced to such labour as a punishment for crimes;
c. Prisoners of War, and civilians interned during wartime, as allowed under international law;

5. Declares that no person may be committed to a contract against his or her will, except as clause #4 allows. Additionally, in the case of minors who are legally old enough to work the consent of a parent or other legal guardian may be required as well as the consent of the child itself;

6. Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by his or her own consent has the right to leave that employer's service. Persons willing to remain in such service are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration;

7. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations;

8. Declares that the specified duration of a contract of employment may only be extended or shortened by the freely given consent of both parties, or by an order from a relevant court;

9. Declares that all persons have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue coercion by their employers;

10. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of forced labour as stated in this resolution.

Submitted.

Quorum.

I'd like to thank everyone that took part in the TG campaign and all of the delegates who have approved. Also a big thank you to everyone who assisted in the drafting.

I'll be making a new thread with a poll and probably requesting a lock on this one.

Good idea - this one being started by New Leicestershire is mildly confusing. Congrats on making quorum.

There is a new At Vote thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546754), so could we please get this one locked so as to avoid confusion?