NationStates Jolt Archive

1. The maximum standard full-time workweek shall be set at 40 hours. Nations shall remain free to set their workweeks lower than this.

2. No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week, except for the following exemptions,
a ) military personnel
b ) civil defense forces
c ) civilian emergency response personnel
Excepting military personnel, these exemptions shall only apply during emergency situations.

3. No one may be contractually obligated to remain on the worksite without pay.

4. On call hours shall count against the 40 hour limit.

5. Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu. Nations shall remain free to set their allowable overtime hours lower and their overtime pay rates higher than specified in this proposal.

6. The 40 hour week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers. Nations shall enact the laws needed to comply with the 40 hour week within 1 year of the passing of this resolution and they may phase in the changes over the course of up to 4 years. The necessary changes must be fully implemented within 5 years of the passing of this resolution.

7. In time of declared emergencies the national government may suspend this directive to any sector of the workforce it deems essential to the effective running of the country for the duration of that emergency.

We would like to offer a big 'thank you' to all the nations that helped write this resolution and to all that helped argue and campaign for it - both on the forum and directly with other UN members. It wouldn't have made it without you.

"40 hour? Is that like beer o' clock?"

"No, no, Minister... labour rights."

"Oh, that. You mean we haven't got anything on this already? Bloody barbarians. Pen off a letter of support, will you? I'm going off down the pub."

I will approve this when I go through the proposal list

We completely approve of this proposal, and shall proudly cast a vote in favor of it if it becomes a resolution.

I only have one comment: There shouldn't be a limit on voluntary work, a good politician works 85 hours a week for the citizens to have a 40 hours workweek.

I only have one comment: There shouldn't be a limit on voluntary work, a good politician works 85 hours a week for the citizens to have a 40 hours workweek.

Anyone who is truly that dedicated to their job can take some work home to do in their spare time - not that they'll have any. Here is the math on an 80 hour workweek:

There are 168 hours in a week. Around 56 of those hours are spent sleeping (8 hours a night). Which leaves 112 waking hours in a week. Subtract out the 80 hours of allowed working time and you are left with 32 hours of free time per week. Which comes out to 4.57 hours per day of your own time. Of course, at least an hour of that will be taken up by commute time - probably more like two. And at least another hour for eating - again, probably more like two. Which leaves you with 35 minutes of really free time each day and no weekend.

We think 80 hours per week is much more than enough to cover extra-hard workers.
AFoFS UN Council

Excellent idea.

It should apply to assistant managers too; it would reduce their underpaid work schedule by half!

The passing of such a resolution would be a terrible blow to private enterprises, particularly those that rely on sweatshop workers, throughout The Empire of Luxembourgistan; as such, our nation is in full disagreement with this proposal, and would never consider voting in favor of such an overbearing, potentially hurtful proposal.

If an economy depends on oppressing its workers in order to survive... than that economy is defective.

I agree that the proposal should allow voluntary overtime, but still, overall I agree with it.

Flavius stood up and applauded. "Nice work! We support the proposal. However, if there was one change I would make is a provision for students, preventing them- unless requested by the student- to work a maximum of 30 hours a week. This is because students require time to complete their schoolwork and can't if the employer forces them into a 40-hour week. However, as it stands, the proposal is great."

We do not believe that this benefits anyone! What right does the United Nations have to impose it's will and international muscle on any nation in such regards. Business matters, ladies and gentleman, are matters best left on an individual level!

If the founding ancients of Nexum ever heard of this travesty, they would be rolling in their graves. We do not agree with this resolution at all! It will stifle all business in the universe!

The proud nation of Nexum has pulled itself out of the sewers by working overtime and we are not going back!

*TAKES SHOES OFF AND SLAMS THEM ON THE TABLE OVER AND OVER* *STORMS OUT IN PROTEST*

The nation of Sophista casts a wary eye upon legislation that seeks to target an issue that clearly fails to show international scope. While we agree with your goals in spirit, we cannot stand for the use of the United Nations as a tool of cultural imperialism. We shall abstain, respectfull.

The nation of Sophista casts a wary eye upon legislation that seeks to target an issue that clearly fails to show international scope. While we agree with your goals in spirit, we cannot stand for the use of the United Nations as a tool of cultural imperialism. We shall abstain, respectfull.

Coughbigbusinesscough

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Was there really any need for that? Did you read the bit that said; 'While we agree with your goals in spirit'

I believe that Sophista was talking about cultures in which it is acceptable or even normal to work over 40 hours and in nations that don't have 'earth weeks'.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

nations that don't have 'earth weeks'.

Nations pretending that they live in outerspace should just translate things using Earth-standards. 40 Earth-standard hours every 7 Earth-standard day period.

If we start demanding that people define their non-technical terms in every proposal, they would quickly become ridiculously long. "Oil, what is this oil?"

This proposal is very well worded and quite well thought out. I won't argue why I disagree on economic terms as it'd take a while.

However contemplate this. Mr. Biggs works for An Oil company. He works on one of the numerous deep sea oil rigs to be found in our oceans. He works for three weeks on the oil rig and then spends 2 weeks at home. Technically all the time he is on the oil rig he is on call.
So were this proposal to pass Mr. Biggs would be fired, the oil rigs would be closed and the entire world would experience an oil crisis never before seen. I would guess that the price of petrol would increase by a few 100%
A very similar situation applies to merchant sailors on long voyages. Which would of course hinder international trade.

Apart from that, 40 hours is only an 8 hour day. As breaks and lunch breaks are generally considered as part of a working day that leaves about of 6 hours 45 minutes of work per day per employee at the very most. This would either lead to the mysterious dissapearence of lunch breaks (something i hope you'd agree is rather important) or of course some serious economic concequences.

However contemplate this. Mr. Biggs works for An Oil company. He works on one of the numerous deep sea oil rigs to be found in our oceans. He works for three weeks on the oil rig and then spends 2 weeks at home. Technically all the time he is on the oil rig he is on call.
So were this proposal to pass Mr. Biggs would be fired, the oil rigs would be closed and the entire world would experience an oil crisis never before seen. I would guess that the price of petrol would increase by a few 100%
A very similar situation applies to merchant sailors on long voyages. Which would of course hinder international trade.

We believe that such cases do not truly conflict with the provisions of this proposal. The confusion lies in the fact that their worksite also serves as their living space. In that case, there must merely be a distinction between working time and off time while on the rig or the ship. Additionally, people's off time should not all be treated as on-call time - some of it must truly be off time. And then there is the fact that at least some of the staff would certainly count as emergency response personnel.

Apart from that, 40 hours is only an 8 hour day. As breaks and lunch breaks are generally considered as part of a working day that leaves about of 6 hours 45 minutes of work per day per employee at the very most. This would either lead to the mysterious dissapearence of lunch breaks (something i hope you'd agree is rather important) or of course some serious economic concequences.

Or lunch could be made off the clock - which is not an uncommon situation. The question of paid or unpaid breaks is left up to the individual nations and their labor unions to decide.

Of course, our federation does well enough with our 4 hour day 4 days a week.

However contemplate this. Mr. Biggs works for An Oil company. He works on one of the numerous deep sea oil rigs to be found in our oceans. He works for three weeks on the oil rig and then spends 2 weeks at home. Technically all the time he is on the oil rig he is on call.
So were this proposal to pass Mr. Biggs would be fired, the oil rigs would be closed and the entire world would experience an oil crisis never before seen. I would guess that the price of petrol would increase by a few 100%
A very similar situation applies to merchant sailors on long voyages. Which would of course hinder international trade.

Good point. Maybe an exception could be made for those kinds of work. Also, the proposal calls for a 40-hour workweek...it doesn't specify how many hours per day. Maybe the proposal should specify 80 hours over two weeks.

Arguing over what kind of limits should be placed on working is pointless, because you still haven't justified why the United Nations has the right to enforce these standards. Some nations, and their citizens, are more than happy to work sixty, seventy, even eighty hours a "standard" work week. Why do you get to set the bar?

Some nations, and their citizens, are more than happy to work sixty, seventy, even eighty hours a "standard" work week.

Bullshit.

Respectfully, of course.
AFoFS UN Council.

Yes, God forbid they be happy as productive citizens. God forbid some of them be doctors who enjoy the art of saving lives, and work hours that would kill lesser men even though they're on salary. God forbid a person choose to work not for the money involved, but because they simply enjoy their job.

Good sir, I happen to love being Sophista's representative to the UN, and work as often as I can, overtime or not. Perhaps if you didn't have your head so far up your anti-capitalist ass and could see that work isn't necessarily being enslaved by an evil corporate overlord, you'd recognize that other people can love what they do too.

Respectfully, of course.

God forbid some of them be doctors who enjoy the art of saving lives, and work hours that would kill lesser men even though they're on salary.

Yes, because I certainly prefer to be treated by a doctor who is working on their fifth 12 hour shift...

The fact of the matter is that this proposal still allows people to do an unreasonable and unhealthy amount of work. If you look at the actual math on longer workweeks, it is plain to see why they are unjust, inhumane, and just plain suck. But anyone who wants to voluntarily undertake them are still allowed to do so under this proposal. In fact, it specifically rewards those people for their dedication.
AFoFS UN Council

Then explain to me, good sir, what magical transformation of terror hits a person on their 41st hour of working? What human right is being violated at 47:33 hours of work that is perfectly intact at 39:45? In fact, since when is any employment mandatory? Don't all employees have the right to quit a job at will if they feel they can't meet the requirements?

Sorry, I’m going to make an OOC point.”

Perhaps a little information from an RL perspective might help, in the UK there is a law known as the Working Time Directive, which is regulated by the Department of Trade and Industry. It covers all aspects, the legal length of the working week, holidays, night time work to the minimum wage.

The working week is stipulated at 45 hours per week and each day has specific rest periods built in to allow for adequate rest everyday. In additional every employed worker whether employed by a firm/company directly or working for agencies (contract staff) are entitled to 20 days paid holiday per year.

Since the introduction of the directive, which is part of the commitments the UK has under European law, there has been a significant psychological and social impact on business in general. Employers who do not following the directive, or those trying to find ‘loop holes’, are seen as bad employers and conversely those who do follow, are not. There are fines in place for employers who do not follow the directive and methods for workers to report employers who do not follow the directive. In addition an employee could argue constructive dismissal if an employer does not follow the directive and therefore may have a claim to unfair dismissal under general employment law where the fines are also quite high.

Before this legislation was introduced there were screams and shouts that it will hinder the economy and so forth, but in fact it has had the exact opposite effect. The economy has grown steadily and the UK has seen a dramatic increase in larger companies basing their HQ in London and elsewhere.

Sometimes a law is not always about the letter, but rather its intent and in this case it has worked well. There has been little need for the government to police it, since the policing has been placed in the hands of the workers and by empowering them to do so, the government created an environment by which employers have little or no choice but to stay within the law. Lastly, it is now the case that most employers offer better conditions than those specified by law, because by providing a benchmark of what is acceptable, employers can now attract the best workers by showing they offer better conditions than the benchmark.

You can find additional information on www.dti.gov.uk.

Regards,
Government of Telida

And while that is a particularly enlightening nugget of British policy, it has little relevance in this debate. Who cares what the English think? Just because they like it doesn't mean the rest of the world should adopt it. In Sophista, all would-be parents are required to submit to genetic screening. That way, any defects or inferior traits can be spliced out and exchanged for superior DNA.

We like it. Some nations consider it tampering with the good Lord's work. But we like it, so lets make the rest of the world do it. Understand the predicament?

In mentioning this it was not my intention to force this model on any specific state, rather to provide some background and ‘food for thought’ on something that actually works in RL. You can dismiss it if you wish or take from it parts to form a model that will work within NS. Either way it has some good ideas, which I think are relevant to the debate, most notable paid holiday and rest time.

I have always felt that by looking at how other nations handle matters it provides some insight and understanding and often spurs ideas on how you can either better them or indeed formulate alternative strategies which better suit your needs.

5. Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu. Nations shall remain free to set their allowable overtime hours lower and their overtime pay rates higher than specified in this proposal.

Considering it's voluntary we do not think a law is necessary to prescribe anything. Besides, we do not think a nation should interfere with wages above the minimum to survive.

6. The 40 hour week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers. Nations shall enact the laws needed to comply with the 40 hour week within 1 year of the passing of this resolution and they may phase in the changes over the course of up to 4 years. The necessary changes must be fully implemented within 5 years of the passing of this resolution.

UN resolution are implemented straight away, so why include a timepath?

Apart from those, a reasonable resolution that we do not object to.

Regards,

PRoGG UN Ambassador

5. Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu. Nations shall remain free to set their allowable overtime hours lower and their overtime pay rates higher than specified in this proposal.

Considering it's voluntary we do not think a law is necessary to prescribe anything. Besides, we do not think a nation should interfere with wages above the minimum to survive.

6. The 40 hour week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers. Nations shall enact the laws needed to comply with the 40 hour week within 1 year of the passing of this resolution and they may phase in the changes over the course of up to 4 years. The necessary changes must be fully implemented within 5 years of the passing of this resolution.

UN resolution are implemented straight away, so why include a timepath?

Apart from those, a reasonable resolution that we do not object to.

Regards,

PRoGG UN Ambassador

Arguing over what kind of limits should be placed on working is pointless, because you still haven't justified why the United Nations has the right to enforce these standards.

The reason this is UN business is because, in a global economy, individual economies with no or poor labour standards either exploit economies that do protect labour standards or they reduce everybody else's labour standards to the lowest common denominator.

Dutch Berhamporese workers face the continued threat of imported goods from other nations with exploitative labour conditions. We would be willing to participate in a global economy if we knew that the terms would respect people's right to fair and decent working conditions. As that is not the case, our only options are to lobby for global labour standards, or to operate a closed economy.

The reason this is UN business is because, in a global economy, individual economies with no or poor labour standards either exploit economies that do protect labour standards or they reduce everybody else's labour standards to the lowest common denominator.
If the only standard for a resolution is "does it affect someone's economy?" then we might as well start legislating absolutely every single topic that could possibly affect consumption. Abortion can be legislated, because that fetus could become a person who would consume Sophistan goods. Drug use can be legislated, because a global economy slows down when everyone is too blown to operate machinery. While we're at it, lets just force everyone to be iron-fisted consumerists. Tha would really get my ecnomoy going.

Now, the three of these are clearly topics within the soverignty of an individual nation. Saying its okay because it affects the economy is just a cop-out in absence of true justification. Where in the UN Charter does it say that the United Nations is responsible for making sure everyone's economy is in tip-top shape?


As that is not the case, our only options are to lobby for global labour standards, or to operate a closed economy.
Operating a closed economy will just mean the downfall of your society. If a domestic industry can't compete with a foreign competitor, stop trying to keep the ineffecient one afloat. A truly global economy only works when people stop whining about "my workers this, my workers that" and remember that specialization is best, even if you happen to lose a few jobs.

I was not arguing that it affected Dutch Berhampore's economy alone, I was arguing that it negatively affected the global economy as an entirety and using DB as an example. Surely protecting the global economy and global employment conditions should be the business of the UN

Our trading relationships should help encourage ethical business, environmental responsibility, human rights and the dignity of work in the global economy.
I believe we should seek a balance between trade and self-reliance. I see no sense in carrying identical goods long distances in opposite directions at great energy cost and cost to working conditions. We should be encouraging ‘buy local’ campaigns and the localisation of sustainable economic activity and jobs within strong communities.

DB certainly opposes buying from factories whose operations we would find abhorrent at home. Degrading labour standards ought not to be more palatable just because they do not happen in our own country. Until the UN adopts sustainability and employment justice as economic goals, some controls over imports are necessary.

If it is your personal quest to shape the economic policy of the world by only engaging in trade with nations who support your standards of labor and industry, by all means, please do. Eventually, if you get enough people behind you, you'll be able to come up with meaningful and productive change. That's the way it should be done, not through brute-force legislation passed through the United Nations.

In the mean time, feel free to set up special trade agreements with nations who agree with you. Punish nations who manipulate their workers via inhumane means with tariffs and embargoes. Form a lobby of nations who will do the same. But don't use the United Nations as your tool of cultural and ethical imperialism.

What is referred to as the free choice of the worker in the real economic world becomes the mandate of the employer.

Why should an operating room nurse have to sand on her feet for 24 hours straight? Yet they do, in many hospitals. This abuse leads to heart strain and heart failure. [OOC-my fiend, an OR-RN who has a young daughter, suffered a heart attack as a result of these conditions] Of course the nurse also cannot function at full capacity.

Let those who oppose this redolution be the ones to be served by exhausted professionals.

I only have one comment: There shouldn't be a limit on voluntary work, a good politician works 85 hours a week for the citizens to have a 40 hours workweek.

Anyone who is truly that dedicated to their job can take some work home to do in their spare time - not that they'll have any. Here is the math on an 80 hour workweek:

There are 168 hours in a week. Around 56 of those hours are spent sleeping (8 hours a night). Which leaves 112 waking hours in a week. Subtract out the 80 hours of allowed working time and you are left with 32 hours of free time per week. Which comes out to 4.57 hours per day of your own time. Of course, at least an hour of that will be taken up by commute time - probably more like two. And at least another hour for eating - again, probably more like two. Which leaves you with 35 minutes of really free time each day and no weekend.

We think 80 hours per week is much more than enough to cover extra-hard workers.
AFoFS UN Council
Congratulations! You've convinced me!

This Resolution will also introduce a better system of "shifts" in Nations where people have to work more than 40 hours now, which means more unemployed people can be hired and the National and/or the Global Economy can only benefit from that.

The fact of the matter is that this proposal still allows people to do an unreasonable and unhealthy amount of work. If you look at the actual math on longer workweeks, it is plain to see why they are unjust, inhumane, and just plain suck. But anyone who wants to voluntarily undertake them are still allowed to do so under this proposal. In fact, it specifically rewards those people for their dedication.
AFoFS UN Council

This is laughable. Employment of any duration is VOLUNTARY. If you don't like the hours, you negotiate with your boss, you form a union to collectively negotiate, or you quit and find something better. The idea that anyone could be coerced into working one more hour than they volunteer to work is ludicrous. What are you going to do, chain them up?

People gladly enter salaried agreements all the time, and they frequently work horrendous hours. And they're happy to work those hours and earn that salary. Some people work more than one full-time job, and take pride in it... and this measure does nothing to address people working more than one job, I might add. And they are the people who would most need help.

This bill is just another example of mommy-states guessing at what people need and making a hash of providing it to them. People are better off when they're allowed to figure it out for themselves.

UN resolution are implemented straight away, so why include a timepath?

To give nations some freedom in how they go about implementing this. If this was a resolution about safety standards in the workplace, we wouldn't expect nations to comply fully within five minutes of the resolution passing - it takes time to buy fire extinguishers, install safety guards, phone the guy to come and dig the rats out of the fusebox, and so on. This is no different - there are basic practical things like employee contracts to reorganise, and it should also offset the fears of those who claim it'll devestate their economy by giving them time to phase the changes in. Essentially, economic changes are best eased into - granted, the NS system isn't sophisticated enough to interpret long-term effects, but that's the general RP idea.

We approve of the motion.
Limiting the work week could boost employment. Even a boost in part time employment would be beneficial.

The idea that anyone could be coerced into working one more hour than they volunteer to work is ludicrous.
Um.
This 'if you don't like it, quit' argument is completely spurious. In many countries, you need to work to live - some take away your welfare if you quit your previous job. And employers are less willing to hire somebody who quit. Unemployment is therefore a dangerous place that it's hard and painful to get out of - and people fear it a great deal. I know individuals who are expected to do the job of four people, work unpaid overtime to catch up, and are still threatened and harangued by their bosses because they're expected to do more than any human could manage - and still don't quit because they don't have an alternative. As long as there's a pool of unemployed people who'll take any job they can get, the ability to quit is not a bargaining tool workers have at their disposal - unless their skills are utterly indispensable.

There are 168 hours in a week. Around 56 of those hours are spent sleeping (8 hours a night). Which leaves 112 waking hours in a week. Subtract out the 80 hours of allowed working time and you are left with 32 hours of free time per week. Which comes out to 4.57 hours per day of your own time. Of course, at least an hour of that will be taken up by commute time - probably more like two. And at least another hour for eating - again, probably more like two. Which leaves you with 35 minutes of really free time each day and no weekend.

I would first like to point out that many people who are dedicated enough to their job to work for 80 hours, often do not sleep for 8 hours a night. Many people are just unable to sleep more than 5. Also, assuming a 2 hour communte a day, is ridiculous. In order for this to even be an average, there would have to be some seriously long commuted out there to compensate for the many people in the world who communte less than 15 minutes to get to work. Let us not forget, of course, the eat part, in which many business men and women are frequently working while eating. For example, a business lunch with a client, or a quick sandwhich while finishing up that proposal.

While i felt it nessessary to point that out, it is not the issue that should be at the heart of this debate. The issue here is members of this purportedly esteemed body of government are running the risk of running full-steam into a resolution that
a) Could be damaging to many countries economies
b) Ignores the fact that for many countries, the work system (hours, policies, etc.) are steeped in tradition and national pride.
c) Seriously runs the risk of overstepping the UN's boundries. Continuously voting for resolutions that are clearly not in the scope of the UN's responsibilities sets a horrible precident and could lead to a diametrically oppossed world; A world composed of those who work for a UN overlord, pushing it's whimsical policies on all member nations, and those who have been burned by the foolish actions of their peers.

By voting against this proposition you would not only be preserving the rights of both governments and free corporations, but also taking a step in the right direction for the UN. Your for in the negative can act as your statement that the UN is not a body of government that may just pass laws all over the political and economical spectrum, but a body that must remember to honor the rights and privledges of each of its member countries, and act accordingly.

Any job that expects its workers to sleep 5 hours a night, seven days a week is, quite frankly, inhumane.

This is, quite simply, a human rights resolution.

Also, assuming a 2 hour communte a day, is ridiculous. In order for this to even be an average, there would have to be some seriously long commuted out there to compensate for the many people in the world who communte less than 15 minutes to get to work.

A commute time of 15 minutes comes out to 30 minutes per day.
It can take up to 15 minutes for me to get to my job ir real life, depending on traffic, lights, and trains. And that is for my job that is only like 2 miles away. I used to also have a job down in Chicago and it could take over an hour to travel those 17 miles.
Not everyone is lucky enough to live close to their job site or for nations to have fast and efficient transit systems. 45 minutes to an hour each way is not at all unknown in a city environment.

...a body that must remember to honor the rights and privledges of each of its member countries, and act accordingly.

Member countries' "rights and priviledges" do not override the rights and necessity of humane treatment for the citizens of the world.

This should be overwhemingly voted down. Of all the resolutions that are debated and voted upon, this one may be the top of the list of "None of the UN's business".

Why not just stop wasting time by doing things piecemeal. Let the next resolution cut to the chase...."The UN will be big brother for all things, at all times, for all countries, for all people, and the people are commanded to accept all rulings because the UN knows what is right, all the time, for all matters"

That would save a whole lot of time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This should be overwhemingly voted down. Of all the resolutions that are debated and voted upon, this one may be the top of the list of "None of the UN's business".

Why not just stop wasting time by doing things piecemeal. Let the next resolution cut to the chase...."The UN will be big brother for all things, at all times, for all countries, for all people, and the people are commanded to accept all rulings because the UN knows what is right, all the time, for all matters"

That would save a whole lot of time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has there ever been a resolution that hasn't gotten this line?

This proposal is very well worded and quite well thought out. I won't argue why I disagree on economic terms as it'd take a while.

However contemplate this. Mr. Biggs works for An Oil company. He works on one of the numerous deep sea oil rigs to be found in our oceans. He works for three weeks on the oil rig and then spends 2 weeks at home. Technically all the time he is on the oil rig he is on call.
So were this proposal to pass Mr. Biggs would be fired, the oil rigs would be closed and the entire world would experience an oil crisis never before seen. I would guess that the price of petrol would increase by a few 100%
A very similar situation applies to merchant sailors on long voyages. Which would of course hinder international trade.

Apart from that, 40 hours is only an 8 hour day. As breaks and lunch breaks are generally considered as part of a working day that leaves about of 6 hours 45 minutes of work per day per employee at the very most. This would either lead to the mysterious dissapearence of lunch breaks (something i hope you'd agree is rather important) or of course some serious economic concequences.

This is a very good point and needs to be looked at. We are against the bill for this reason and think that this issue should be looked into further before any decision is taken.

Chair of Agrestis

The idea that anyone could be coerced into working one more hour than they volunteer to work is ludicrous.
Um.
This 'if you don't like it, quit' argument is completely spurious. In many countries, you need to work to live - some take away your welfare if you quit your previous job. And employers are less willing to hire somebody who quit. Unemployment is therefore a dangerous place that it's hard and painful to get out of - and people fear it a great deal. I know individuals who are expected to do the job of four people, work unpaid overtime to catch up, and are still threatened and harangued by their bosses because they're expected to do more than any human could manage - and still don't quit because they don't have an alternative. As long as there's a pool of unemployed people who'll take any job they can get, the ability to quit is not a bargaining tool workers have at their disposal - unless their skills are utterly indispensable.

First of all, you're oversimplifying by addressing only one of the possible solutions I presented. You can still renegotiate with your boss and/or organize.

Secondly, anyone in that situation should be smart enough to plan appropriately. If they will be denied unemployment benefits, they should seek new employment while still working the previous one (which most dissatisfied employees do anyway), they should position themselves to handle their finances by using savings and cutting expenses, they should seek temporary employment, and/or they should seek assistance from family and friends.

And this all assumes that there are no regulations in place at the national level with which to seek redress.

The wealth of options available in the free market are what make it far superior to this international mothering approach. It disempowers workers and employers alike.

Work hours is not something the UN should be bothering about. All nations should have the liberty of making their own choices about this. The hours people work are basically a contract agreement between employer and employee. If governments feel they should interfere with that, do it in your own country but don't tell other nations what to do by making this UN standards. That is not what the UN is for. The UN should NOT turn into some overruling legislator!
I say NO to this proposal. If you want some choices left to be made in your own nation, you may consider doing the same. Where does it end? Is the UN going to tell us what color pants to wear?

Yes, I can think of a few that haven't had "this line" posted.
That doesn't mean it isn't a valid point.



This should be overwhemingly voted down. Of all the resolutions that are debated and voted upon, this one may be the top of the list of "None of the UN's business".

Why not just stop wasting time by doing things piecemeal. Let the next resolution cut to the chase...."The UN will be big brother for all things, at all times, for all countries, for all people, and the people are commanded to accept all rulings because the UN knows what is right, all the time, for all matters"

That would save a whole lot of time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has there ever been a resolution that hasn't gotten this line?

As delegate of the Allied States of DragonIV, I must outline my nation's strenuous objection to this proposal set forth before the UN body.

The 40 hour work week makes very little sense outside of the corporate culture so prevalent in high-technology societies. Nations that make their living in agriculture, for example, have many residents who do not punch a clock and regularly exceed 40 hours per week depending on the season. The same can be said of many factory workers--production is often seasonally based, so they work over 40 hours for part of the year and 40 or less the rest of the year.

Please think this through very thoroughly before committing your vote. It will have drastic negative economic impacts on many nations whose populations today work far more than 40 hours per week on occasion.

By the same right--if you do support this, what is next? A resolution requiring that all citizens be guaranteed employment for exactly 40 hours a week? Mein Gott! Our nation is moderate, not overly financially conservative, but this kind of proposal is too simplistic and very dangerous. Please vote on this important topic.

Thank you for your time and attention, regardless of your disposition towards this proposal. My nation is humbled by your thoughfulness and consideration.

Goodfellow Scaly Wyvern
Allied States of DragonIV

As delegate of the Allied States of DragonIV, I must outline my nation's strenuous objection to this proposal set forth before the UN body.

The 40 hour work week makes very little sense outside of the corporate culture so prevalent in high-technology societies. Nations that make their living in agriculture, for example, have many residents who do not punch a clock and regularly exceed 40 hours per week depending on the season. The same can be said of many factory workers--production is often seasonally based, so they work over 40 hours for part of the year and 40 or less the rest of the year.

Please think this through very thoroughly before committing your vote. It will have drastic negative economic impacts on many nations whose populations today work far more than 40 hours per week on occasion.

By the same right--if you do support this, what is next? A resolution requiring that all citizens be guaranteed employment for exactly 40 hours a week? Mein Gott! Our nation is moderate, not overly financially conservative, but this kind of proposal is too simplistic and very dangerous. Please vote on this important topic.

Thank you for your time and attention, regardless of your disposition towards this proposal. My nation is humbled by your thoughfulness and consideration.

Goodfellow Scaly Wyvern
Allied States of DragonIV

First of all, you're oversimplifying by addressing only one of the possible solutions I presented. You can still renegotiate with your boss and/or organize.

Secondly, anyone in that situation should be smart enough to plan appropriately. If they will be denied unemployment benefits, they should seek new employment while still working the previous one (which most dissatisfied employees do anyway)

That's disingenuous. It's pretty hard to seek alternative employment when you're working 80-hour weeks without much in the way of paid holiday. Moreover, the whole point of this is that the most vulnerable employees (those in low-skill jobs or high-unemployment economies) are the most likely to be exploited, and they're the least likely to be able to find another job. And it's not safe to assume that those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder have any savings or any ability to cut expenses and still live.

The wealth of options available in the free market are what make it far superior to this international mothering approach. It disempowers workers and employers alike.

Well, no. The "free" market isn't free and does everything it can to strip workers of their rights. Nor does it "empower" a worker to pit his negotiating power against that of a multinational corporation.

Arguing over what kind of limits should be placed on working is pointless, because you still haven't justified why the United Nations has the right to enforce these standards. Some nations, and their citizens, are more than happy to work sixty, seventy, even eighty hours a "standard" work week. Why do you get to set the bar?

BeJaminSAT is not against any rules about work standards. Bur my citizens are happy with their work situation. Suppose we have an unusual situation, sometimes a few hours more are needed, and times sometimes family emergencies require the person to take additional time off. We ourselves decided that. We should not be ruled about private affairs of state.
Also, what about rogue nations? Who will monitor them and who will foot the bill? for this verification?
Respectfully<
BeJaminSAT

This is ridiculous, I did not join the UN to have policy dictated to me by a bunch of bleeding hearts who have no concept of what it takes for normal people to survive in the real world.

Vote down this heinous proposal and you'll be saving the lives of millions, not only in my own country but in hundreds of others, who don't have the privilege of having multinational corporations based there.

This is ridiculous, I did not join the UN to have policy dictated to me by a bunch of bleeding hearts who have no concept of what it takes for normal people to survive in the real world.

Vote down this heinous proposal and you'll be saving the lives of millions, not only in my own country but in hundreds of others, who don't have the privilege of having multinational corporations based there.

This is ridiculous, The Principality of Achai did not join the UN to have policy dictated to it by a bunch of bleeding hearts who have no concept of what it takes for normal people to survive in the real world.

Vote down this heinous proposal and you'll be saving the lives of millions, not only in my own country but in hundreds of others, who don't have the privilege of having multinational corporations based there.

There is a fundamental flaw in this proposal. It does not take into account Salaried employees. Blue collar working men and women in Administrative, Clerical, Support, and many other positions will not be protected by this. They will in fact be hurt. Their wages will fall. The cost of living will rise. Inflation will run rampant. The economy will be hurt.

This is a bad proposal as it is currently worded.

-DP-

There is a fundamental flaw in this proposal. It does not take into account Salaried employees.

Where'd you get this from? It protects all employees.

Oh, and inflation's usually (oh, OK, always) caused by rising wages, not falling.

The approval of this bill will eliminate the appeal of such jobs in the healthcare system that boast best overtime pay. Adding the overtime into a 40 hour work week is one of the worst ideas to hit an economic system since a depression. If this passes, it will be a bad day indeed for the UN and it's subsidiaries. Kimchaka does not wish to devistate it's economic system by allowing this bill to pass, and will vote against it.





Official Delagate to UN
Rogue Nation of Kimchaka

What if people need to work longer in order to sustain themselves and their dependents?

This will condemn them to poverty and failure all in the name of "freedom", this resolution restricts as well as protects. Remember though that those which it restricts will be in dire situations and unable to feed their families.

Will they be happy with our thoughtlessly poting in favour just because of our narrow-mindedness?

Nope.

Regards,

TNE

First of all, you're oversimplifying by addressing only one of the possible solutions I presented. You can still renegotiate with your boss and/or organize.

Secondly, anyone in that situation should be smart enough to plan appropriately. If they will be denied unemployment benefits, they should seek new employment while still working the previous one (which most dissatisfied employees do anyway)


That's disingenuous. It's pretty hard to seek alternative employment when you're working 80-hour weeks without much in the way of paid holiday. Moreover, the whole point of this is that the most vulnerable employees (those in low-skill jobs or high-unemployment economies) are the most likely to be exploited, and they're the least likely to be able to find another job. And it's not safe to assume that those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder have any savings or any ability to cut expenses and still live.

Once again, my quote was cut off in a dishonest attempt to misrepresent my position.

Those in low-skill jobs or low-demand jobs will be most exploited. But this measure does nothing to help them. They don't work 80 hours in one job, they work 40 hours in two jobs. That won't change a bit under this measure. It simply limits the demands each of their employers can make. The people really affected by this law are lawyers, politicians, corporate officers, physicians, research scientists and their assistants, and the like. These are the people who work well over 80 hours/week and aren't compensated with overtime. Do you really think they need your help?

The wealth of options available in the free market are what make it far superior to this international mothering approach. It disempowers workers and employers alike.

Well, no. The "free" market isn't free and does everything it can to strip workers of their rights. Nor does it "empower" a worker to pit his negotiating power against that of a multinational corporation.[/quote]

This is laughable. The free market doesn't do anything... it simply is. Are there no labor unions in East Hackney? Is every single employer a multinational corporation? Are East Hackney employers primarily concerned with abusing employees? East Hackney cannot possibly understand free markets, since it collects every penny its people earn. The force disempowering the people of East Hackney is its own government.

Lemme see if I got this right:

I'm willing to sign a contract to work 100 hours per week in order to make myself more attractive to employers. The UN, led by a bunch of left-wing commies, says I'm not allowed to do this?

What's that I smell? BS?

This could potentially get me to leave the UN.

How are the poor, who can't make enough money currently working 60-80 hours plus, going to be helped with this resolution?

Kerubia is against this measure because it violates the people's right to work as long as they want to. Private business can not be forced by the UN to only allow up to a 40 hour a week work plan. This is up to the parliaments/congresses themselves.

Salve omnes!

I regard this resolution as a travesty. It's not up to the UN to regulate the economy of my Empire. If I see fit, I'll write my own laws regarding the economy of Romanum Imperium.

Ave,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii

I'm willing to sign a contract to work 100 hours per week in order to make myself more attractive to employers. The UN, led by a bunch of left-wing commies, says I'm not allowed to do this?

Maybe you should advertise on your merits, rather than your willingness to destroy yourself.

This is laughable. The free market doesn't do anything... it simply is. Are there no labor unions in East Hackney? Is every single employer a multinational corporation? Are East Hackney employers primarily concerned with abusing employees? East Hackney cannot possibly understand free markets, since it collects every penny its people earn. The force disempowering the people of East Hackney is its own government.

I'm really struggling to understand this rant. The free market "simply is"? The free market puts pressure on people and employers to act a certain way and conform to certain standards, which is an ideological position.

It's in the nature of free markets to drive standards downwards - to pick up on Rymenia's point, the reason you should be forbidden to do something so stupid as work a 100-hour week is that, if a few maniacs are prepared to work such excessive hours, it tends to force more sensible workers to do likewise in order to compete for jobs. The only way to halt this slide to the bottom is to mandate minimum working conditions. It's a question of putting a mild limit on your individual rights in order to protect the individual rights of others.

As for the rest of the rant - every employee is free to join a trade union - in fact, they have to be, since the UN mandates it. But since the overwhelming majority of businesses are worker-owned co-operatives, there's no need. The employers are the employees. And since the people of East Hackney are its government, handing power to them can only empower them.

We understand free markets perfectly, which is why we have turned our nose up at their destructive effects and taken on a more efficient and productive method of running our economy.

The proposed resolution does harm to all member states because they become less competitive towards other members. Some nations face a demographic development which means that they are having a shortage of workers and need therefore to exceed working hours. This resolution would make working cost which are already high in those countries even higher and would make them less competitive on the market. The resolution is a JOB KILLER in UN member states and supports the exports of jobs in NON-UN-member states who have free labour laws.

It is another resolution which is undermining national souvereignity and imposes new overregulations on the markets. The UN is undermining is own credibilty and attractivity. It is harmful towards UN members and is an attack against market-economies in the UN. It is an attack against their sovereign national policy, it is an attack against our national policy.
By apoting this resolution the UN would become even more irrelevant than it is today (only a minority of states are UN members).


Sincerely yours


Marc Smith, president of Futura, founder of the free market region Futura

this is bad, can we really afford to reduce labor to 40 hours a week?

My countries economy will be devistated by this resolution. I ask the all countries that have a powerful economy plaese reject this resolution.

-Ivana Tapit

I'm willing to sign a contract to work 100 hours per week in order to make myself more attractive to employers. The UN, led by a bunch of left-wing commies, says I'm not allowed to do this?

Maybe you should advertise on your merits, rather than your willingness to destroy yourself.

And maybe I should have the right to make that decision for myself.

Some nations face a demographic development which means that they are having a shortage of workers and need therefore to exceed working hours.

This seems somewhat unlikely, given that all our nations' populations are constantly growing. The problem nations are far more likely to face is creating enough jobs for those populations, which limiting the right to exploit workers by making them work 80-hour weeks will do.

If, somehow, a nation did find itself with a temporary shortage in a particular skill sector - or for some reason found itself with an ageing population, though that shouldn't happen because of the constant growth - it can simply do what nations have always done in these situations.

That is, it can plug the gap by taking in some of the hordes of (often very skilled) migrants willing and able to work. There's no need to abuse your workforce when a humane solution is at hand.

There are many flaws with this resolution resulting in my country voting against this resolution.

Some jobs, like the aforementioned oil workers, are not excluded from the clauses of this article when they need to be.

Another issue revolves around the statement of "equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu." This implies that any time off given for more than 40 hours per week must be at time and a half (3 hours off for every 2 hours past 40 you work). My countries problem with this lies in the fact that one of the allowable contractual work hours includes what is commonly called a 9-80 work schedule where by an employee works 4 - 9 hour days and 1 - 8 hour day the first week and then only 4 - 9 hour days the next week. This resolution would force the extra hours in one week to be given at time and a half resulting in 6 hours they are suppose to be given off in the next week.

As to "3. No one may be contractually obligated to remain on the worksite without pay." And yet we use this very action to help force our politicans to do their jobs in a reasonable manner. (/OOC No California like budget delays).

As a conscientious man and an effective leader, I support this resolution, and will use the power vested in me as the Regional Delegate of Bando Land to contribute to its success. Not only are 40+ hour workweeks unfair to the worker if mandated, they are also detrimental to the worker's health and morale, and therefore end up decreasing productivity rather than increasing it. That's why my 18 votes will be FOR.

-T. Cranmer
UN Representative, Nok-Nok

"If, somehow, a nation did find itself with a temporary shortage in a particular skill sector - or for some reason found itself with an ageing population, though that shouldn't happen because of the constant growth - it can simply do what nations have always done in these situations.

That is, it can plug the gap by taking in some of the hordes of (often very skilled) migrants willing and able to work. There's no need to abuse your workforce when a humane solution is at hand."

It is in the the decision of any souvereign nation what it wants to do.
We consider a limitation to 40 hours a week as much to short.
Many people want to work longer, which is made more difficult due to this resolution because it increases the costs.
Many people want to work longer, are working longer or are having more than one job and is therefore working longer. It is an attack against a free economy and against the freedom of individual choice.

We would accept a maximum worktime of 80 hours per week, but we are not accepting any resolution which regulates payment (which this resolution does). That is a decision which need to be done on the national level according to the context of the development of the national economy. The UN has no right to do so: this belongs to the sovereign state.

"If, somehow, a nation did find itself with a temporary shortage in a particular skill sector - or for some reason found itself with an ageing population, though that shouldn't happen because of the constant growth - it can simply do what nations have always done in these situations.

That is, it can plug the gap by taking in some of the hordes of (often very skilled) migrants willing and able to work. There's no need to abuse your workforce when a humane solution is at hand."

It is in the the decision of any souvereign nation what it wants to do.
We consider a limitation to 40 hours a week as much to short.
Many people want to work longer, which is made more difficult due to this resolution because it increases the costs.
Many people want to work longer, are working longer or are having more than one job and is therefore working longer. It is an attack against a free economy and against the freedom of individual choice.

We would accept a maximum worktime of 80 hours per week, but we are not accepting any resolution which regulates payment (which this resolution does). That is a decision which need to be done on the national level according to the context of the development of the national economy. The UN has no right to do so: this belongs to the sovereign state.

"If, somehow, a nation did find itself with a temporary shortage in a particular skill sector - or for some reason found itself with an ageing population, though that shouldn't happen because of the constant growth - it can simply do what nations have always done in these situations.

That is, it can plug the gap by taking in some of the hordes of (often very skilled) migrants willing and able to work. There's no need to abuse your workforce when a humane solution is at hand."

It is in the the decision of any souvereign nation what it wants to do.
We consider a limitation to 40 hours a week as much to short.
Many people want to work longer, which is made more difficult due to this resolution because it increases the costs.
Many people want to work longer, are working longer or are having more than one job and is therefore working longer. It is an attack against a free economy and against the freedom of individual choice.

We would accept a maximum worktime of 80 hours per week, but we are not accepting any resolution which regulates payment (which this resolution does). That is a decision which need to be done on the national level according to the context of the development of the national economy. The UN has no right to do so: this belongs to the sovereign state.

"If, somehow, a nation did find itself with a temporary shortage in a particular skill sector - or for some reason found itself with an ageing population, though that shouldn't happen because of the constant growth - it can simply do what nations have always done in these situations.

That is, it can plug the gap by taking in some of the hordes of (often very skilled) migrants willing and able to work. There's no need to abuse your workforce when a humane solution is at hand."

It is in the the decision of any souvereign nation what it wants to do.
We consider a limitation to 40 hours a week as much to short.
Many people want to work longer, which is made more difficult due to this resolution because it increases the costs.
Many people want to work longer, are working longer or are having more than one job and is therefore working longer. It is an attack against a free economy and against the freedom of individual choice.

We would accept a maximum worktime of 80 hours per week, but we are not accepting any resolution which regulates payment (which this resolution does). That is a decision which need to be done on the national level according to the context of the development of the national economy. The UN has no right to do so: this belongs to the sovereign state.

"If, somehow, a nation did find itself with a temporary shortage in a particular skill sector - or for some reason found itself with an ageing population, though that shouldn't happen because of the constant growth - it can simply do what nations have always done in these situations.

That is, it can plug the gap by taking in some of the hordes of (often very skilled) migrants willing and able to work. There's no need to abuse your workforce when a humane solution is at hand."

It is in the the decision of any souvereign nation what it wants to do.
We consider a limitation to 40 hours a week as much to short.
Many people want to work longer, which is made more difficult due to this resolution because it increases the costs.
Many people want to work longer, are working longer or are having more than one job and is therefore working longer. It is an attack against a free economy and against the freedom of individual choice.

We would accept a maximum worktime of 80 hours per week, but we are not accepting any resolution which regulates payment (which this resolution does). That is a decision which need to be done on the national level according to the context of the development of the national economy. The UN has no right to do so: this belongs to the sovereign state.

I don't see why I should do ANOTHER 3.5 hours work. Australias working week is set at 37.5 hrs, so that is why I voted against this resolution.

I don't see why I should do ANOTHER 3.5 hours work. Australias working week is set at 37.5 hrs, so that is why I voted against this resolution.

Did you even read the resolution?

1. The maximum standard full-time workweek shall be set at 40 hours. Nations shall remain free to set their workweeks lower than this.

Regulated Work? A standard set of hours? People in my country are free to work as they wish, and as long as they wish. For this body to institute a regulated forty hour work week, is extremely out of line. My people believe in the freedom to do what they love and they are rewarded for it. Nations do not get great by working less than forty hours a week.

It is the opinion of my nation that this resolution places too much power in government hands. People ought to be able to work as much or as little as they want, and their salaries reflect their choices. Forturne favors the brave, not the sleeping; therefore, I am obligated to vote against this resolution.

We believe that such cases do not truly conflict with the provisions of this proposal. The confusion lies in the fact that their worksite also serves as their living space. In that case, there must merely be a distinction between working time and off time while on the rig or the ship. Additionally, people's off time should not all be treated as on-call time - some of it must truly be off time. And then there is the fact that at least some of the staff would certainly count as emergency response personnel.


With all due respect, to say that this resolution must pass because its intention is good sets a horrendous precedent (not that this hasn't been set many times before) and a terrible justification. A resolution is only effective if it is stated in an effective manner _AND_ takes into account all extenuating circumstances. It as only as good as the language and phrasing of the original text. Since people and leaders are transient, we must elevate the words of the LAW to a higher standard. People are fallible! Resolutions are laws and as such must be stated in very clear terms to avoid unintentionally inhibiting individual freedom rather than promoting it.

There are some fairly significant loopholes and extenuating circumstances that must be written into law lest we'll be creating a mindless bureaurcracy that fails to effectively handle real world situations.

Many issues have been stated thus far on the forums.
1) Salaried employees.
2) A legal definition of what constitutes a salaried employee.
3) Volunatary work must be dealt (work completely devoid of contractual obligations). Of course, at the same time there must be a means for ensuring that employees are not illegally coerced into voluntarily surrendering their rights to work a humane number of hours.
4) Definitions for self-employment to ensure this measure does not overstep its bounds.
5) What if employees are not actually paid?

Probably much much more I'm missing here. While I agree that this proposal is a start, I feel that it SHOULDN'T have made it to a vote YET.

Now that it has, it will inevitably pass. Rather than expend a tremendous amount of effort into a campaign to prevent the passage. I stress that a follow-up resolution MUST be created to ensure that intentions stated in this resolution are fulfilled rather than just throwing some pretty wording and a global variable change at a real issue.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian Worlds
UN Delegate to the Democratic Underground

NO NO NO NO NO

This motion is poorly thought out and badly written.

1) It does not cover at all industries that need to operate 24 hours a day.

For economic reasons these have to be allowed to have workers who sometimes work more that 40 hours a week.

The only way the motion would work in these cases is with an amendment that the 40 hour working week is an AVERAGE over the working year.

2) It also does not state if the 40 hours are actual hours worked, or includes meal breaks.

3) It does not cover the majority of health workers. They are not "civilian defence forces" and, other than Ambulance drivers and paramedics, are not "civilian emergency response personnel".

4) Enforcing a premium for any hours over 40 is not only putting extra strain on the employers but leaves the system open to abuse by workers.

For example, 3 workers are needed to do a job that will take 360 man hours (nominally 3x40 hour weeks each), they split the work so each does 2x60 hour weeks and has a week off.

The employer is then forced to pay each worker 20 hours extra for the 3 weeks work.

AS IT IS CURRENTLY WORDED this motion should never be allowed to pass.

(And this comes from someone with experience as I work in a 7x24 job and regularly work over 40 hours a week as part of my rostered shift pattern, however I also have weeks where I may work less than 20 hours ... over the year though my hours balance out.)

While we find this a well-intentioned proposal, the Neo-Tyrellian government will not have domestic affairs dictated to them by a world government. This sort of proposal lacks international scope and is another attempt by weaker economies to cripple those NationStates and Corporate ruling entities that they can not compete with. It is our strong opinion that such a proposal is a flagrant over-reach of world government and the act of jealous nations to limit the activities of greater ones with better systems. We see this proposal as ultimately NOT a matter of international concern.

Limiting the work week in all affiliated nations will simply drive corporations to derive their labour force from 'rogue nations' with no such limitations.

We are votong against this proposal on the grounds that it is too vague and ultimately not a concern for the UN.

I don't like this. It seems like a law that governments should implement if they want to, not the UN.

There is a fundamental flaw in this proposal. It does not take into account Salaried employees.

Where'd you get this from? It protects all employees.

Oh, and inflation's usually (oh, OK, always) caused by rising wages, not falling.No. Salaries will fall due to lack of need for compensation since OVERTIME DOES NOT APPLY TO A SALARIED EMPLOYEE, they make the same thing regardless of the hours they work. Inflation WILL happen because hourly employees will have to be payed more in sectors of the economy that the everyday man and woman depends on.

For example... Grocery prices will rise in reaction to the higher labor cost. As will The products of the Service industry (restaurants, gas, hotels). Public transit prises will rise as a result of the higher labor costs. Healthcare costs will rise. Gas, heating oil, and Kerosine prices will rise as a result of higher Labor Costs.

On the flip side, Skilled employees, the ones that usuall get paid a salary will not reap the benefis of this as they do not get paid overtime. The get the same wage and benefits they sign for in their contract regardless of any "40 Hour Work Week" laws. Overall, salaries will fall as the rush to get EVERYONE under contract will create a buyers market and the corporations will set the bar. We'll be living in nations of Wage Slaves increasingly dominated by the corporate sector.

This is bad.

With all due respect, to say that this resolution must pass because its intention is good sets a horrendous precedent (not that this hasn't been set many times before) and a terrible justification.

Where did we suggest anything of the sort?

We don't believe that there is a true conflict where you see one. There are easy ways to make distinctions between worksites and non-worksites, even on boats. And there are easy ways to make distinctions between true free time and time on-call, even on oil rigs. And in emergency situations where certain people are absolutely required to deal with the situation, well that's written into clause 2.

As for other issues that people have raised, frankly they don't seem to hold up to any amount of scrutiny.

Like all the noise about salaried employees. What about them? Apparently this resolution magically makes it illegal or something. How? Who knows. It certainly doesn't mandate hourly wages. It does set the amount of hours per week they can be contractually obligated to work for their salary. And if they work more some weeks, then they are compensated with time off later.

Or the complaints about limiting total working time to 80 hours per week. The basic fact of the matter is that working 80 hours per week means working the vast majority of your waking hours and having no weekend, nor any time to see your kids, go to the store, or read your favorite book. No time, in fact, to have any life beyond work at all. And while some people might be desperate enough to work that long or longer on a consistent basis, we need to set a limit - both to prevent mandatory "voluntary" overtime from expanding indefinitely and to allow the weak and powerless members of society a chance to live a life worth living.

It seems reasonable. People who work a job should not be treated as a slave to it.

And what of those who -want- to work 80 hours a week? Lawyers anyone? Politicians? Its a heavy handed resolution that infringes on civil rights.

This is just looking away from the fact that this resolution is directly interfering with my national soveregnity. It goes into detail to control the laws of my country, ignoring -basic democratic principles-.

It imposes a society model upon the rest of the world. I will not stand for it.

I am against it.
It is up to individuals to decide how many hours do they want to work. As long as contracts are respected, the state has no reason to interfere.

Finally, a well thought resolution! Whomever did this one, I applaud you. It is contextual, not overly limiting but still acomplishes something. I'm impressed.

considering the fare we have had lately, I was about to quit the UN entirely, but now I have a little hope. Whether or not you think it is a well-done res, you must admit that it is vastly superior to previous resolutions.

And what of those who -want- to work 80 hours a week? Lawyers anyone? Politicians? Its a heavy handed resolution that infringes on civil rights.

Politicians on a wage are, unless your system deviates from RL models vastly (which I guess is possible, natch) paid for what amounts to relatively short and flexible office hours - any party conferring, campaigning, and so forth is on their own time.
This in fact highlights a point that's been made already: that it's a policy which is best implemented as self-policed. That way, if you really want to work on something you're more than welcome to take a stack of papers home - but if your boss tells you that you have to you blow the whistle.

Despite the communist leaning of this resolution and the fact that we are a communist state, we still find ourselves consistantly fed up with amateur proposals which fail to follow the clause structure specified in the resolution writing guides. Those submitting proposals should more closely examine RL United Nations proposals and at least try to emulate the style of such documents. As such, we are opposed to this resolution.

First off, how does this directly figure into the U.N.'s authority? This is a gross intrusion into a nation's sovereignty over DOMESTIC matters. I can see how one can try to stretch it, in saying that it will eventually figure into international trade and whatnot, but then you can do that to anything. And that's a very scary thing to do.

Secondly, as brought up before, people with irregular job schedules inherent within the job itself, such as farming, are going to be hurt by this. Grow up, each nation has a different society and government. *OOC* A six-day work week is not uncommon in Japan. Sometimes it's even needed if an industry has a product in high demand.*/OOC Not everyone works in at a desk job. And what about if our work-week is shorter

The Holy Republic of Everlight vehemently votes against this resolution. This is a nation's own domestic matter to deal with.

Head Councilmember Keiran Everlight
Councilmember Tyris Basrath
Councilmember Kara Basrath
Councilmember Mikhail Hagurazu

Despite the communist leaning of this resolution and the fact that we are a communist state, we still find ourselves consistantly fed up with amateur proposals which fail to follow the clause structure specified in the resolution writing guides. Those submitting proposals should more closely examine RL United Nations proposals and at least try to emulate the style of such documents. As such, we are opposed to this resolution.

We urge Cacodaemonomania to reconsider their opposition. The clause structure is only a guideline to assist in writing clear and well-structured proposals. It's not essential, particularly when a proposal is already clear and well-structured, as this one is.

Despite the communist leaning of this resolution and the fact that we are a communist state, we still find ourselves consistantly fed up with amateur proposals which fail to follow the clause structure specified in the resolution writing guides. Those submitting proposals should more closely examine RL United Nations proposals and at least try to emulate the style of such documents. As such, we are opposed to this resolution.

Wait...

You are voting against because the resolution is clearly written and lacking in psuedo-legalese bullshit? Surely you don't value form over substance?

Also, it's not communist. It acknowledges the existence of wage labor for one. There is absolutely nothing in this resolution that prevents it from being applied in capitalist countries. Mainly it just sets a few reasonable limits on what a contract can legally demand of people.
AFoFS UN Council

1) It does not cover at all industries that need to operate 24 hours a day.

For economic reasons these have to be allowed to have workers who sometimes work more that 40 hours a week.

You didn't read the proposal, did you? Or did you miss the part about voluntary overtime? Besides, there is a simple solution, even if nobody wants to work overtime. Hire more workers.

2) It also does not state if the 40 hours are actual hours worked, or includes meal breaks.

Why should it? Your complaint is disingenuous - if the resolution specified paid breaks, you would complain about that too.

3) It does not cover the majority of health workers. They are not "civilian defence forces" and, other than Ambulance drivers and paramedics, are not "civilian emergency response personnel".

Sure it does. It covers all workers. If you need healthcare workers to cover the time that they formerly were working, hire more workers. Your nation seriously demands that your workers work long hours without overtime or time-off as compensation just because they work in healthcare?

4) Enforcing a premium for any hours over 40 is not only putting extra strain on the employers but leaves the system open to abuse by workers...

It is good that your businesses allow employees to schedule their own working times. But if this becomes a problem, they can always take some fairly straightforward and easy steps to avoid it. And if they don't want to pay overtime they could always hire more workers.
AFoFS UN Council

:? I believe policies envoked on an issue like this should have the vote of the citizens. Unless a salary pay is going to be increased many citizens wll have a reduction in pay. I can see corp companies finding a loop hole in this and the employee will suffer further. There should be limitations on how employers take advantage of employees but I believe this could hurt in many ways - Changes in lifestyle for the empoyees, taxes, social security and voluntary work. Some people may need to take part time jobs and would be away from their families even more.

Unless a salary pay is going to be increased many citizens wll have a reduction in pay.... Some people may need to take part time jobs and would be away from their families even more.

6. The 40 hour week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers. Nations shall enact the laws needed to comply with the 40 hour week within 1 year of the passing of this resolution and they may phase in the changes over the course of up to 4 years. The necessary changes must be fully implemented within 5 years of the passing of this resolution.

We think that just about covers it.

This is laughable. The free market doesn't do anything... it simply is. Are there no labor unions in East Hackney? Is every single employer a multinational corporation? Are East Hackney employers primarily concerned with abusing employees? East Hackney cannot possibly understand free markets, since it collects every penny its people earn. The force disempowering the people of East Hackney is its own government.

I'm really struggling to understand this rant. The free market "simply is"? The free market puts pressure on people and employers to act a certain way and conform to certain standards, which is an ideological position.

It's in the nature of free markets to drive standards downwards - to pick up on Rymenia's point, the reason you should be forbidden to do something so stupid as work a 100-hour week is that, if a few maniacs are prepared to work such excessive hours, it tends to force more sensible workers to do likewise in order to compete for jobs. The only way to halt this slide to the bottom is to mandate minimum working conditions. It's a question of putting a mild limit on your individual rights in order to protect the individual rights of others.

As for the rest of the rant - every employee is free to join a trade union - in fact, they have to be, since the UN mandates it. But since the overwhelming majority of businesses are worker-owned co-operatives, there's no need. The employers are the employees. And since the people of East Hackney are its government, handing power to them can only empower them.

We understand free markets perfectly, which is why we have turned our nose up at their destructive effects and taken on a more efficient and productive method of running our economy.

The esteemed representative of East Hackney appears to have a failure to understand the fundamental principles of the free market.

Labor is a market, and as such it is subject to the forces of supply and demand. In a market where demand is low and supply is high, employers can dictate terms such as working hours, conditions, and benefits. The greater the disparity between supply and demand, the more power the employers have.

In a labor market where demand is high and supply is low, employees can dictate terms. In a nation short on electricians, f the lights go out in the corporate office, they've got to pay the electrician, or go out of business. They're going to pay.

It is the responsibility of the employer to make money. The work of their employees is a product, and the quality is directly affected by the quality of their employees. If they don't offer competitive situations (including wages, benefits, working hours, and environment) to their employees, they fail to retain quality workers, they have high turnover, and quality suffers. Customers notice, and they lose money.

It is the responsibility of the employee to make money. As such, they need to be aware of the labor market and position themselves into the high demand markets where they can command better working conditions and salaries... depending on their own ambition and effort.

The government here has only two responsibilities... protect the public from abuse (unsafe working conditions, unsafe products, ecological abuses, etc) and contribute to an environment that promotes a high-demand labor market. A high-demand market means that businesses are being created, are expanding, and are making money, so employers are happy. It also means your employees are empowered with greater bargaining power, so they are happy. Everyone is happy.

The measure under discussion does not protect the public from abuse. It does not protect individuals who work more than one full-time job, and it punishes many who entered into salaried agreements with long working hours who entered those agreements happily and of their own free will. Nor does it contribute to a high-demand labor market, since many employers will be forced to cut hours for workers but still pay them the same salaries they previously made, meaning there is no money in the budget to hire more workers to replace those lost hours. The employer will lose productivity and have the same costs, meaning they will lose money and have to relocate elsewhere. When they relocate, those jobs are lost forever.

So basically, this measure fails both tests of whether it is a government responsibility.

One is still forced to wonder why East Hackney is interested in this proposal, when East Hackney confiscates every penny its workers earn, whether they work 1 hour a week or 168.

Ah. By "understand the free market" we had assumed that Cabinia referred to how it actually functions in practice, rather than some dogmatic vision of how it ought to work.

As we've already established, the result of a free market as it actually functions is to drive standards down to a point where they become intolerable. The "bargaining power" of workers is negligible and easily undermined.

Moreoever, Cabinia does not seem to have read the proposal, since they have missed the part where it specifies its implementation in such a way that living standards do not fall.

At least Cabinia agrees that it is the task of government to protect its citizens from abuse, which is the function of this proposal. Sadly, this is not matched by Cabinia's understanding of non-capitalist economics. Our workers do not have their earnings "confiscated", they work in exchange for having their needs met. But they must still work - although our system is superior to capitalizm, it has not yet eliminated that need. So their working hours must be regulated.

The government of Cabinia actually practices a free market, and sees its real-world effects every day. We're forced to wonder how the government of East Hackney became so omniscient that it knows what its millions of individual citizens need better than they do themselves.

We haven't established that the free market drives down standards. You presented that opinion, but it is wrong. Workplace standards and living standards in free-market economies have risen consistently since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That is a fact.

Cabinia has not missed the point about guaranteeing the standard of living for workers (6. The 40 hour week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers.). In fact, this is the central reason why it will fail. I ask that my colleague from East Hackney read the analysis again, focusing on the paragraph about salaries, hours, and employer budgets.

But since the East Hackney representative does not understand capitalist markets, I will elaborate. A business has a set budget for paying employees. Under this law they will be forced to cut hours or go over their budgets. In most cases they will have to cut hours. But they will still have to pay each of their workers the same money they were previously making, under paragraph six of the measure, even though they are getting fewer hours. They get fewer man-hours for the same cost. Fewer man-hours means reduced productivity, which means reduced profits, which means reduced jobs.

East Hackney may feel its duty is to regulate working hours since it is the only employer in its country. Cabinia respects East Hackney's sovereign right to ruin its economy in any way it sees fit. But Cabinia is far from the only employer within its boundaries, and it has no right to overrule contracts negotiated and entered into freely between employers and employees. If Cabinia has not that right, East Hackney and the United Nations are well beyond their authority.

It just so happens we *are* beyond this authority, since if this body is foolish enough to pass this measure, it will not be effected within our bounds. But the obvious negative effect this measure will have on free market economies who are member states leads the government of Cabinia to believe that this is a dishonest attempt to destroy free market economies to give economically crippled socialist states an opportunity to compete, if only by dragging them down to your level.

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

We're forced to wonder how the government of East Hackney became so omniscient that it knows what its millions of individual citizens need better than they do themselves.


We haven't established that the free market drives down standards. You presented that opinion, but it is wrong. Workplace standards and living standards in free-market economies have risen consistently since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That is a fact.

Actually, there haven't been truly free-market economies in existence since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and before. Since then, governments have always set labour standards - and it's this that has improved workplace standards, not some mysterious effect of the free market that makes employers want to lose profits.


A business has a set budget for paying employees.
Nobody sets that but themselves.

Fewer man-hours means reduced productivity, which means reduced profits, which means reduced jobs.
No, reduced profits mean reduced profits. Nothing forces a company to cut jobs rather than profits except their own greed.

But Cabinia is far from the only employer within its boundaries, and it has no right to overrule contracts negotiated and entered into freely between employers and employees. If Cabinia has not that right, East Hackney and the United Nations are well beyond their authority.
There will always be, unless your country is rather bizarre, some types of restriction on what contracts can and can't be entered into. That's why you have contract law. A contract which enjoins a party to break the law is invalid. Otherwise all kinds of horrors could be perpetrated on anyone desperate enough to sign. If an employee signs a contract giving his employer the right to whip him, that contract's invalid (at least, in any sane nation it is). How is this any different?

Cabinia to believe that this is a dishonest attempt to destroy free market economies to give economically crippled socialist states an opportunity to compete, if only by dragging them down to your level.
Actually, the socialist states in question have no need to compete with non-socialist states, because they're doing rather nicely even though they have this restriction in place, and because many of them don't trade with less ethical nations.

Actually, there haven't been truly free-market economies in existence since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and before. Since then, governments have always set labour standards - and it's this that has improved workplace standards, not some mysterious effect of the free market that makes employers want to lose profits.

There were no true free markets then. In those days any corporation could build a monopoly, which is the antithesis of a free market. The government's role is to maintain a free market by protecting the people from corporate abuses... but I've said that before. Government regulation, in the rare cases where it is handled properly, is the surest guarantor of a free market.

Fewer man-hours means reduced productivity, which means reduced profits, which means reduced jobs. No, reduced profits mean reduced profits. Nothing forces a company to cut jobs rather than profits except their own greed..

Profit margins in competitive markets are rather slim. And when profits go down, stockholders lose money, and as they sell off the company loses value drastically, further damaging their ability to hire more workers. And let's not forget the damage falling stocks have on the economy. This measure will cause recessions or worse.

Actually, the socialist states in question have no need to compete with non-socialist states, because they're doing rather nicely even though they have this restriction in place, and because many of them don't trade with less ethical nations.

If "the socialist states in question" refers solely to East Hackney and Rehochipe, then we applaud their ability to maintain an economy in a political environment so hostile to it. If we're talking about socialism in general, however, a quick perusal of the alliance East Hackney and Rehochipe belong to tells a much different story. Look at the members in today's top 10 list and you find 9 out of 10 economies "Imploded." By comparison, my trade bloc of capitalist nations doesn't bear a single economy below "Good" in the top ten list.

The evidence speaks for itself.

Once again: we're very familiar with free-market theory. We're also familiar with the phlogiston theory and Ptolemy's idea that the Sun orbited the Earth, but we'd hesitate to trot out ideas that are so far from the facts.

Free-market theory just doesn't work. Consumers are never totally rational and often completely irrational. They act against their best interests and base decisions on all kinds of prejudices, half-formed thoughts and subconscious whims we still haven't fully got to grips with. And corporations are bound by law to act for short-term profit.

But, even granting the idea that free markets do work - which I don't - market theory is simply inapplicable to the labour "market".

For markets to work, there needs to be some kind of parity between buyer and seller. That's simply impossible in a capitalist setup - employers always hold all the cards. It doesn't matter how well the economy is doing - no capitalist economy has, to my knowledge, had anything close to full employment since the advent of free-market economics. The threat of unemployment is always there and will be used.

Even assuming that the economy is doing well, it's not in corporations' interests to take on too many staff - all that pesky regulation makes them hard to sack when the inevitable downturn comes, for one thing. And making too many concessions - shorter hours, higher pay, whatever - is risky too for the same reason. It's much easier and cheaper to force your existing employees to work harder.

This is observable in the real world - note the continuing "jobless recovery" in the US, where the economy is booming but unemployment is actually rising, as are average working hours.

And during an economic downturn... well, the workers are even more screwed. This "ambition and effort" business can only get you so far. A worker putting in 80-hour shifts or holding down two jobs has precious little time for evening classes, training courses or anything else that could help her find another career, for one thing.

And, secondly, every worker has a ceiling they can't reasonably go beyond. Not every stockbroker can be a CEO and not every street-sweeper can be a stockbroker. If you've reached your ceiling - whatever that is - hard work just won't get you any further and being forced to work long hours becomes a disincentive. The boss ends up being given 80 hours of shoddy, miserable, unproductive work rather than 40 hours of productive, competent work.

Moreover, if your career ceiling is low, it opens the way to exploitation. If you're relatively unskilled - our street-sweeper, say - there's often simply nowhere else to go. Now, Cabinia and its capitalist setup is free to give such an employee only 5 per cent of the wage of a stockbroker, if you want to ignore the two workers' relative usefulness. But to use that worker's vulnerability as an excuse to force him into working long hours? Justify that, if you will.

To deal with your other points: the government of East Hackney knows what its citizens need because it is made up of said citizens, whereas Cabinia's seems to be in the pockets of a handful of CEOs and demented economists.

And, yes, living standards have been (mostly) rising since the industrial revolution - in the Western world. That happened because governments were increasingly clamping down on the worst excesses of capitalism. Since the advent of free-market fundamentalism, income inequalities have been rising and standards of living falling for those at the bottom of the pile. Moreover, living standards have plummeted outside the West since Western economies have been able to use the free market to outsource their most unpleasant, dangerous and poorly paid work to the Third World, escaping the attendant pollution, crime and social unrest.

Once again: we're very familiar with free-market theory. We're also familiar with the phlogiston theory and Ptolemy's idea that the Sun orbited the Earth, but we'd hesitate to trot out ideas that are so far from the facts.

And yet, the USSR and the Eastern bloc had a capitalist revolution, China is slowly reforming to capitalism, Sweden is being swamped with debt, Cubans drive 1950's autos held together with bailing wire, and North Korea is begging for food. But it's capitalism that is unrealistic. Interesting.

Free-market theory just doesn't work. Consumers are never totally rational and often completely irrational. They act against their best interests and base decisions on all kinds of prejudices, half-formed thoughts and subconscious whims we still haven't fully got to grips with. And corporations are bound by law to act for short-term profit.

We can replace the wording there to mean government, and its still just as true. The only difference is in the scope of the harm. An individual acting irrationally hurts himself and those around him. A government behaving irrationally hurts everyone.

But, even granting the idea that free markets do work - which I don't - market theory is simply inapplicable to the labour "market".

For markets to work, there needs to be some kind of parity between buyer and seller. That's simply impossible in a capitalist setup - employers always hold all the cards. It doesn't matter how well the economy is doing - no capitalist economy has, to my knowledge, had anything close to full employment since the advent of free-market economics. The threat of unemployment is always there and will be used.

That threat, combined with the possibility of promotion and pay raise, is the edge that motivates capitalist societies into high productivity. Communism removes the necessity to perform at an acceptable level. It inspires laziness and sloppiness, since there are no rewards for good work, and no punishments for poor work.

Even assuming that the economy is doing well, it's not in corporations' interests to take on too many staff - all that pesky regulation makes them hard to sack when the inevitable downturn comes, for one thing. And making too many concessions - shorter hours, higher pay, whatever - is risky too for the same reason. It's much easier and cheaper to force your existing employees to work harder.

Solution: stop regulating so tightly. But if your business is the only one cracking the whip and making them work longer hours, your employees will start looking at your competitors.

This is observable in the real world - note the continuing "jobless recovery" in the US, where the economy is booming but unemployment is actually rising, as are average working hours.

And during an economic downturn... well, the workers are even more screwed. This "ambition and effort" business can only get you so far. A worker putting in 80-hour shifts or holding down two jobs has precious little time for evening classes, training courses or anything else that could help her find another career, for one thing.

This is why the government's job is to prevent economic downturns. Yet you sponsor a UN initiative that will create them. Besides, there is nothing in this measure that helps the guy working two jobs.

And, secondly, every worker has a ceiling they can't reasonably go beyond. Not every stockbroker can be a CEO and not every street-sweeper can be a stockbroker. If you've reached your ceiling - whatever that is - hard work just won't get you any further and being forced to work long hours becomes a disincentive. The boss ends up being given 80 hours of shoddy, miserable, unproductive work rather than 40 hours of productive, competent work.

And employers realize this, which is why they don't go around asking for 80 hours of work in free-market economies. Employees are a resource it is in their interest to protect and develop. It is in their interest to keep them happy, healthy, and focused on their work.

Moreover, if your career ceiling is low, it opens the way to exploitation. If you're relatively unskilled - our street-sweeper, say - there's often simply nowhere else to go. Now, Cabinia and its capitalist setup is free to give such an employee only 5 per cent of the wage of a stockbroker, if you want to ignore the two workers' relative usefulness. But to use that worker's vulnerability as an excuse to force him into working long hours? Justify that, if you will.

A street sweeper pushes a broom. A stock broker conducts transactions that increase and decrease wealth (generally increase) on a large scale. I see no disparity.

To deal with your other points: the government of East Hackney knows what its citizens need because it is made up of said citizens, whereas Cabinia's seems to be in the pockets of a handful of CEOs and demented economists.

I did not realize the representative of East Hackney was a qualified psychologist who has taken the time to fully examine the mental state of each of Cabinia's leading economists. Perhaps this explains why he is so poorly trained in economics. You are out of your element.

Cabinia is a "hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 277 million enjoy extensive civil freedoms, particularly in social issues, while business tends to be more regulated." Clearly you are wrong about us being "in the pockets of a handful of CEOs." CEOs in Cabinia watch their step. Cabinia has a habit of treating corporate crimes as if they were civil ones... embezzling 10 billion herpes from a corporation is treated as if they broke into the homes of the stockholders to steal it.

We invite the representative of East Hackney to do some research next time before he says such things about Cabinia, to avoid looking foolish in public in the future.

And, yes, living standards have been (mostly) rising since the industrial revolution - in the Western world. That happened because governments were increasingly clamping down on the worst excesses of capitalism. Since the advent of free-market fundamentalism, income inequalities have been rising and standards of living falling for those at the bottom of the pile. Moreover, living standards have plummeted outside the West since Western economies have been able to use the free market to outsource their most unpleasant, dangerous and poorly paid work to the Third World, escaping the attendant pollution, crime and social unrest. - Income inequalities are not the same as standards of living. Income inequalities may have increased, but the basic standard of living for the poor has consistently improved in industrialized, free-market nations. The poor have more, the rich have simply gotten more faster.

And now that we've had a discussion on socialism vs capitalism that has very little to do with the issue at hand...

while i agree with your idea in principle, it is not clear what impact this will have on charitable work - eg working in a charity shop like oxfam. You talk about voluntary work, and the implication is that this is classed as overtime style voluntary work. However, i would like to clear this matter up.

Does this voluntary clause class paid work for charitable organisations, ie work not as part of an official paid job, as 'voluntary work to be paid at time and a half'?

If this is the case, then i will be forced to vote against your resolution, as it will impose impossible financial restrictions on group that cannot afford to pay these wages. However, if this is not the case, then you have my vote.

Grand Teton

1) It does not cover at all industries that need to operate 24 hours a day.

For economic reasons these have to be allowed to have workers who sometimes work more that 40 hours a week.

You didn't read the proposal, did you? Or did you miss the part about voluntary overtime? Besides, there is a simple solution, even if nobody wants to work overtime. Hire more workers.

Yes I DID read it.

It states that anyone working over 40 hours a week has to have the extra paid at a minimum of "time and a half".

That is crap.

A well ordered work roster of twelve hour shifts (2 day shifts, 2 night shifts followed by 4 days off) means that employers can cover a 24 hour work pattern and at the same time give their staff sensible work breaks.

This entails working more than 40 hours some weeks and less in others.

Also, where is working over 40 hours a week OVERTIME, that is NOT mentioned in the motion so I would suggest that you haven't read it.

A worker gets paid an ANNUAL SALARY and should have their working week calculated over the same ANNUAL period.

My nation's Powerhouse economy will be damaged by such a proposal. We will not support it.

OOC: I'm new to this game, and do any of you know if there's been a UN proposal that hasn't passed?

While the government of Avanc-Tor lauds the intent of the 40 Hour Workweek proposal currently before this august body, we can not support it for the following reasons:

1) It is invasive: This proposal, more than any other we in Avanc-Tor have ever seen, actually legislates activity for all of our citizens specifically and directly. It is not saying, for example, that all nations will provide reasonable working hours, and offering guidance as to what is defined as reasonable for a given type of job. It is saying that NO job can be more than 40 hours a week ("No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week..."). Only the worker can decide to work more. We feel that the United Nations does not have the authority to dictate national policy in this manner. More to the point, we feel that the UN does not have the authority to dictate to our business and industry in this manner.

2) Again addressing the first point, ("No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week..."), we point out that we have several industries which require working longer hours, and others that require longer workweeks due to the nature of the job. Almost every small and medium sized business requires some of it's employees (often, owner-managers and the like) to work longer hours than 40 hours per week, and sometimes even more than 80. Our government is not going to dictate working hour policy to these individuals, except to establish time and a half laws for hired, salaried employees. Furthermore, we also must recognize that there are some jobs that will occasionally require employees to work long hours to meet specific business required deadlines. These businesses can not function effectively if it is the employee, not the employer, who can determine when overtime is required.

3) Employees in the following fields are often required to work over 40 hours in routine circumstances: Farmers, Police, Emergency Medical personnel, Medical personnel, Fire department personnel (and others, depending on the circumstances). In all of these cases, routine circumstances require the workers to "work until the job is done" and many local budgets can not afford to carry "back-up" personnel to fill in for those individuals who finish there 40 hours "early" and decline to cover a regularly assigned shift.

4) In regards to Point 3 in the resolution ("No one may be contractually obligated to remain on the worksite without pay."), this is already illegal in Avanc-Tor, and probably in all other UN nations as well, as we already have strong laws against slavery.

5) As to point 5 ("On call hours shall count against the 40 hour limit."), this is flatly unworkable. Again, many jobs (both in the public service sector and outside of it) can not afford to loose expert supervisory personnel when they are required to cover the 16 hours of "On-Call" these personnel incur, sometimes more than once per week. For example, one local health department has three doctors who need to be on call for 5 nights and one full weekend... a total of 128 hours a week. In other words, assuming they volunteered to work regular hours at all, part or all of their regular hours would need to be paid at time and one half.
If the intent of this law is only to cover "Call-In" hours, than the proposal is ambiguous and should be withdrawn. But even if "Call-In" hours are what is meant here, than the proposal again requires employers to make arrangements to have additional staff on hand in the event that a supervisor is in fact called in to deal with an unforeseen problem.
Common business practice in Avanc-Tor is to pay a call in bonus for individuals when they are in fact called in, and also to pay time and one half for hours worked over 40 for all hourly and some classes of salaried employees.

Any one of the above points would be enough for the government of Avanc-Tor to reject this proposal. When taken together, it is enough to prompt our resignation (if it passes) from the United Nations. Again, we applaud the intent to prevent the abuse of employees by greedy, callous, or uncaring employers, but we STRONGLY feel that this is NOT the bill to do this.

Out of curosity

did the person who created this resolution copy if from UK law, this as i understand it is about the current state of UK employment practices

We of the Order From Chaos heartily approve of this resoultion as it allows people to choose how long they should work, but prevents them from expolotation

Though we note that without, similar laws on mimuim wages for living standrard those on small wages will be forced to work long hours in order to have a resonable standard of living.




(sorry if this has been said before)

Greetings from the great Libertarian nation of Liberabiteria, and the wonderful region of The Pitstop! As rightfully elected delegate of our region, UN member, and spokesperson of our country, I have prepared this statement:

We cannot comprehend why somone thousands of miles away from our great country would want to control our labor?! Some occupations are more demanding than others, and some workers like to work extra hours. In our nation, we provide for a 40 hour workweek already, and provide for double pay for those that work beyond that, but we do not cap the amount of hours one may work. We find it wrong to potentially cause a business to not meet demands because of controlling laws. We also find it wrong to tell a worker that he cannot work more hours, even if he wants to, because some people that have never heard of Liberabiteria decided it was in his best interest.

We propose that this resolution before the United Nations be defeated. We propose that we allow our people to make their own decisions, and not act as babysitters.


Based upon this, it is my duty and obligation to use my delegatory vote against this anti-individual freedom resolution. I also urge other members to do the same. Think of your own people, instead of everyone else's.


Ambassador General to the United Nations, Sal Santana

I'm actually quite frightened at the thought of a self-proclaimed Anarchy trying to pass a law that forces others to follow their beliefs.

To my horror, this is what is happening right now.

I'm actually quite frightened at the thought of a self-proclaimed Anarchy trying to pass a law that forces others to follow their beliefs.

To my horror, this is what is happening right now.

HEAR! HEAR!

Yes. Here in Islands and Cities, we have provisions for a maximum 40 hours of work per week without overtime pay. Overtime pay is double normal hourly wages. There are also provisions in our law that allow for contacts that have by-the-part or by-the-basket requirements rather than hourly requirements (Like someone must pick 40 baskets of berries a week. They may pick more for the overtime payments.) 'Baskets' and 'hours' are interchangable (Depending on industry, may be different amount of parts/baskets. Used 40 as example.) Also, this will allow private corporations to simply move jobs out of the UN and will hurt worldwide economies.

So, in conclusion, I have come to this:

I. This will hurt the employee
A. He will very likely lose his job
B. He may not be able to 'make ends meet' because he cannot work as much as he needs to.

II. This will hurt the employer
A. He must pay to lose profits and business or
B. He must pay to move operations to a non UN base

III. This will hurt the nations
A. Companies will move out of the UN to pay less for longer work
B. People will get angry at the government and may revolt.

IV. It will hurt the United Nations itself
A. Some nations may leave in order to have the longer work week
B. Some nations may leave to ensure that the UN does not hold this much power over them

President Lunphi
New Philadelphia
Federation of Islands and Cities
Former Sovatecan Empire

I cannot see why the U.N is supposed to levy the majority's political views upon the rest of the world. Siadinia is not opposed to the principle against slavery, but we are certainly opposed of this being forced upon us from a resolution. These things should come forth from the nations themselves.

In addition, this resolution barrs anyone who actually -wants- to work more than 80 hours. It spesifically says that even if it is volentarily, you are not allowed to be payed for your work. How is this fair? How can anyone support that kind of heavy handed undemocratic and forceful approach to thread a 'i know better than you' attitude down our nations' head?

"Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week."

To any who have not read it, it gives no room for working more than 80 hours a week -under any circumstances- but -national emerganzies-. This resolution -outlaws- all an employee getting payed for doing work. It is madness.

The Emirate opposes this resolution because

1.) It is undemocratic: the citizens of Siadinia has had no say in this resolution which affects in detail, their day to day lives, in which we do not conceed the United Nations to have any authority on.
2.) It goes against our nation's political freedom, to vote for or against such direct infrigment described in 1.)
3.) It goes against civic rights of our nation's citizens, making it in effect illegal to work and get payed more than 80 hours a week.
4.) It does not take into account 12 hour shift jobs, in which you work 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off, such as offshore oil industry. It does not take into account supervisory positions, such as CEO's.

In closing, this resolution opens up a an unacceptable standard for what the United Nations is supposed to do. It is -not- a tool for detail governing of individual nations. It is -not- a tool to impose political opinions upon the rest of the world society.

In its current form, or even in any form, I call it a shame, and a disgrace. And if this resolution passes, I, with the power invested in me as the President, will hold a nation wide referendum on wether to remain in the United Nations, or withdraw. The last two resolutions have made me doubt the wisdom of the Parliament when it voted for joining the United Nations.

Anyone who is truly that dedicated to their job can take some work home to do in their spare time - not that they'll have any. Here is the math on an 80 hour workweek...

Yet is a government solely in charge of, and able to regulate, the lives of all its citizens? The most important concept is that of free choice, free will. Government shall serve to protect and guide, not demand and limit. The United Nations and its member nations need to vote agianst this proposed resolution. We need to act as stewards and protectors, not dictators and kings.

Every citizen in all the great member nations of the U.N. should have the advantage, no, the right to specify how they live every aspect of their life, including their workweek. Some citizens may wish to work extra hours for montary or ethical reasons, while some may choose to work less as they deem fit. A set schedule of work will be nothing but a means to the end of economic downturn and personal freedom. If we limit hours in a workweek now, we may as well limit what type of job an inidviual may obtain.


We think 80 hours is enough...

But do your people?

If this resoltion gets passed, we are going to declare a state of emergency according to Paragraph 7 of the resolution.

We are recommending all other market-economic orientated countries who oppose this overregulation to do the same.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

sorry... no way i can vote yes for that, as a free market capitalist, i believe the company is free to set the number of hours, and the worker is allowed to quit whenever they want.

There are lots and lots of reasons in favor of a 40 hour workweek, as seen in this forum. So, make sure you use those arguments in your nations legislation.

NONE of the arguments have ANYTHING to do with why this is something the UN should be occupied with. This is TOP of the 'none of the UN business list' and should be voted AGAINST.

Be aware, that UN is not 'misused' to handle issus that individual nations can handle themselves just fine. There is NO reason why all the nations should eventually be exactly the same, it's a misuse of centralised power.
Regulations have much more acceptence if people have local influence.

This is an outrage. How can the U.N defend this kind of misuse of its resolution giving powers?

Its undemocratic, and it's an abuse of the U.Ns guidlines. The U.N has no buisiness detailing these kind of national regulations. It will upset whole societies.

And yet, the USSR and the Eastern bloc had a capitalist revolution, China is slowly reforming to capitalism, Sweden is being swamped with debt, Cubans drive 1950's autos held together with bailing wire, and North Korea is begging for food. But it's capitalism that is unrealistic. Interesting.

Attacking the straw men of non-socialist dictatorships is hardly the best way to make your case.

That threat, combined with the possibility of promotion and pay raise, is the edge that motivates capitalist societies into high productivity. Communism removes the necessity to perform at an acceptable level. It inspires laziness and sloppiness, since there are no rewards for good work, and no punishments for poor work.

Hmm. Stick to capitalism, at least you know something about it. But you're tying yourself in knots here. First you say that workers are free to switch jobs, then you admit that the constant threat of unemployment exists - when that threat is precisely why workers don't have the "market freedom" you think they do.

And employers realize this, which is why they don't go around asking for 80 hours of work in free-market economies.

Check your facts. Free-market economies lead inevitably to soaring working hours.

A street sweeper pushes a broom. A stock broker conducts transactions that increase and decrease wealth (generally increase) on a large scale. I see no disparity.

You're ducking the issue. The question is how you can justify using the former's economic vulnerability to force him into working long hours, which is what will inevitably happen under a deregulated economy.

To deal with your other points: the government of East Hackney knows what its citizens need because it is made up of said citizens, whereas Cabinia's seems to be in the pockets of a handful of CEOs and demented economists.

We called Cabinia's economists "demented" because they claim to believe in regulation while constantly denying its effectiveness and proclaiming the virtues of the free market. We therefore diagnosed some form of mild psychosis.

I agree with Siadinia. I also agree with Vrydom. Th UN should NOT have this kind of power over people's lives. The UN is for INTERNATIONAL stuff, not DOMESTIC stuff. This is a violation of the Constitution of the Federation of Islands and Cities. We will either have to get a 3/4 vote of the populace to amend it out of the Constitution, or a 51% vote to leave the United Natons.

Which do you think will happen?

We are all for the 40 hour work week, just not with such flaws. And why has there been no argument to my outline? Maybe there is no argument, hmm?

President Lunphi
New Philadelphia
Federation of Islands and Cities
Former Sovatecan Empire

This proposal is a terrible example of nations trying to force their culture and laws on others. This is far too restrictive on national law and has nothing at all to do with international law. This kind of resolution is entirely outside what the UN is meant to control and shows huge intolerance towards other countries' laws and economic systems.

This has plenty to do with international law. It's about basic human rights, and as such definitely falls into the UN's province. If this was about the rights of employers to whip their employees, would there be this much fuss?

All the arguments I've seen against it have been shot down, wherupon they get repeated again - and people are still referring to the document as being 'full of flaws' when their concerns have been addressed. I'm increasingly convinced that most of the cons are just trying to find excuses to keep exploiting their workforce.

I don't know how this game is made up, and if - as in real life - will we see a rush of capital outflow to countries that have lesser rules on this. Which would in this case be non-UN countries.

In that case this proposal will lead to a rushed transformation of the business structures. More accurately there will be a lock on the door for labour-intensive businesses. At least in the short run this will lead to increased unemployment. In the long run the businesses may be able to adopt more capital intensive businesses. This will depend on the willingness from the government to allow earnings on capital. If not, private enterprises will not invest their capital in the UN-countries. Unemployment may also stay in the long run no matter what.
1. Because capital-intensive employment more often needs to be skilled, which means less jobs for unskilled workers - and there will always be some of those.
2. More capital-intensive enterprises means more capital per job. The same amount of capital will therefore lead to fewer avaiable jobs.

Of course non-privat enterprise countries seemingly won't have to deal with these problemes as they don't have profit as a goal. But their total value added in the economy will still count. Such countries cannot compete on the international market, and will therefore not be able to gain from the fact that different countries are good and efficient in producing different goods - as they will not engange in trade (no export means no possibility to import). This will obviously slow the growth potential, and the possibility to maximize utility for the individuals in the country.

Especially bad is this because there is no way to work around this legislation in terms of agreements between local or national unions and businesses.

For the economy of the UN-countries, this could be a serious blow. And that blow will effect the poorest countries most - as it is often those who in the first place will have the most labour-intensive productions.

So this is a huge blow for the poor countries of the world.

Please vote no.

Our concerns where not adressed: It is an infiltration in national souvereignity. We would respect minimum standards (like e.g. the 80 hour maximum). We would even be ready to compromise on this number. But 40 hours is simply to short. Some countries are having 6 labour days (like ours): We need flexible regulations, due to the fact that not all UN countries are developed economies. We need to take into account that many people want to work longer, that many sectors have to work longer (scientist or also state servants (such laws have been passed in some european countries to reduce the costs of personal). We are rejecting that.

We are maintaining our argument that is is not an issue for the UN to decide.
We think that the UN should act according to the subsidary principle: meaning: any discission which can be done on a local, regional or national level should be done there, and only actions which need to be solved on the international level should be settled and decided there. We see no need what so ever to regulate this issue on the international level.

The proposed resolution those harm to all member states because they become less competitive towards other members. Some nations face a demographic development which means that they are having a shortage of workers and need therefore to exceed working hours. This resolution would make working cost which are already high in those countries even higher and would make them less competitive on the market. The resolution is a JOB KILLER in UN member states and supports the exports of jobs in NON-UN-member states who have free labour laws.

The UN is destroying itself by passing such resolutions. They would become more and more a left-wing and socialist playing field and more and more conservative and liberal countries would leave the UN. The UN would become even more irrelevant than it is today (only a minority of states are UN members). It is our will to have a strong UN which increases the number of its members, which is truly representative for all nations, regardless of their form of government: whether their are conservative, liberal, moralistic, capitalist, islamist, socialist, comunist or whatsoever. But in order to reach that the UN must stop to produce so many resolutions and must focus on the important issues of global politics. We think that if the UN supports free-market economies and free trade it would become a very effective organisation. Change, dialogue and cooperation between countries are created via trade. But in order to do that the UN should not impose so many restrictions and regulations. In contary. It should remove the obstacles to trade.

This resolution does the contary. It creates obstacles, harms our economies and makes the UN less attractive for its own members to remain in it and for other states to join it.

We are therefore recommending all nations to vote against this resolution.

It would be a desaster if it gets passed.
If that happens we would declare an indefinite state of emergency (according to article 7 of this proposed resolution) in order to avoid inplementing it. We recommend all market-economies in the UN to do the same if that should happen.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, founder and regional delegate of the free-trade region Futura


P.S. We would like to welcome new members: free market economies are welcomed to join.

and the worker is allowed to quit whenever they want.

Yes, the worker is allowed to quit whenever he wants... if he is prepared to starve because he cannot get another job. The threat of unemployment always remains the capitalist trump card against worker demands.

OOC: As has been said before, the vast majority of nations in NS are puppets, and puppets cannot join the UN.

40 hours, sounds good, but sleep is also an important issue.

As opposed to dogma, let's take a real life example of how a free trade area can affect workers, the NAFTA. NAFTA is actually rather interesting, just showing what a true "free trade" area can really do to workers. Before the agreement was signed, the US government promised that the NAFTA would create 200,000 new American jobs would be created, all through the wonders of free trade. Four years later, the US government conceded that only 1,500 new jobs have been generated by the agreement, while 204,000 had been lost as a direct result of its implementation.

But this is not because the jobs were just moved down to Mexico. Between 1993 and 1997, unemployment rose by 2 million in Mexico, and wages fell by around 29%. NAFTA enabled big business to expand the scale of its operations. Companies were taken over by US firms, plants were merged and shut down, and any workforce which refused to accept the harsher terms the expanding corporations offered were told that the corporation would just take its business elsewhere. In Mexico alone, the agreement resulted in the destruction of 28,000 small firms within four years of the treaty's execution.

It's all too easy to call regulation "red tape", but regulation is all that stops companies from dumping their costs onto society. If car manufacturers are not prevented from attaching bull bars to the front of their vehicles, more children hit by cars will die. If pollution control measures are abandoned, the environment will be destroyed. Deregulation can become a subsidy for careless or greedy companies. Take this example: In 1996 the British government's Health and Safety Executive, charged with enforcing health and safety laws in workspaces and prosecuting those employers who neglect health and safety legislation, instructed its inspectors to reduce their prosecutions of companies putting workers at risk. The Conservatives had repeatedly slashed the HSE's budget, and this new advice resulted in a 25% decline in enforcement notices in 1997. Unsuprisingly, this cut in regulation was accompanied with a 20% rise in deaths and serious injuries in the workplace - the first time it had risen in decades. It seems, therefore, that there is a direct relationship between the vigour with which companies are prosecuted for endangering their workforce and the number of workers killed or maimed. If companies are treated gently, then it seems that workers are treated harshly.

But due to the massive power of multinational corporations nowadays, what governments do nowadays may not be in the best interests of the people. It should, of course, seek to address the fears of the people who elected them against the machinations of these powerful multinationals, but alas, it is not the case. Big business people have the ear of government, with their wealth and power, and the electorate are hard pressed to find a party in many western nations that would stand up for the workers rather than the businesses. Capitalist nations can no longer make these laws on their own; the multinationals with their vast power can threaten to go elsewhere, and hold a government to ransom. Some people would call what many corporations are doing blackmail. A worldwide limit needs to be set, to prevent this happening and to stop worker's hours from tumbling ever upwards, as seems to be the trend in the neo-liberal economies.

This is not a double post.

40 hours, sounds good, but sleep is also an important issue.

Tobias stands up and clears his throat slightly.

"40 Hours a week comes out at, if you use a 5 day week, 8 hours a day of work. If you have, say, 10 hours of sleep, then the worker has 6 hours of free time in which to do whatever he wants, plus two whole days of rest. (Note: this is only if you have a 5 day week. The resolution makes no mention of how the 40 hours are to be spread out, so you are not limited to a 5 day week, just a 40 hour working week.)"

"Our neo-liberal friends seem to forget something - man is not a machine. A human being deserves more than merely getting up, working, eating, and going to bed. Do you really think that that is a life worth living? How can you "better yourself" if you've had to work till you drop? Maybe this will cut into corporate profits, but are we not forgetting what government, nay society is for?"

"Governments are not for corporations, they are for everyone, for their happiness, which the mere drudge and alienation of work does not provide. The economy is means to an end, the happiness of the people, not an end in itself, as some of you seem to claim, with your eyes on the profits. In many modern capitalist cultures, people are becoming stressed and unhappy as working hours are slowly jacked up and workloads increase, and people have no time for any form of contentment."

"Ask yourself this: if such a massively profitable economy means that people are stressed and unhappy, is it really that good? "All-Consuming" means just that - it takes up all of your time, it becomes an obsession. Obsessions are rarely healthy."

"Friends, Delegates, vote yes. It is time to remember that we are not machines, not mere figures on a balance sheet, not mere resources, we are people, people who want, nay need, the right to some contentment!"

Tobias sits back down, and takes a sip of water... well, a clear liquid, anyway.

Esteemed colleagues it seems to me that there are too distinctive trains of thought in this debate. The first being that the UN has no right in making policy with regard to a sovereign nations labour policies. Secondly, by passing this resolution the UN will be creating a two-tier labour market where non-UN members will have a competitive advantage because they have less regulation.

If I may, I will start with the second point since the first is related. We do not feel that by passing this resolution the global labour market will become two tired, simply because there will be socio-economic consequence to this resolution. The exact opposite will indeed happen. Nations whose labour policies are poorer than UN members, will inevitably be faced by workforces wanting to know why they are being disadvantaged compared to their UN member counterparts.

The longer non-UN members refuse to bring their policies in line, the worse their cries will get. Simply put why should a worker work longer hours in one nation when is colleague doing the same job in another works less. If I were that worker, I would want an explanation. If non-members do not bring their policies in line with the UN, they will ultimately face mass industrial action and on top of that a mass exodus of highly qualified individuals leaving to work in member states. Facing with this prospect non-member governments will have little choice to bring their policies in line, unless they want to see their economies severely crippled.

The fact is our economies exist in a global market place and as much as we would like to think that they exist independently of each other, we all rely on each other. This I feel does make this resolution a very international concern. It is the first step in improving the labour policies around the world. The world labour markets will be far more flexible than before because employees will now have a benchmark by which they compare the good employers to the bad ones. Employers will have to ‘sell’ themselves to employees based on working conditions and benefits in order to attract the best employees. This will lead to better and better conditions for workers as time passes and more productive workers for employers. There is however, a real challenge for government in all this, as expectations of employers grow, government will have to meet the increasing demands of education from the commercial sector.

OOC “The RL world economy already has quite a number of these regulations in place. For example the EU has far stricter working time regulation, which includes holiday, evening work to minimum wages in member states. Couple that with working time policy of the US you have a large proportion of the world synergising their labour practices. Bilateral labour agreements exist in the Asian world also and recent trading agreements between Asia, Europe and the US often involve discussion on labour policies. For example in Japan laws now exist covering aspects such minimum wages, the rights of part-time workers etc. The days where nations compete on the ability to produce the cheapest goods alone are gone. We now also compete on productivity, living standards and social thinking, which includes labour policy.”

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia.

Kamquin Dakar, Minister for Trade and Industry, rises to applaud the delegate from the Weegies.

What is all of this talk about having this resolution passsed?
Sure most un members are liberals but not all!
There are those countries that wish thier work week to be longer than 40hrs.
Please I beg of,those who can hear my plea, do not let this resolution pass.
It would hurt my country and many others I presume.

The Mighty Armed Republic of Satanic Silver Ninja disregard the comments made by all UN representatives and declare this resolution bupkis! The number 40 is so unnessarily low. People with low paying jobs might need to work more hours to make money. Plus I'd rather have an exhausted qualified doctor perform surgery on me, than the medical industry having to hire more people who just happen to obtained their degrees in the Phillipines after 4 trys!

The people of my nation have taken protests to the streets, and with a gang of Ninja, its bound to turn ugly. They too see their Ninja training decreasing and refuse to put in less than 60 hours a week with their dojo master.

This resolution should not be passed, by the sacred gold statue of our mighty leader, I swear it! Keeeeeeyaaaaaaah!!

I yield the floor, Wa-SAI!

The Mighty Armed Republic of Satanic Silver Ninja disregard the comments made by all UN representatives and declare this resolution bupkis! The number 40 is so unnessarily low. People with low paying jobs might need to work more hours to make money. Plus I'd rather have an exhausted qualified doctor perform surgery on me, than the medical industry having to hire more people who just happen to obtained their degrees in the Phillipines after 4 trys!

The people of my nation have taken protests to the streets, and with a gang of Ninja, its bound to turn ugly. They too see their Ninja training decreasing and refuse to put in less than 60 hours a week with their dojo master.

This resolution should not be passed, by the sacred gold statue of our mighty leader, I swear it! Keeeeeeyaaaaaaah!!

I yield the floor, Wa-SAI!

@honourable UN Ambassador HM Government of Telidia Miss Lydia Cornwall,

in all due respect: we have to disagree with your argument because it is completly false.

"The longer non-UN members refuse to bring their policies in line, the worse their cries will get. Simply put why should a worker work longer hours in one nation when is colleague doing the same job in another works less. If I were that worker, I would want an explanation. If non-members do not bring their policies in line with the UN, they will ultimately face mass industrial action and on top of that a mass exodus of highly qualified individuals leaving to work in member states. Facing with this prospect non-member governments will have little choice to bring their policies in line, unless they want to see their economies severely crippled."

First of all: highly qualified workers get high payment for their work everywhere. Secondly: very often those workers want to work more because their job is more than job for them; it is a passion for them to do their work and they want to work longer in order to earn more.

But this is just a tiny minority of the workforce. There are a lot of unqualified workers and medium qualified workers. Their is an international market for capital and companies and a freedom of movement for them but (generally spoken) not for work. Every nation has and maintains the right how it handels the issue of immigration, but after all: all nations are somehow restricting it. That is the real world. So: except a very, very tiny faction of very, very highly qualified workers, there is not such a market. Therefore we maintain our argument that we would see tremendous damage for UN members and advantages for UN members, who are already having lower social standards. The consequence would be that more companies would leave our nation and move the production facilities over there. The effect would be a tremendous loss of job and economic strength for all market-economic orientated UN members.



"The RL world economy already has quite a number of these regulations in place. For example the EU has far stricter working time regulation, which includes holiday, evening work to minimum wages in member states. Couple that with working time policy of the US you have a large proportion of the world synergising their labour practices. Bilateral labour agreements exist in the Asian world also and recent trading agreements between Asia, Europe and the US often involve discussion on labour policies. For example in Japan laws now exist covering aspects such minimum wages, the rights of part-time workers etc. The days where nations compete on the ability to produce the cheapest goods alone are gone. We now also compete on productivity, living standards and social thinking, which includes labour policy.”

We: I cannot comment on all this issues. But I can tell you something. Competition is not only about wages but also about wages (or salaries). The question for a company always is: where can i make the most profit. High-cost countries like the west european countries therefore have a very technicised production, because labour is so expansive. The company are forced to make rationalisation investments: meaning: replace workers by modern machines. The result is unemployment, which would be lower if the costs for work (especially unqualified work) would be lower. You can see that if you look to different european countries. Britain has a much lower unemployment than overregulated France.

Regarding minimum wage: we reject this: either you are setting it to high: the result is a black-labour market: or you are setting it lower than the minimum wage on the market- than it has no effect.
By the way: even the overregulated country Germany doesn´t have a law regarding minimum wages. There isn´t. However: Due to Germany´s high social welfare and unemployment support people are not ready to go to work for a low payment. This is also a reason for the high unemployment in this country: Too much social welfare which is causing people rather to take the welfare than to work for a low-paid job. They rather work in the black market than, which is at present the sector of the german economy with the highest growth rate. We recommend the UN not to make the mistakes of France, Germany or other countries of the real work. Only a strong economy can provide social security. Countries who want to develop their economies need the advantage of flexible labour hours. Don´t destroy that by passing this resolution.

Sincerely yours


Marc Smith, president of the republic of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura



P.S. If you want to join the free-market region Futura or you are having questions about it send me a telegram

The High Council of the Allied States of DragonIV greatly applauds the speech of Marc Smith of Kybernetia and all others who defend the right of soveignity in our great nations.

The UN's sole purpose, when instantiated (guess what industry I'm from, haha), was to reduce the future likelyhood of worldwide war. How it evolved to a body of wishy-washy lovey-doveys that wish to impose their rule across the whole that is this world, I'll never know.


Please join all of our esteemed colleagues and vote this resolution down!

Sincerley,

Fang Aldersoot
Defense Minister for Allied States of DragonIV
Defense Coordinator for Dragon region

Imposing this standard as a maximum regulation ignores the fact that many nations are not economically developed. It also ignores the fact that there are underprivileged families in developed nations who must work more than 40 hours a week in order to make ends meet.

Some choose to work longer hours in order to achieve a level of living that cannot be achieved by working only 40 hours.

As proposed, this rule also will prevent those who are self-motivated achievers from pursuing their chosen objectives freely and without fear of frustrating regulatory interference.

The proposal should be amended so that no individual may be forced or coerced to work more than 40 hours a week but which will allow individuals to do so voluntarily of their own choosing.

The proposal already does this.

It's frustrating that so many complaints appear to be about the denial of indivduals' rights to work over forty hours a week. The resolution does nothing of the sort; it only sets a ceiling at eighty hours.

Some nations have provided thought-provoking explanations for voting against this resolution (though none have persuaded us to do so) but this line of reasoning is tiresome and spurious.

John Boone
Speaker for Rights and Wellbeing

Implementing this 40 hour work week will severly hinder the people of my country to be able to work when they want to. The people of my country pride themselves on being able to work 80 to 100 work weeks for little pay and a good spot in ocean for a burial. It would also devastate my countries economy with out my willing workers to support big business my country will lose billions a year.

Wottsamottadelphia wrote "The proposal should be amended so that no individual may be forced or coerced to work more than 40 hours a week but which will allow individuals to do so voluntarily of their own choosing."

and because the motion can't be amended you should reject the motion

"It's frustrating that so many complaints appear to be about the denial of indivduals' rights to work over forty hours a week. The resolution does nothing of the sort; it only sets a ceiling at eighty hours."

It is infringing the right of sovereign states to regulate this thing by themselves. Even most european countries don´t have such tight restrictions (France has, but even the notorious and overregulated Germany doesn´t have such tight regulations).
We are willing to accept minimum standards like a restriction to a maximum of 80 hours. But we don´t accept maximum standard like this. 40 hours as maximum standard work time is simply to little. In my country the people are working on six days at least 8 hours a day. So the average working time is 48 hours. The limit to 40 hours is outrageous and would tremendously harm our economy. We do not accept that the resolution intrudes in the SOVEREIGN right of EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES to decide bilateral about the payment, by imposing how much more should be paid for overtime (it says at least 50% more). Even in the most regulated states in Europe such issues are not given by the state: they are negotiated between employer and employees.
Such issue is neither an issue for a national government to decide about in our view. We respect that other may disagree. But it is certainly not for the UN to decide about that. The UN covers all kind of nations: developed, underdeveloped and emerging markets. Therefore the UN can just set minimum standards and not maximum standards.

This resolutions goes far beyond a minimum standard. It is overregulating the labour market and it takes away the principle of nation states to decide about such details by themselves according to their own needs and their own opinion. Therefore I´´m asking all nations to vote NO.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Some nations have provided thought-provoking explanations for voting against this resolution (though none have persuaded us to do so) but this line of reasoning is tiresome and spurious.

John Boone
Speaker for Rights and Wellbeing

Ilcaris seriously do not care about the 40 hour max, nor do we care at all about the one and a half for over time pay. We already -have- these laws, in which over time is payed by one and a half times regular pay.

What we -do- care about, is that it is the United Nations that is forcing this resolution, rather than the individual nations. We also care that the roof is 80 hours, and that the resolution -already- has stated taht no one can be forced to work over time any other way than volentarily. This means that if people -want- to work more than 80 hours, they are banned. The United Nations tells the Ilcarisian people that they are not allowed to work when they want.

The United Nations tells -my- people that if they work more than 80 hours, then the employers are not allowed to pay them. It is down right horrendious.

Ilcaris will create a new state of emergency upon this resolution is passed: Economical Overtime Emergency. In this state (which will remain in place until this idiotic resolution is withdrawn), the regular Ilcarisian laws will be in place instead.

The Emirate of Ilcaris is deeply disturbed by the direction the United Nations have taken. The United NAtions is by this resolution alianating large numbers of member states, creating huge frictions, and opening for countries, such as my own. who belive in the rule of law, to -evade- resolutions because they are so severely disrupting.





OOC: The thing people forget when pointing at european states' regulations on work time, is that these were developed by unions, not by the states themselves. They also forget that these regulations are -flexible-, which this resolution is not. I consider myself a liberal; I prefer higher taxes to high poverty rates, I prefer that important industries (such as the medical) is owned by the state. This doesn't mean that I in any way would ever accept this kind of law to be passed in my country. The law would tell me that I can't work as long as I want, that I can't get -payed- if I -chose- to work long hours.

Tobias stands up again, shaking his head slightly.

"My, my. I think I shall propose a resolution that makes reading the proposal thoroughly before jumping in and making comments about it mandatory. The amount of, and let me be brutally honest in the best Weegie fashion here, utter rubbish that is pouring forth from those who merely saw the title and now squawk like headless chickens is, without a doubt, amazing."

"If the delegates would actually care to read the resolution, they would see that work up to a limit of 80 hours is actually declared in the resolution, if the worker wishes to do so voluntarily. The 40 hours comes from the amount of work that is not considered overtime. So, those ninjas could train for 60 hours if they wanted to, and hey, nothing's preventing them from training on their own free time if they so wish, and the other countries could all have workers working for longer than 40 hours - if the workers chose to do so and they were paid accordingly."

"And I wonder about the delegate who mentioned that workers in his country work up to 100 hours a day. I would hate to live in a country where I was expected to work an average of over 14 hours per day - that's not even enough time to get the recommended 10 hours of sleep per day. I wonder how a country can even function with such overworked workers, as that much overwork will undoubtedly lead to unhappiness, harmful stress, and lethargy from tiredness, and that of course leads to an unproductive workforce. If that delegate's country doesn't lower the working week, it will undoubtedly collapse - in a country as overworked as that, something has to give. And it will, mark my words. The workers in my nation rebelled and called strikes - which were illegal at that time - after harsh working hours back in the 1900's, and those hours were less than those you give there. But that's the price you pay for excessive greed, I suppose."

Tobias shruggs his shoulders, shakes his head and sits down.

If non-members do not bring their policies in line with the UN, they will ultimately face mass industrial action and on top of that a mass exodus of highly qualified individuals leaving to work in member states. Facing with this prospect non-member governments will have little choice to bring their policies in line, unless they want to see their economies severely crippled.

I've already left the UN because this issue will pass. But the fact of the matter is that this will not happen, at least in the Federation of Rymenia.

All citizens of Rymenia have been implanted with computer chips in their brains which kill them instantly if they attempt to leave the nation's borders.

Any attempts to disable or remove the chips also result in death. Occasionally we have citizens who bump their heads and die, but we feel that this is a small price to pay to ensure that they can't work in your crazy, left-wing communist utopia.

We of Rymenia encourage other nations who are also leaving the UN in droves to implant similar devices in the brains of their citizenry in order to help cripple the economies of these UN member-nations misguided enough to believe that this is a.) a good idea, and b.) something the UN can regulate.

Fortunately, these member-nations are doing enough to cripple thier own economies, and not much help may be required.

If any country wishes to implement the use of these devices, and does not wish to commit the capital needed for research and development, our economy has got these chips down to a fine art. (Specialization in a capitalist economy and all that) and would happily exchange them for cash.

Sincerely,

R. David Haynes
Prime Minister
The Federation of Rymenia

Tobias stands up yet again.

"Sometimes I wonder. I really do. Since when did working 40 hours a week make you a communist? No one is expecting anyone to go communist because you only work from 9am to 5pm five days a week, or some similar time. A dear friend of mine in a capitalist country works from 9am to 5pm, five days a week, but the last I heard she didn't go around waving red flags or singing the Internationale."

Tobias raises an eyebrow.

"Still, I would expect no less abuse from a country that feels so little regard for its citizens that it is prepared to kill them just to further its little free market idealogue, although that country should have thought about its plans a little more; how are any businessmen going to talk to foreign investors if they are killed the moment they leave the country? And, by the way, the word utopia means a perfect world. Thanks for the compliment."

"In reply, our nation's economy has grown from strength to strength after joining the UN, and we expect it, with our economic allies, to be able to supply the people with what they need whilst still being sustainable enough to protect the environment that, after all, we do need to live. Our country was part of the Third World under capitalism, our economy was crippled under ignorant policies, our people miserable, as yours, with chips in their heads, must undoubtedly be. The flipside of capitalism was something we all too frequently felt. Funny how now we are a prosperous, industrious, intelligent, compassionate nation, especially with all these "crippling" UN policies, eh?"

Tobias again yields the floor.

Tobias raises an eyebrow.

"Still, I would expect no less abuse from a country that feels so little regard for its citizens that it is prepared to kill them just to further its little free market idealogue, although that country should have thought about its plans a little more; how are any businessmen going to talk to foreign investors if they are killed the moment they leave the country? And, by the way, the word utopia means a perfect world. Thanks for the compliment."

"In reply, our nation's economy has grown from strength to strength after joining the UN, and we expect it, with our economic allies, to be able to supply the people with what they need whilst still being sustainable enough to protect the environment that, after all, we do need to live. Our country was part of the Third World under capitalism, our economy was crippled under ignorant policies, our people miserable, as yours, with chips in their heads, must undoubtedly be. The flipside of capitalism was something we all too frequently felt. Funny how now we are a prosperous, industrious, intelligent, compassionate nation, especially with all these "crippling" UN policies, eh?"

Tobias again yields the floor.

Surprisingly enough, the citizens voted for the chips, with only three "nay" votes. Unfortunately, those three souls who voted against the proposal were beaten to death with copies of Nietzsche's work.

Our businessmen, if you want to call them that (the citizens of Rymenia are cybernetic life-forms, as much machine as man) meet with foreign investors quite regularly. But we do so in the great Hall of Commerce, here in our capital city (with streets paved in solid gold, and precious stones making up our traffic lights.)

Oddly enough, our country is described as rather lush. We've been able to maintain the environment, while making far more than simply "supplying the people with what they need." There's a plasma TV in every room. Unless you're poor. Then you only have a plasma TV in every other room.

Your assertion that our citizens are miserable because they have chips in their heads is ridiculous. The chips regulate emotion, and are all currently set to "happy." I also have a remote control in my desk drawer that has settings for "heightened alert," "orgasmic," and "sleeping." Our scientists are apparently quite close to replicating several more emotions, but testing has progressed slightly slower than we were anticipating.

But, I digress and now yield the floor back to the distinguished gentleman from The Weegies.

Okay, so you're not only godmodding, you're failing to understand Nietzsche. We feel the UN is well rid of you.

The PR of Vorpoing would like to urge everyone to support this important resolution.

Before our socialist revolution, we knew all too well of the "race to the bottom" that occurs towards the end of the capitalist phase of economic history. Many nations won't hit "bottom" for decades, even centuries, because of the availability of cheap, unregulated labor from countries with repressive regimes who bust unions and have no semblance of decent labor standards. Capitalist corporations will always be able to find one of these countries and force its people into what amounts to chattel slavery. Perhaps enforcing a 40 hour workweek will force these companies to try to increase profits some other way and abandon imperialism.

Before our capitalist system collapsed, we had enacted strict laws that forbade our companies from outsourcing to countries with lax labor standards. Of course, these companies found that they could no longer increase their profits without resorting to raising prices and cutting worker benefits. Eventually corporations hit a profit ceiling, and our economy collapsed.

But we see this as a natural historical evolution--capitalism was doomed to collapse at some point, and we reached that point. We have since built ourselves into a worker-run socialist paradise, and we couldn't be happier.

We think that this 40-hour workweek will hasten the demise of capitalism in other countries, which will, in effect, move the whole world into alignment with the historical forces which make socialism inevitable.

This is a typically overbearing proposal for the UN. It has the sheer temerity to suggest that overtime be at least time and a half, no less. Was this figure plucked out of the sky? Surely there must be some argument for choosing such a specific number, rather than demanding a wage higher than normal wage, seeing how EVERY employer in the United Nations must follow this standard or higher.


"The 40 hour week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers."

So... our wage-earners, who work at the current time a maximum 44-hour week, receive a 9% pay rise instantly? This will be a great hardship to all those who earn a salary, are self-employed, or are running a business with a tight profit margin. (Note: For the benefit of ideologues on the left, not all employers make huge, "immoral" profits, especially not those in markets of perfect competition.)


"In time of declared emergencies the national government may suspend this directive to any sector of the workforce it deems essential to the effective running of the country for the duration of that emergency."

If this resolution affected the RL United States, which has been in a state of emergency since WWII, they could just quietly declare all industries "essential to the effective running of the country". This would not improve the lot of the average wage-earner one bit. After all, the business of America is business!


Why can the U.N. not work on truly international matters, rather than on resolutions which cause those nations to resign from the U.N. whose workers the proposal would help the most?

If this resoltion gets passed, we are going to declare a state of emergency according to Paragraph 7 of the resolution.

We are recommending all other market-economic orientated countries who oppose this overregulation to do the same.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Hear, hear!

The sovreign nation of Liberivadi will follow in your footsteps regarding this issue. Should this prepostrous resolution be passed, a national state of emergency pertaining to the economy and right to choice of all Liberivadi's citizens will be issued, thus lifting the forty hour work week/free choice ban.

Duplicate Post - Deleted

Duplicate Post - Deleted

Duplicate Post - Deleted

I've been absent for a couple of days so I am just now getting around to reading the resolution at vote.

:shock: I am completely appalled at the poor judgement the author uses when creating this resolution. Does this person think that everyone in the world plants their gluteus maximus in a chair at an office all day? Does he think that the food or energy resources to which he has access for his country is available as a result of citizens working ONLY 40 HOURS a week?

Also... Where does the UN come into this anyways? I didn't join the UN to decide on NATIONAL level issues.

I am in agreement with Kybernetia......... I will also declare a state of emergency.

----Wing-Ding

Indeed. And Said state of emergency will remain in effect in Edistanople until the resolution, which is well beyond the scope of the UN by any stretch of the imagination, is wihdrawn or repealed. If this resolution is not repealed within 30 days Edistanople will resign from the UN in protest of Illeagal practices.

I am in agreement with Kybernetia......... I will also declare a state of emergency.

----Wing-Ding

That's nice sentiment and all, but it's not going to do anything. By being a member of the UN, you are bound to their decrees. And since you can't really declare a state of emergency (just like I can't really decide that all my citizens are cybernetic) your economy will tank because you're a member. Perhaps NSII will allow you to do this for real, instead of only in the role-playing forums.

Whatever happened to laissez faire? A 40 hour workweek would do nothing but harm a nation's economy! The more time citizens are working, the more money is made for the people and for the nation. If citizens do not want to work more than 40 hours each week, then they do not have to!

I ask that every leader who values their nation's economy vote against this proposal!

The UN was not made to decide how i run my country. These liberals are going to far, way to far. We can not keep going on like this; a BS resolution gets proposed, then all of the nations who joined the UN who don't even read the resolution, accept it, and then the rest of the world has to comply to all of the s**t that is passed. Most of the stuff that is proposed is against economies worldwide. They are just spreading all of their liberal agenda to unsuspecting nations, and those who oppose it. We need to crack down on the UN, and start a coaliton of nations to oppose them. I am part of the Gatesvile region, and our main point is to stop the UN and eventualy break them down. We then hope to start a new organization that will represent every nation in the world. If you want to join us just come on in to Gatesville, all supporters are welcome. WE must also not let this liberal resolution pass.

As the president of Ivana Tapit, I declare my nation in a state of emergency as soon as this resolution is passed. I will not let my economy suffer because of the liberal UN.

-The president of the Borderlands of Ivana Tapit
Andy Sotak

"The 40 Hour Workweek" = "Civil Rights Violation"

I believe employers have the right to set upto 10hr/weekday; thats 50 hrs total. And employees should have the right to do whatever they want to do in their free time even if it is work.

I consider myself liberal and this resolution is NOT Liberal.

If this resolution passes; I quit the UN

This is the kind of issue that should be left for individual nations to decide for themselves, the UN has no place to overbear traditional working practices. The Free Land of Bursledon will oppose this resolution.

How do you declare a state of emergency?

_Ivana tapit

We of the Free State of Equinus agree with the 40 hour work week. We believe that 8 hours for 5 days is a reasonable and family minded work week. This means parents can work for 8 hours while their children are at school.
We do agree that no one should have to work over 40 hours if they chose, yet an 80 hour overtime is a very reasonable overtime limit for those who need to earn more money to get up off the ground.

How do you declare a state of emergency?

_Ivana tapit

You can't.

If it passes, your economy crashes.

The only way to avoid it is to quit the UN. Which people appear to be doing in droves.

This proposal is mundane. I didn't join the UN to have little green men tell me my people can work for only 40 hours a week. That's nothing. Welcome to life, where people actually have to WORK for a living. I'm not going to pay millions of welfare from the tax money I get from workers. People need to learn that work is part of human nature, the way we now survive. Without it we would just stand around, get welfare, get fat, consume without replacing, etc. Liberals need to quit buying pot with welfare and LIVE. Therefore Dictator LG presents the following counterplan(at the cost of nations rights):

1)We allow nations to set their own average work weeks.

2)We allow workers limited vacation time, set by the nation.

3)We limit welfare to a percentage set by the nation.

4)We make the liberals take a Cannibusaholic Anonymus course so they can use their currently exorbitant welfare checks to buy necesary things for their family, like food, for instance.

5)We allow nations to set a minimum working age.

6)We allow nations to have the right to pick their own labor laws, and set their own limits (see aforementioned resolution).
Then we can all be happy. The liberals can allow the citizens to work for an hour a week and live off welfare, the conservatives beat their sweatshop worker children with whips, the communists distribute everything, and the moderates not give a crap.

"Welcome to the real world, huh baby?"--Cypher
"Anarchy isn't bad as long as we're in control of it."--Magdhans

Dictator LG

The Republic Of Govindia will change their vote to AGAINST

Labour standards to be regulated by the UN for each member country should not be allowed. That is a direct interference of a country's domestic affairs. We will not tolerate this interference with how we manage labour in this country.

Our country has very good labour standards and abides by them. We do not need the UN to tell us how to run our domestic affairs.

I urge all member nations to vote against this resolution, for this reason.

Trahimi Navareyiia
Govindian Ambassador to the United Nations

The maximum working time should be longer than the average working time, not shorter, just as minimum wage is lower than the average pay. Maybe if the hour/workweek was a little longer like 50 or 45 it might be easier to swallow...

Ok, my playthings, err, I mean citizens are hard working and demand that they are not restricted to the amount of hours they work. Yep, those are my citizens. Straight from their mouths. They LOVE work! The lab rats, umm, people of my region I mean would be severely disapointed if the amount of hours they worked in the uranium mines was restricted. They sure LOVE those mines. So in conclusion my hard working brainwashed, umm i mean adoring citizens are against this resolution.

Duplicate Post - Deleted

By limiting the amount of time a citizen can work, are we not in turn also limiting the amount of money they can bring home to their family, the amount of progress that can be made and most importantly, the amount of freedom each citizen possesses? This resolution is prepostrous to the utmost! If it should pass we may as well assign jobs to civilians rather than let them exercise their free will, and continue down this path of strict control and civil slavery.

Also, it must be pointed out that not every industry can function successfully on a set forty hour work week. Should this stiff and unfair resolution be enforced upon all, surely such large industries as agriculture and goods production would fall fast with no hope of rising to their once prosperous heights. It is a fact that said inductries and those similar to them can solely support the countries in which they reside by running at full capacity and constantly employing loyal workers who love their jobs and glady, as well as willingly, work on.

This proposed resolution, although under the guise of a "civil rights" advancement, is nothing more than the means of cowing citizens and limiting their right to free will and choice.

I must agree those who oppose the bill on this issue. Yes, some socialist nations may whine about "finding true happiness" and "quality of life", but when your country's economy falls through the floor because of this ridiculous cap on labor, what will you say then? Do you really think that, when all your citizens are living in low-income government-sponsored housing and taxes are at an all-time high to pay for it that you will really have, in the end, improved your quality of life?

Although many of the socialist nations may like to deny it, the economy is what is really supporting your quality of life. Sure, you can spend time with your family, but when you don't have enough money to enjoy it in a safe, fun, and comfortable environment, that time is worthless. We should look to Nature, the all-knowing and ever-present, for insight. Species live on die based on survival of the fittest: those who are the most adapted to their environment, or more specifically those who have the advantage, survive, and like it or not disadvantaged genotypes are slowly eradicated.

The same evolutionary phenomenon can be observed in this issue. The companies that require a workweek of greater than 40 hours, and the individuals who work extra overtime to gain extra pay, are at an "evolutionary" advantage. Those who favor a 40-hour cap are simply not willing to do what it takes to gain their own advantage, which causes them to fear extinction.

Healthy competition and adaptation to modern needs is what has driven the advancement of our society since the days of the ancient empires of Sumeria, Egypt, China, and India. This proposed legislation is only a self-protective measure, proposed by those less-productive members of society, who intend to protect themselves from fair and natural competition. Passing this legislation will devastate economies everywhere, unfairly stifle national political freedom, and ultimately impede human progress. As not only a fellow leader in our national forum but as a fellow human, I implore you to reject this legislation.

Sponsored by the Incorporated Government of Theodonesia

[OOC question: will this legislation seriously affect my economy? Can I really declare a state of emergency? or is this just role-playing?]

If this passes, I'm resigning. I just joined the U.N. last week and already there are these socialist, bong-induced rules. I can't tell the people I am for them and then have an outside entity run their entire lives while I sit by idly. Why don't I just never log into this game again and let the U.N run everything?

Despite the communist leaning of this resolution and the fact that we are a communist state, we still find ourselves consistantly fed up with amateur proposals which fail to follow the clause structure specified in the resolution writing guides. Those submitting proposals should more closely examine RL United Nations proposals and at least try to emulate the style of such documents. As such, we are opposed to this resolution.

Wait...

You are voting against because the resolution is clearly written and lacking in psuedo-legalese bullshit? Surely you don't value form over substance?

Also, it's not communist. It acknowledges the existence of wage labor for one. There is absolutely nothing in this resolution that prevents it from being applied in capitalist countries. Mainly it just sets a few reasonable limits on what a contract can legally demand of people.
AFoFS UN Council


My apologies, I should have said socialist, just got myself confused a bit.

No, I don't value form over substance. But I DO value form. I am aware that the resolution-writing guides are just that, however far too many resolutions are simply ignoring the fact that you are supposed to structure by clause.

To put it OOC, we have to have *some* measure of reality here, and formalised United Nations resolutions have a lot greater degree of structure than simply a numbered list of thoughts 1, 2, 3.

I find, unlike many of the recent posters, that the Unionized Bellhops arew in favor of this issue. While my honourable colleague state Liberivadi fears that this bill will limit a family's monetary income, Clause 6 of the Bill guards against a negative effect on average income. In effect, this will raise the wage of many who are forced to work atrocious hours in order to make ends meet. This will, however,hurt multinational corporations - so much the better! yeeha!

Tobias stands up again, shaking his head slightly.

"My, my. I think I shall propose a resolution that makes reading the proposal thoroughly before jumping in and making comments about it mandatory. The amount of, and let me be brutally honest in the best Weegie fashion here, utter rubbish that is pouring forth from those who merely saw the title and now squawk like headless chickens is, without a doubt, amazing."

And I would say that perhaps you should read the resolution you so ardiously support. You are the one that speaks rubbish, and I, on behalf of the Emirate of Ilcaris am appaled at your ignorant arrogant comments.

You assume that Ilcaris has not understood the resolution, you assume that we somehow are oblivious of your enlightened position. We are not.

I fully understand, and appreciate that workers must be protected. This resolution -does not do that-. It has majour and unignorable flaws which make it a horrible infrigment upon my citizens' civil rights. Ilcaris will not stand for it.

1.) This resolution does not allow my workers to work more than 80 hours no matter what they themselves might want. That over time must be volentary is already stated before in the resolution, then why must there be a cieling, one that is non negotiable?

2.) The resolution lacks any kind of flexibility. It does not take into account industries which needs flexibility.

3.) The resolution is an attempt to push political and economical ideas of the majority onto a large minority of the United Nations.


Its all been said before. Ilcaris does belive that the resolution has worth, or at lesat, the idea behind it has worth. We belive that over time should be payed one and a half, as our nation already has laws which state.

How ever, the wording of this resolution is so plain obstructional, that we cannot accept it. Those who accept it lack any understanding of how economy's work, how civil rights movements work, and how international bodies are supposed to work.



[i]In addendum:[i/] To those nations who proclaimed that the individual goverments do not have the power to establish a state of emergency, I can only ask: If I cannot, who on earth are supposed to be able to?

The Resolution does not describe the paramiters of 'emergency', which means that the individual nations may ascribe it any form they wish.

This is a blatant circumvension of the United Nations' laws, but it is not -against- the law. Which is why the Ilcarisian Goverment will do just that should this resolution come to pass. By making this kind of resolution, you have alianated large numbers of members, Ilcaris included, and Ilcaris has only the choice between using this way of circumvention, or leaving the United Nations alltogether.

We chose the former, but are prepared to do the latter should the U.N continue to make and pass these kind of obstructionist resolutions.

Im surprised how this resolution can have so much a support as it has! Im praticallly beggin, conservatives, get back in the UN, and help cracking this liberal resolutions. Mountanistan is definately against this proposal, as working hours are interely one nations issue.

@honourable Mountanistan



"Im surprised how this resolution can have so much a support as it has! Im praticallly beggin, conservatives, get back in the UN, and help cracking this liberal resolutions. Mountanistan is definately against this proposal, as working hours are interely one nations issue."

We are a conservative nation as well. But we must reject your statement to declare this socialist resolution as liberal.
This might be caused by the fact that in the US the word liberal is used for left-wing, while in (most) other parts of the world isn´t the case.




True liberals are in favour of a liberal economy, which is free-market economy according to the model of Adam Smith.

We, the republic of Kybernetia, are supporting this idea of free-market economy and free trade and invite other conservative and liberal nations to join our region Futura.

We are rejecting socialism and communism whose spirit is visible in this resolution (which after all is proposed by the Soviets).

We are calling on all to vote no even those who may agree with this resolution: it is not just nonsense it is also an issue which belongs in the internal affairs of the sovereign nation state and not to the UN.
We are in that respect supporting your call

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, founder of Futura and regional delegate of Futura

I'm against this resolution for a different reason - there are some jobs that need people to work longer and some of those places can't afford to pay people time-and-a-half after those hours - it would bankrupt some companies and wreck the economy

I think it's a nice resolution - to help people who are being overworked - but i think it'll damage countries' economy severely if passed

I'm sorry to say that this is one of the first resolutions i've had to vote against :(

Okay, everyone who thinks that 80 hours as an upper limit is too low, and that it's restricting freedom and all that crap. Do you know how many hours there are in a week? 168. And what is 80/168? Slightly less than half. 47.6% of the week to be exact. If your workers spend more than half their day working and just making enough to make ends meet, as many of you seem to be suggesting, then your economy is really bad.

Oh, hold on. Your economy may not be bad. In fact, it might even say "thriving". Well, it's only thriving from the point of view of the rich 0.1% of your population who are raking in the cash while the others are barely able to support themselves, even when they spend almost half their lives working.

I seriously doubt that making your corporations pay more to the workers for less work, giving them disposable income which they can then spend in mindless consumption, will destroy your economy. In fact, I think it will improve it, since more people will be spending more.

Okay, that's an extreme case. What about those whose companies are going to be paying their employees more because they have 50-hour weeks and now have to pay 10 hours of overtime?

Well, the same thing will happen. Everyone in your country is either going to have more to spend, or more to put in the bank (I highly doubt people are going to stick it under their mattress). Either way, economy improves, either from a boost for retail, or an increase in capital that the banks have to invest in businesses (Argh, I can't remember the term for that, but you get the idea).

And finally, job flight. Jobs are going to flood to lower-cost countries. Well, you know what you can do? Make it illegal. Or, specifically tax the goods which are now being made overseas, which will erase the lower-costs benefit that the corporation gets. More tax dollars for the treasury. Maybe you can renovate some schools, or give it to the people for them to spend.

As for the "some businesses need to be 24/7" argument, well, those companies generally hire in shifts, and since the upper limit is half a day, every day, that should have no effect on them besides increase in wage costs, assuming you don't already have overtime policies. In fact,most do.

The Kingdom of Austica does not support this resolution. In Austica it is generally considered an average to work around 45 hours a week.

Austica proposes a change to a maximum of 55 hours a week.

@honourable representative of Kelssek,


we strongly disagree with your arguments.

"Okay, that's an extreme case. What about those whose companies are going to be paying their employees more because they have 50-hour weeks and now have to pay 10 hours of overtime?

Well, the same thing will happen. Everyone in your country is either going to have more to spend, or more to put in the bank" - no, that wouldn´t. Many companies would go bancrupt because they can not afford to pay the 150% overtime which this resolution demands. It is outrageous that the resolution interferes in this issue of payment, which is an issue for employer and emplyee only or (in non-market economies) for the nation state. But it is certainly a NON-UN-ISSUE. It is OUTRAGEOUS that the resolution is overregulating our national labour market.




"And finally, job flight. Jobs are going to flood to lower-cost countries. Well, you know what you can do? Make it illegal. Or, specifically tax the goods which are now being made overseas, which will erase the lower-costs benefit that the corporation gets" - NO. We believe in free trade. We are the founder and regional delegate of the free-trade region of Futura. There a NO TARIFS between the members of our region. We believe in this idea of free trade and we are contractually bound to free trade with all members of our region. Pacta sunt servanda - contracts are to be kept. They are and remain in effect. But not all countries are UN members and therefore obliged to those rules. Therefore we are REJECTING ANY INTERFERENCE OF THE UN in SOCIAL, LABOUR AND TAX POLICIES.

This resolution is a blunder and a violation of national souveraignity. It forces nation out of the UN, it discriminates poorer nations whose competitve advantage is cheap labour, it interferes in the freedom of the individual to work as long as he wants, it inteferes in the FREEDOM to CONTRACT by imposing rules and even the amount of payment if a person works even a little longer than 40 hours. It is a blunder and we are rejecting it strongly. If it gets passed- we hope wisdom will prevail - we are going to use Paragraph 7 (state of emergency) of the resolution to avoid implementing.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

If it gets passed- we hope wisdom will prevail - we are going to use Paragraph 7 (state of emergency) of the resolution to avoid implementing.



You do realize that you can't really do this, don't you? As a member country, your economy implodes.

Okay I'm sorry but this would be about the dumbest thing to come up to vote ever, if you work 6 days a week then you work 6 2/3 hours a day it shoud be incresed to at least 55 hours. Oh yeah and corporations can't have employees that used to work 60 hour weeks working 40 hour weeks and still pay them the same, this would lead to bankrupting of corporations across the Un and it would almost certainly cripple our economy.

"I seriously doubt that making your corporations pay more to the workers for less work, giving them disposable income which they can then spend in mindless consumption, will destroy your economy. In fact, I think it will improve it, since more people will be spending more."

And where do you suppose that our corporations will come up with all this "extra" money? Corporations in free-market economies operate for profit, you know. Ultimately, corporations get their money from consumers, who in turn get their money by working for corporations. You can see that business and the individual are perpetually and inextricably linked. This simple concept is taught in high school economics

This legislation is essentially putting a cap on the flow of wealth through one part of the cycle. Corporations will have massive layoffs and shorten working hours, which essentially amounts to LESS total money going toward the consumer. As corporations struggle to make up for lost profits, product prices go up. Basically, everyone gets screwed.

Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu.
This is a part of the resolution Frigben cannot bring itself to agree with. We are lukewarm and fencesitters on most resolutions, but this is one thing where we cannot stay neutral; not in our interests, nor our region's interests. The key phrase is voluntarily undertaken. Some people may happen to like their jobs. While this may be a practical impossibility, idealists argue for ultimate freedom. Ultimately no one is hurt if some fool wants to stay at work longer than usual, so why must we prohibit them? Furthermore, why must overtime wages be at least 1.5 times normal wages? While we understand the sentiment behind this, we feel a lower limit should have been set, and that governments be free to set qualification clauses of their own.

In all, while Frigben understands and agrees with the sentiment behind this resolution, we cannot support such a poorly worded one. Our vote is a clear OPPOSE. We have our own laws; others have theirs. Some things in this resolution just shouldn't be forced on all UN nations. Do we force all UN nations to have elections? Frigben and Kortania rest our case.

Robert Gilwell
UN Ambassador for the Radical Libertarian Paradise of Frigben (UN Delegate for the region of Kortania)

OK, here's why this issue is international in nature and shouldn't be left to individual countries:

- In a globalised economy, standards tend to race to the bottom. Essentially, an individual corporation can maximise profits by treating its workers like dirt. So any country in which workers must be treated well will find itself undermined by other countries which treat their workers badly.

So leaving the global economy unregulated is an infringement of individual nations' rights to regulate business. The only way to take effective action is to ensure that all countries must follow the same basic rules. It's the age-old principle that individual rights end at the point where they harm others.

As to the idea that this will hit nations' economies - well, if we forced just one nation to regulate its workers' hours, then yes, it would, because businesses would rapidly flee somewhere they could exploit their workers more easily. But that's not going to happen, because this is collective action - every nation has the same rules in place, so no-one suffers disproportionately.
If you're concerned about job offshoring to non-UN countries where these rules don't apply - fine, ban or put tariffs on imports from those nations. Easy. There's an enormous number of UN member nations and you won't go short of trade or investment.
This measure will, once it starts to fully take effect, benefit UN members. You'll have a happier and healthier workforce, which means a more productive workforce and less civil unrest. You'll have more people in work, which means more money flowing around - replacing one 80-hour workers with two 40-hour workers will pay for itself.

Bottom line is that it's beneficial to an economy to have a large number of people earning (and spending) wages, rather than a small number of people earning wages, high profits for shareholders, high CEO wages and high unemployment, which is what you end up with if you don't regulate working hours.

Ahem. For all those whining about 'this communist proposal will destroy my economy, it was written by Free Soviets what does that say', let's just take a peek at FS's stats:

Civil Rights: Superb
Economy: Thriving

Ah, but what about the real evil commies? The evil ones who hate civil rights and the economy alike? Surely they'll be in favour of this hideous resolution too!

Comrades!

This resolution is, simply put, and outrage. The Soviet Union's economy thrives on the 96-hour work week (unpayed Saturdays included), and will leave the UN if this passes. Another case of revisionist Maoists trying to subvert our great nation and prevent the Bright Socialist Future by crippling our economy.

Death to the counter-revolution!

@honourable representative of Kelssek,


we strongly disagree with your arguments.

"Okay, that's an extreme case. What about those whose companies are going to be paying their employees more because they have 50-hour weeks and now have to pay 10 hours of overtime?

Well, the same thing will happen. Everyone in your country is either going to have more to spend, or more to put in the bank" - no, that wouldn´t. Many companies would go bancrupt because they can not afford to pay the 150% overtime which this resolution demands. It is outrageous that the resolution interferes in this issue of payment, which is an issue for employer and emplyee only or (in non-market economies) for the nation state. But it is certainly a NON-UN-ISSUE. It is OUTRAGEOUS that the resolution is overregulating our national labour market.




"And finally, job flight. Jobs are going to flood to lower-cost countries. Well, you know what you can do? Make it illegal. Or, specifically tax the goods which are now being made overseas, which will erase the lower-costs benefit that the corporation gets" - NO. We believe in free trade. We are the founder and regional delegate of the free-trade region of Futura. There a NO TARIFS between the members of our region. We believe in this idea of free trade and we are contractually bound to free trade with all members of our region. Pacta sunt servanda - contracts are to be kept. They are and remain in effect. But not all countries are UN members and therefore obliged to those rules. Therefore we are REJECTING ANY INTERFERENCE OF THE UN in SOCIAL, LABOUR AND TAX POLICIES.

This resolution is a blunder and a violation of national souveraignity. It forces nation out of the UN, it discriminates poorer nations whose competitve advantage is cheap labour, it interferes in the freedom of the individual to work as long as he wants, it inteferes in the FREEDOM to CONTRACT by imposing rules and even the amount of payment if a person works even a little longer than 40 hours. It is a blunder and we are rejecting it strongly. If it gets passed- we hope wisdom will prevail - we are going to use Paragraph 7 (state of emergency) of the resolution to avoid implementing.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia
Um, the whole point of the UN is to take away "national souveraignity". Anyone in the UN who is over-concerned about national soveraignity should just leave the UN.

Less hours at work, less money. Less hours at work, more free time. That´s all.

"Um, the whole point of the UN is to take away "national souveraignity". Anyone in the UN who is over-concerned about national soveraignity should just leave the UN."

Actually, the point of the UN should be to preserve national sovereignty while at the same time fostering peace and international cooperation. We, however, do agree with the second part of your statement: Theodonesia has no desire whatsoever to be a member of an organization interested in taking away national sovereignty, and has not ruled out cancelling its membership.

As an aside, Theodonesia will not be accepting immigrants from UN countries whose economies implode as a result of this measure.

[Sponsored by the Incorporated Government of Theodonesia, Representitive of the Greenhouse Region]

Has anyone noticed that everything the UN does should be a national issue?
Dictator LG

Brothers & Sisters of the Struggle,

Repeal the ill-conceived "Fight the Axis of Evil" law!

We urge your support of the "Selective Defense Act", a proposal to end all compulsory production of weapons by UN member states.

Check out the proposal within the UN, or visit our forum post for more details.

-First Among Equals (C.O.P.)

If it gets passed- we hope wisdom will prevail - we are going to use Paragraph 7 (state of emergency) of the resolution to avoid implementing.



You do realize that you can't really do this, don't you? As a member country, your economy implodes.

Of course he can do that. There are no other authorities that can declare state of emergency. It is the power of the goverment. He runs his goverment, you do not, nor does the U.N (even if it seems like it is trying to).
The resolution has state of emergency as a clausule. Of course, the U.N resolution writer did not intend for that clausule to be abused in such a way, but then again, the U.N resolution writer did not think about a lot of things. Mainly because he/she was incompitent, and could not see the consequces of his/her actions. Ive seen this in a lot of such authors.
As the Emirate of Ilcaris has stated before; we belive in the principle of fair over time pay, and the principle of eight hour work days (preferably through 6 days a week though, which would make it a 48 hour week). But we cannot, and -will- not abide with this resolution. It is quite plainly a bad resolution, little thought through, and heavily infrigning on the political landscape of the U.N.

We see this running in the WTO all the time. The developed world is getting nervous better kick out all the rungs on the ladder so the developing world can nto compete. Its not a human rights issue it is about the US and other countries holding the reins on the world economy. After all why go to a developing country when you can get the same amount of work in a developed country. Should we also have a world minimum wage? Or maybe we could put enviromental standards on the developing world. Then they wouldn't even have the chance they do now.

If this resolution gets passed I suggest all opponents of it should do the following.

Firstly:

Using Paragraph 7 (state of emergency) of the resolution to avoid implementing (as discussed before in this forum)

Secondly
Supporting another proposal

The Self-Employed Workers Rights proposal. It would seem to be an excellent way to negate the 40 hour proposal currently being voted on.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, UN-delegate of Futura

By limiting maximum hours available to work you are not going against free will. What you are doing is expanding a person's quality of life...insuring they're not workaholics...

If it was truly an issue of civil rights then the people of an individual nation, not the United Nations, should make the choice of limiting the number of hours in a work week.

Expanding a person's quality of life? How can the quality of life be expanded when choice in the matter is denied? It simply can't be. It is every person's right to decide how many hours they wish to work or not work, not the goverment. The allowment for citizen to exercise free choice alone will increase the quality of life . Limiting choice and free will never can accomplish that.

The choice is the individuals and the indiviuals alone to make, lest we be tyrants.

The maximum standard full-time workweek shall be set at 40 hours. Nations shall remain free to set their workweeks lower than this.
Oh please do set your workweek lower then this. It will make our economic stomping of your little nations so much easier. :twisted:

It shuts down farms, because no farmer ever worked a 40-hour week and had a decent crop. It shuts down remote location resource retrieval such as mining, drilling and logging where you have people who work on location for weeks and then take a couple of weeks off and go home. It also shuts down 24/7 factories that depend on being able to call more people in on short notice.

Besides if I have to work more then 40 a week then so does everybody else! Not to mention that this is something that is strictly between employer and employee.

Nova yos’Galan
Eldema-pernard’i
Clan Korval

the "workwek" refers to the amount of time one spends selling his labour-power. Farmers don't sell their labour-power. You need to learn a bit more about economics, son.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/img/royalarm.gif
DEPARTMENT OF PRIME MINISTER & CABINET

**OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE PRIME MINISTER**

After lengthy debates in the Austican Parliament, it has been decided that Austica will not implement this resolution, even if it is endorsed and carried.

The Kingdom of Austica is a part of the United Nations, so that we can come up with proposals that will better society and people worldwide. This proposal does neither. It it discriminates against the employer whilst lining workers pockets. Of course many workers deserve more, however at the same time they will not get more, unless the employer can pay them.

Implementing this bill in Austica would cause a meltdown of the nation's financial and economic infrastructure, and would lead to a depression of a great scale. This would not be benificial. Employers will be unable to afford to keep workers on, and will be forced to close down. Workers will be out of work. Business' and corporations will no longer operate. This would be disastrous, and would not further the rights of anybody - rather it would destroy lives

The Kingdom of Austica accepts the powers of the UN, however it will not give up its soveriegnty to the UN, to allow it to destroy our nations economy, which woul invariably destroy Austican lives.

If this bill passes, the Kingdom of Austica urges all nations opposing it to boycott it, and to carry on regardless. We will not declare a state of emergency - we just will not implement the bill full stop.

By His Majesty's Command

Sir John Grey

Prime Minister


GOD SAVE THE KING!

the "workwek" refers to the amount of time one spends selling his labour-power. Farmers don't sell their labour-power. You need to learn a bit more about economics, son.
Yes they do dear. They are called hired hands. You need to spend some time on the farm sweetie.

Many companies would go bancrupt because they can not afford to pay the 150% overtime which this resolution demands.


Many, in fact, most companies are making enough profit to do this. And the boost that the increase in disposable income will give to the retail sector might very well increase profits for parental companies which own companies in a variety of industries and so have their fingers in multiple pies.


We are the founder and regional delegate of the free-trade region of Futura. There a NO TARIFS between the members of our region. We believe in this idea of free trade and we are contractually bound to free trade with all members of our region. Pacta sunt servanda - contracts are to be kept. They are and remain in effect. But not all countries are UN members and therefore obliged to those rules. Therefore we are REJECTING ANY INTERFERENCE OF THE UN in SOCIAL, LABOUR AND TAX POLICIES.


Well, you were the one who restricted your ability to regulate your own economy, so that is purely your problem.

Regardless of farm hands, what about the owners of the farm? Why should they be allowed to work more than 40 hours a week? Not only is their labor more difficult than, say, office work, they're quite often selling their product to corporations exponentially larger than the businesses most people sell their labor to.

>>5. Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu. Nations shall remain free to set their allowable overtime hours lower and their overtime pay rates higher than specified in this proposal.
<<

What if someone wants to work twelve hours a day, six days a week? Who is government to tell them they can't?

What is lacking in this whole debate is an extremely elementary comprehension of economics. The utter ignorance is frightening. What appears to determine how people vote is a schizoprenic hate of business, and while somewhere in their minds there is some dim awareness that it will affect business, they don't know how, why, what consequences it will have on them, or what consquences it will have on workers.

People are worth set amounts of money. Some people are worth five dollars an hour. However, they are not worth six dollars an hour. Now, in a free market, they will be capable of earning upwards of $540 a week. In the despotic market created by this resolution, they will be capable of earning no more than $200 a week. All this does is prohibit people from rising to the levels they wish to rise to. It is not your place to determine how I live my life. It is my own. You have no right to tell me and my employer what I am capable of.


What is the purpose of this resolution? Is it thought to be the "moral" thing to do? In that case, why is a more than 40 hour work week permitted in times of national emergency? Are morals temporarily suspended in times of national emergency?

>>6. The 40 hour week shall be implemented in a manner that does not reduce the standard of living of the workers<<

How is this to be accomplished? It does not define standard of living, so that does make things more difficult. However, in a market that is producing, say, 3/5 of what it was prior to this resolution, it will be very difficult to ensure that everyone will attain the same amount of goods they did before. After all, prices will go up, because goods will be more scarce. Wages will decrease, because people are not permitted to work what they wish to work. It will be very difficult to mandate that the standard of living remains static.


Furthermore, why do we not mandate that the work week be only thirty hours? Why forty? Why not fifty? Why not twenty? By what arbitrary thought process has the number "fourty" been produced?

Yes they do dear. They are called hired hands. You need to spend some time on the farm sweetie.

Farmers are self-employed, so they would probably not be affected by this.

Say a farm requires 120 hours of work per week, a pretty accurate approximation. Currently, the farmer splits the work between himself and someone he hires. However, when he is prohibited from hiring that person for twenty of his current hours, the farmer will now have to work eighty. It does affect farmers.

While we of the Dominion agree with the cause of stopping capitalist pigs from oppressing our people *Shakes fist*, we do have concerns on the labour ramifications. In struggling nations, such as my own, long work weeks are all we can use to elevate ourselves to industrialisation and greatness. We have no vast population, no industrial cities and very little money. You countries which are great, look into your pasts and remember that your own prominence is built upon the backs of the labourers. At the same time, we are steadfastly against exploitation, and therefore, wish to scale back the legislation to 70 hours a week.
Respectably,
His Most Esteemed Premier of Kylopia

Just because your nation needs to develop does not mean people can't be "exploited." What you're really saying is that you don't care. Your nation needs to expand, therefore, who cares about the people? There's growing to be done. Exploit the people all you want. There's a nice, non-greedy disposition.

I totaly disagree on this resolution beause i do not think a UN nation should have to follow a rule about how to gover its own people. Next thing you know the UN will be having a resolution on all communist nations or all capitalism or even fascisum... the UN no matter how powerfull they be they should not tell nation leaders how to govern people.... i mean this take a whole big chunk out of things poltions can make better. I might ot dissagree with the resolution itself i dont want all the bigger countries in the UN telling me how exactly to govern my poeple.

Say a farm requires 120 hours of work per week, a pretty accurate approximation. Currently, the farmer splits the work between himself and someone he hires. However, when he is prohibited from hiring that person for twenty of his current hours, the farmer will now have to work eighty. It does affect farmers.

In this case the farmer would be unaffected. He's spiltting the work 50-50, which means they each work 60 hours, right? The only difference is that now he has to give his employee about a 16% raise.

Tueber has a strong belief in one of our peoples most basic natural rights: Freedom of Contract. Two parties ought to be allowed to do whatever they want (including working mroe that 40 hours a week) so long as both consent. This resolution violates this basic tenant of humanity, and Tueber can and will never support such drabble. What this resolution actually is is nothing more than an attempt to usurp more and more power from the member states and the individuals that reside within (exactly like the last one... what a coincidence...). The U.N. is meant to be a meeting hall between governments not a governming body in itself.

Tueber erges that all liberty-loving nations to vote against this resolution and send it back to the communo-collectivist hell that it came from. If you don't you are merely giving them another victory... as the victories add up it is very likely your nation will no longer be in existence three decades from now.

The government of Hedross issues the following statement:

Vote no on this proposal. Reasons:

1. You are not stupid. You can write your own labor policy without Free Soviet help.

2. Subvert the "human rights" paradigm. If your people have a human rights issue, they'll tell you, and you can resolve it with them. You don't need the Free Soviets, Comintern, the Balto Cong, Me, or anyone else to tell you what human rights are. Do your own thinking, because it is as valid as everyone else's.

3. You are an autonomous sovereign country. The UN does not have the right to regulate your domestic labor conditions. Don't give the UN this power over you.

4. The Free Soviets made this proposal to conform you to their way of life. If you admire their way of life, embrace it, but on your own terms, and of your own will. If you have your own way of life, protect it. Vote no.

5. The use of international law to force member states to enact such changes within their borders against their will is an act of violence. It is the many forcing their will on the few, the strong forcing their will on the weak. It is an attempt to destroy you as a human being with a will of his or her own, on a global scale. Defend yourself. Vote no.

6. The use of the UN as weapon to commit this act of violence is a crime against humanity. It subverts the UN's humanity-wide goal of cooperation, not hegemony, and sets the precedent that whoever controls 51% of UN votes can force billions of human beings to bend to his will, using their own government and the very organization created to prevent the domination of one by another.

Stop this crime against humanity before it happens.

Vote no.


Witchfinder General
The Rogue Nation of Hedross

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/img/royalarm.gif
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT

Should this resolution be implemented tonight, the Kingdom of Austica advises that nations either:

:arrow: 1. Leave the United Nations Therefore revoking your own right to vote on future resolutions. This way, UN resolutions will have no impact on you; or

:arrow: 2. Immediately Repeal the legislation Once the compliance ministry enacts the laws, immediately summon your legislature, to repeal the new laws.

:arrow: 3. Declare a state of emergency thus enacting clause 7 of the new resolution which would suspend the resolution until such a state is called off

The second move is perhaps the best. UN law determines that if a resolution is enacted, it must be made law in the member nations, they do not however say, that it must remain the binding law of member nations. UN Laws do not deal with the issue of individual nations repealing such legislation. The Austican Attorney-General's Department has studied the fine print on UN law in Nationstates, and is confident that once the laws have been enacted, nations may legally repeal the legislation. This is their sovereign right as nations. This way, the resolution would not be in effect.

Option 3 is not a recommended one. It is not desirable to keep your nation on a state of emergency, when no such emergency exists.

The Kingdom of Austica is willing to fight legally in court it's right to repeal UN resolutions in Austica. We urge any nations who want to retain their UN status to do the same

By His Majesty's Command
Sir Henry Moore
Attorney General

GOD SAVE THE KING!

...

Oh yeah and corporations can't have employees that used to work 60 hour weeks working 40 hour weeks and still pay them the same, this would lead to bankrupting of corporations across the Un and it would almost certainly cripple our economy.

Perhaps the delegate from Vault 11 should have finished reading the resolution before making such statements, as it quite explicitly gives a 5 year phase in period. We find it hard to believe that over the course of five years the necessary economic adjustments could not be implemented succesfully.
AFoFS UN Council

No, I don't value form over substance. But I DO value form. I am aware that the resolution-writing guides are just that, however far too many resolutions are simply ignoring the fact that you are supposed to structure by clause.

To put it OOC, we have to have *some* measure of reality here, and formalised United Nations resolutions have a lot greater degree of structure than simply a numbered list of thoughts 1, 2, 3.

Ah, but precedent in the NS UN clearly establishes the legitimacy of the numbered list of clauses/articles for NS UN resolutions. For example, look to the Wolfish Convention on Prisoners of War, the Universal Bill of Rights, and the Rights of Labor Unions, amongst others.

AFoFS UN Council

...

Oh please do set your workweek lower then this. It will make our economic stomping of your little nations so much easier. :twisted:

You talk quite the big talk as a delegate from a nation who not only is half the size of our federation, but also has a weaker and smaller economy than we do. And we recently cut back on production because our economy was getting out of hand and the average workweeks were creeping back above twenty hours...

It shuts down farms, because no farmer ever worked a 40-hour week and had a decent crop. It shuts down remote location resource retrieval such as mining, drilling and logging where you have people who work on location for weeks and then take a couple of weeks off and go home. It also shuts down 24/7 factories that depend on being able to call more people in on short notice.

We would like to introduce an amazing new concept to your nation. We call it "working in shifts". It does wonders for productivity. We would be more than happy to send over some consultants to help your businesses get started.

Besides if I have to work more then 40 a week then so does everybody else!

And this is the true beauty of this resolution - when it passes, you don't have to anymore.
AFoFS UN Council

We would like to introduce an amazing new concept to your nation. We call it "working in shifts". It does wonders for productivity. We would be more than happy to send over some consultants to help your businesses get started.


And let me introduce an amazing new concept to your nation: limited workforce. Ilcaris has a low unemployment rate, lying generally at 2.7% of the total workforce. Do you know what this means? We don't *have* a second work shift. There are non to take up the work once the other shift leaves.

You've written this wide reaching resolution with out any clue of flexibility. It's a simple resolution written to touch a very complex scenario, and it is hugely flawed.

The people of Frigben and Kortania note with muted joy that this controversial resolution is on the verge of being defeated. There is a line between what the UN can, cannot, should and should not meddle in. (Hypothetically) banning child labour is one thing - telling UN nations how many hours per week their workers should work is an entirely different story.

The Kingdom of Austica notes that at this point, it would appear as though the resolution will be defeated.

Regardless of this, The Kingdom will pursue it's case with the United Nations that resolutions can be repealed in individual nations.


Joint Statement from the Attorney General's Department and the Department of UN Compliance | H.M. Austican Government

Statement by the Prime Minister

Today the Free Soviets attempted to use the United Nations as a platform to enforce their policy upon other nations.

This has opened a box which cannot be closed. We can no longer allow the United Nations to tell us how many hours a week our workers can work. We are the government's of our nations, and we will govern according to what the people of our nations want.

The Kingdom of Austica will from this day on, pursue a policy of compliance by approval of the legislature. Should a policy be deemed unacceptable by our legislature, which is elected by the people, and therefore of the people, we will repeal those resolutions enacted by the compliance ministry.

The Kingdom of Austica urges all nations who are UN members to adopt similar policies. No longer will nations on the otherside of the world, be able to enforce their radical policies upon the rest of the world.

The United Nations must also consider their position, before responding to this. If they would like to continue as an effective organisation in today's society, then they will have to accept that nations have a sovereign right to govern themselves, without being forced to govern a certain way.


Prime Minister

We agree to the remarks of the honourable member Austica and are sharing most of the suggestions

If this resolution gets passed I suggest all opponents of it should do the following.

Firstly:

Using Paragraph 7 (state of emergency) of the resolution to avoid implementing (as discussed before in this forum)

Secondly
Supporting another proposal

The Self-Employment Work Rights proposal. It would seem to be an excellent way to negate the 40 hour proposal currently being voted on.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, UN-delegate of Futura

To those objecting to the 'power' of the UN to mandate certain policies in your government, the solution is clear: do not vote against this resolution, simply withdraw from the United Nations. Why did your nation join if it intended to ignore UN law? Certainly one would not take the highly contradictory position of wanting your laws to go through but be unwilling to live with the reality of a democratic organization. Rather than oppose the passage of this resolution, leave the UN now and save yourself the trouble of repealing legislation.

To those objecting to the government interference in private markets, please be reminded that a 40 hour work week is already law in most industrialized countries. This resolution is not breaking new ground, but rather codifying basic rights of workers established at the turn of the 20th century. Please also note that this resolution does not apply to salaried or performance based positions, but to positions that are paid by the hour. Pleae note:

Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu.

A salaried position, one where a worker is paid a certain amount to do a job, not by the hour, is clearly exempted from this clause because you do not pro-rate salary. All this talk about 'shifts' has largely missed the point; the jobs where people work in excess of 80 hours a week are rarely, if ever, shift jobs, but are instead coders, professionals, analysts etc, who are paid for their work, not their hours.

We find it surprising this resolution has been so controversial given that all it does is protect an already accepted right and add it to international law.

SeOCC UN Delegation

Ahem, Austica, you can't do that.

Quote from the FAQ:
"You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do."

If you want to do that, leave the UN.

>>To those objecting to the government interference in private markets, please be reminded that a 40 hour work week is already law in most industrialized countries.<<

What does that have to do with anything? Majority vote automatically makes things logical? Majority vote automatically makes things moral? No, they do not.

>>This resolution is not breaking new ground, but rather codifying basic rights of workers established at the turn of the 20th century. <<

You mean codifying the opinions of fools. No economist would support this. It would take someone with zero knowledge of math, economics, and really logic in general.

To those objecting to the 'power' of the UN to mandate certain policies in your government, the solution is clear: do not vote against this resolution, simply withdraw from the United Nations. Why did your nation join if it intended to ignore UN law? Certainly one would not take the highly contradictory position of wanting your laws to go through but be unwilling to live with the reality of a democratic organization. Rather than oppose the passage of this resolution, leave the UN now and save yourself the trouble of repealing legislation. The UN exists not to enforce one member-states socio-economic beliefs onto another, there is a purpose for the United Nations and it should not be abused in this manner.
To those objecting to the government interference in private markets, please be reminded that a 40 hour work week is already law in most industrialized countries. If you mean in the real world then that is simply factually incorrect. France has a 35-hour week, the EU as a norm (excluding the UK) has a 48-hour week, the UK goes beyond that. The United States, Japan, Australia and virtually every other nation too does not enforce such a tyrannical and self-destructive restriction on peoples rights to live their lives as they choose.
This resolution is not breaking new ground, but rather codifying basic rights of workers established at the turn of the 20th century. Please also note that this resolution does not apply to salaried or performance based positions, but to positions that are paid by the hour. Again you are wrong. 40 hour weeks are typical, but are not the law. Nor should they be. If an employee wants to work only 40 hours then let him choose such a job, if someone doesn't then don't force it on them. If nations don't then other nations should not have the right to force it on them. France can not and should not force the United States to change their labour market via the UN, nor should the US do it to France. Similarly if the Free Soviets want to have a 40 hour week then fine, that is their choice. I think personally and as leader of my government here that is unquestionably wrong however and it is not an international matter.

Actually, the US does have a 40-hour work week for purposes of setting overtime, just as this does.

We of Dubbledipp agree that the proposal is written well, and seems sound enough to be successful for most countries. However, we are a relatively new country, just recently rising to our feet after centuries of oppression. We are getting our bearings in the political world and cannot commit to any specific plan, even as fine a one as is being proposed. Regretfully, Dubbledipp must abstain from voting.
Please accept our apologies; we hope to be entering the political arena soon.

Protesters are in New Philadelphia, against this legislation: They say they will vote us into a state of emergency and vote all jobs as required jobs if this is passed.

I warn you, do not push the capitalists of the UN so far as to leave it. The Free Soviet who wrote this legislation allowed that loophole to avoid it, and in my democracy, we do NOT infringe on people's basic rights. This does NOT make provisions for salary-based jobs. It simply does not.

President Lunphi
New Philadelphia
The Federation of Islands and Cities
Former Sovatecan Empire

Just because your nation needs to develop does not mean people can't be "exploited." What you're really saying is that you don't care. Your nation needs to expand, therefore, who cares about the people? There's growing to be done. Exploit the people all you want. There's a nice, non-greedy disposition.

I am not talking about greed here I am talking about making it possible to compete with countries like the United States and Japan. Countries in Africa do not have the luxury of technology or currency fungibility. They have to have lower labor rules than these developed countries to bring in businesses like NIke and Adidas. Is it greedy to want your people not to starve? I see your ideas about greed ethocentric someone making money for their family to survive are not greedy. Developed countries who want to bring back all of their TNCs into their countries through cultural imperialism is greedy and self destructive.

Wait. Exporting TNCs isn't cultural capitalism, but taking them back is? Colour me confused.

As far as corporations in third-world countries go: this doesn't set wage rates, merely working hours. It goes nowhere near making labour in the Third World as costly as that in the First; it merely prevents it from exploiting the workforce into the ground. Even if they have to pay more wages to sustain workforce size, basic living costs are ridiculously low in the Third World and the difference will hardly cause a ripple in profits.

Speaking of which, to the guy who argued that there just wasn't the labour force to operate more shifts: import workers. Every country that has had this problem has responded in the same way: the USA in particular encouraged immigration when its workforce was insufficient. There are an abundance of skilled migrants willing to take up the offer.

This would collapse every single economy. there is no way that this could ever work, and the person that thought of it should have their teeth ripped out of their mouth and tongue cut off

Um, except that many nations have already implemented this and are doing just fine. And we'll have less of the ad hominem attacks, thank you.

many nations have already implemented this and are doing just fine.

Such as France? France is slowly imploding. It can't maintain itself in its current state. It is no coincidence that America was capitalist and became the richest, most powerful nation on earth.

This resoulution will cause more trouble for the people. In many countries their are very low minimum wage or very high living costs. Many people in my country will not be able to live of 40hr weeks and business owners will not want to have to pay the overtime for 80hr weeks.

many nations have already implemented this and are doing just fine.

Such as France? France is slowly imploding. It can't maintain itself in its current state. It is no coincidence that America was capitalist and became the richest, most powerful nation on earth.

...And which other nations have a 40 hour work week? Oh yes. The US. Look! Your argument just went flying out of the window!

...And which other nations have a 40 hour work week? Oh yes. The US. Look! Your argument just went flying out of the window!

indeed, i am really confused by nations arguing against this with real world examples, considering almost everybody has the 40 hour workweek or less (at least officially). the us has had it since 1940 - in fact when the bill passed the senate it was for a 30 hour workweek. hell, even china has a 40 hour workweek.

when we were writing up this resolution someone suggested using the eu labor standards as a base, but we decided those were a little too good for setting a global minimum. we are all fairly shocked and disgusted by the reaction of roughly half of the un members here.

You capitalist fools speak of riches, money, power, "things" to have blah blah blah. Take a look at that huge coffee company out of Seattle sometime; a fortune 500 company that has all shift/hourly employees none of them full time except the store manager. these folks make a great hourly wage for what they do, excellent full health coverage for you and your"partner" (which might I add is almost unheard of this could be boyfriend, girlfriend whatever you don't have to be married is my point) plus you are tipped out every week. they do not have a high turn-over ratio because...their employees are respected and (call the press) HAPPY! wow what a concept; workers actually being able to enjoy life a little, live it instead of merely exist or survive in it. And yes most of them live in their own apartments and have vehicles. I t is working already! be observant!