NationStates Jolt Archive

Incidentally, could someone tell me why 'The Avenging Angels' is voting for the resolution twice? 38 vote delegate and all. It's odd. I know you can vote for both sides at once, but I didn't know you could vote for the same side twice.

we are all fairly shocked and disgusted by the reaction of roughly half of the un members here.

You could always leave the UN. The Prime Minister of Rymenia would just love to hold a parade in honor of "The Defeat of Communism....Again Day"

R. David Cohen
Minister of Morale
Rymenia

Got a mod to tell me in the tech forum. Never mind.

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!

We do? Not the last time I checked. 60+ is more like it for most folks in various trades in the States. You know the best part? If you're salaried...there is NO OT. In other words...the proposal submitted does not resemble one implemented in any successful free-market enterprise in the world.

The resolution has passed!
I pursuaded my delegate (Europe) to change votes. This must have been in the last 30 seconds!
The resolution passed by just 111 votes :D
HAIL EUROPE!

Well it passed, courtesy of a last minute vote from a powerful regional delegate.

And for those who are saying that they'll just ignore the legislation, I would like to remind you that the game does not allow for this. You, as a member nation, are forced to implement this initiative.

Kamquin Dakar, Minister for Trade and Industry, mops his brow heavily before drawing a magnum of Peripheral Boundarian champagne from beneath his desk, popping the cork and handing the bottle to the delegate from Free Soviets.

The resolution "The 40 Hour Workweek" was passed, 8637 votes to 8526, and implemented in all UN member nations.

We would like to thank all of the UN members for joining together to ensure that working people all over the world are allowed to live a life beyond work, a life worth living. Setting these global standards will allow all people to be better off. This was the single closest vote in UN history, but hopefully many of those who voted against will see that their economies will not be permanently harmed by this once the initial shock of change - either within their own system or those of their trading partners - has worn off. We have a bright future for all people in the NS universe to look forward to.
AFoFS UN Council

Kamquin Dakar, Minister for Trade and Industry, mops his brow heavily before drawing a magnum of Peripheral Boundarian champagne from beneath his desk, popping the cork and handing the bottle to the delegate from Free Soviets.

Don't mind if I do. And of course, any one stopping by the bar might find that there is an ample amount of Malatesta cachaca sent over by the Sugar Fire Water Collective.

We are outraged by this resolution. A minority of UN-members tries to force their socialist policies against a majority of silent and loud opposition.

However: we are not going to leave the UN to the socialists and communists: we are not giving up to those forces who try to inforce their views on others. We are asking member nations for support for the Extinction of Tarriffs - proposal.


We are also notifing the UN that we are going to use ALL LEGAL MEANS to AVOID IMPLEMENTATION of this resolution.

"Nations shall enact the laws needed to comply with the 40 hour week within 1 year of the passing of this resolution" - we will not enact laws within until the end of this period

"and they may phase in the changes over the course of up to 4 years" -
we are going to phase the regulations out for the complete period of four years.

"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."

It is the right of the sovereign nation state to declare a state of emergency. We are going to do that under refrence to avoid an economic desaster for our country. We are notifying the UN that we are going to do that when the other options the resolution has given us have phased out. For the next five years there are not going to be any changes in our valid laws. And after that we are going to declare a state of emergency.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, founder of the free-trade region Futura.

P.S. DOWN WITH FREE SOVIETS - DOWN WITH COMMUNISM

1.) - we will not enact laws within until the end of this period

2.) - we are going to phase the regulations out for the complete period of four years.

3.) - It is the right of the sovereign nation state to declare a state of emergency. We are going to do that under refrence to avoid an economic desaster for our country. We are notifying the UN that we are going to do that when the other options the resolution has given us have phased out. For the next five years there are not going to be any changes in our valid laws. And after that we are going to declare a state of emergency.


I really don't understand why this is so difficult.

1.) The game doesn't allow you to do this. When you wake up tomorrow, the laws will already be enacted in your country. There is nothing you do about this.

2.) Sorry again. The game of NationStates immediately institutes this law in all UN member-nations. You can't get around it. You can decree that you'll take the full four years, but the game doesn't give a crap. It's effectively IMMEDIATELY.

3.) The game of NationStates does not let you declare a state of emergency. You can say to all your friends "Oh, look! Emergency, Emergency! Ha ha, you can't get me Commies!" But that's as far as it goes. It is implemented, and your economy will begin to suffer immediately.

Does anybody read the rules around here?

It is the right of the sovereign nation state to declare a state of emergency. We are going to do that under refrence to avoid an economic desaster for our country. We are notifying the UN that we are going to do that when the other options the resolution has given us have phased out. For the next five years there are not going to be any changes in our valid laws. And after that we are going to declare a state of emergency.

We are interested to see how your labor unions respond to that, and we can only assume that the international labor organizations will give them aid should they decide to engage in a general strike or in factory occupations or any other action.
AFoFS UN Council

"We are interested to see how your labor unions respond to that"
Unions don´t play an important role in my country. But people are happy to work their 6-day week which goes for 48-60 hours on average (different from sector to sector). People want to work long in order to have more money and income. This resolution is destroying this possibility by imposing 50% higher payment for every hour above the 40 hours limitt.
We are considering the issue carefully. If we cannot use the state of emergency clause (we believe we can do that) we are considering to simply lower the wagues in order to keep the costs at the same level as they are now.
We don´t allow your ideological policies being inforced against us.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

DOWN WITH FREE SOVIETS

The Armed Republic of the New Bucks Head does not support this resolution.

Our esteemed leader's opinion is that it goes against the region which we formed just today.

Region : Global Alliance, is dedicated to the furtherment of leaders OWN nations without forcing them to adopt rules they don't want to follow.

Therefore, we can not condone this resolution and will see what we can do to revoke this resolution.

President L Harper
New Bucks Head

I wonder if half the opposition to the resolution arose due to the fact that the author was of "Free Soviets." The very association with communism is probably enough to incite mindless opposition if enough presume the proposal to be a 'communist' ploy.

As a rather capitalist inclined nation, I agree with the proposal, but have already stated several faults. These faults should be patched in a follow up resolution to ensure the ideal aim of the resolution is carried out.

Ultimately, I'm curious as to which side was actually campaigning harder--FOR or AGAINST.

Jovian Worlds: we reckon fairly equal. Us pros fought hard on these boards, but we think there was a TGing campaign against - we're not certain, though.

Everyone else: OK, here are some thoughts regarding trying to get round this legislation.

* Technically, no-one can avoid it. The UN Compliance Ministry makes you comply, and it's 100% effective.
* In practice... it's not that easy. In other words, if you want to RP breaking this law... go for it. But be prepared to RP the consequences, too. In other words, if you want to declare a state of perpetual emergency... if you're a democracy, that's pretty much declaring yourself a dictatorship. If you're already a dictatorship.... your trade (labor) unions are likely, as someone said earlier, to respond with a crippling general strike.

Furthermore, be prepared also to RP out the international consequences of your actions - which means other nations slapping on trade sanctions and possibly even declaring war.

If you declare that you're ignoring this law but aren't prepared to RP the consequences... well, in our book that's godmoding. Or just saying that you don't like playing with us and you're taking your ball home. Do it if you like, but don't expect anyone to care.

My nation's economy has already declined severly. We've dropped from Powerhouse to Strong in a matter of minutes. We've been forced to drastically raise the income tax rate to the highest we've ever hit, and the upper classes are furious. Labor riots are spreading throughout our city streets, and mobs demanding Kerubia's withdrawal from the UN are being contained.

I sincerely hope that the Free Soviet delegate is correct in that this will change over time. Otherwise, the environment is going to feel pain from our mining industries to counter-act this.

"Don't mind if I do. And of course, any one stopping by the bar might find that there is an ample amount of Malatesta cachaca sent over by the Sugar Fire Water Collective."


Of course, the bar is unfortunately closed because its employees refused to work more than the new limit, and employers could not afford to hire new bartenders. What a shame.

Jovian Worlds: we reckon fairly equal. Us pros fought hard on these boards, but we think there was a TGing campaign against - we're not certain, though.
Speaking as a delegate of a region of 30 UN members who cast their vote "for", I can confirm there was an active TG campaign - I had several demanding that I change my vote, at varying levels of coherence.

None of which made the slightest bit of difference. Not because my mind was made up, but because my vote reflected our region's vote on the matter which was about 80% in favour, and I had no right to reverse that.

Would future campaigners please take this factor into account when lobbying delegates of medium to large regions to switch votes?

This is horrendous. Already our economy has taken a severe hit due to these illicit regulations.

mine as well, thriving to reasonable. Not a good sign

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?

There is no such thing as UN Law. The UN is NOT a governing body. It is a treaty organization set forth to promote communication between member nations and work to resolve problems by avoiding the mistakes that led to World Wars 1 and 2. The resolution is a violation of the UN charter in that the UN has no power to regulate the laws of ANY soverign nation. We joined the UN to work toward making the world a better place through cooperation, not to be dictated to and have our governmant commandeered by and obscene oligarchy.

...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.We have no problem with a 40 hour work week. We DO have a problem with a body outside our country telling our citizens that they cannot work more than 80 hours EVEN IF THEY CHOOSE TO.

We have no problem with a 40 hour work week. We DO have a problem with a body outside our country telling our citizens that they cannot work more than 80 hours EVEN IF THEY CHOOSE TO.

We doubt the existence of large numbers of people who demand to spend more than 71% of their waking hours at work. In fact, we would take large numbers of people 'choosing' to work more than 80 hours per week as a sure sign of economic coercion. Have you perhaps heard of the concept of mandatory 'voluntary' overtime? It is to prevent such abuses from getting too far out of hand that the various authors of this resolution capped work at 80 hours. 80 hours is just about the maximum amount of time that any human being can work in a week and remain healthy and sane. If we have to prevent a few rare individuals from working as much as they would truly choose to in order to prevent the exploitation of others, so be it.
AFoFS UN Council

Of course, the bar is unfortunately closed because its employees refused to work more than the new limit, and employers could not afford to hire new bartenders. What a shame.

Hmm, interesting. We haven't had such problems in our federation and we have a 4 hour day, 4 days a week. Perhaps you're doing it wrong?

We are outraged by this resolution. A minority of UN-members tries to force their socialist policies against a majority of silent and loud opposition.

Considering that the resolution has passed, and that a MAJORITY vote is required for it to do so, it would appear that this is hardly a minority at all.

We are also notifing the UN that we are going to use ALL LEGAL MEANS to AVOID IMPLEMENTATION of this resolution.


There are none. You implement, or you leave, which will hurt your own cause by removing yet another conservative vote. Not very smart, eh?

@Represenative of Kelssek,


we are rejecting your statement. As a consequence we are going to abolish environmental and social standards (e.g. minimum wage laws, cut social spending).

"Kybernetia wrote:
We are outraged by this resolution. A minority of UN-members tries to force their socialist policies against a majority of silent and loud opposition.
Kelssek wrote
"Considering that the resolution has passed, and that a MAJORITY vote is required for it to do so, it would appear that this is hardly a minority at all."

It was a tiny majority of votes (8637 votes to 8526) in favour of this resolution. However: that does not represent the majority of UN nations.
Firstly because not even half of UN nations participated on the voting (especially considering the fact that UN delegates have more than one vote: so we can assumen that hardly a third of the UN members chose to participate. Therefore we are saying: A minority forces its will upon a majority of nations who are in open or silent opposition to this.

"Kybernetia wrote:
We are also notifing the UN that we are going to use ALL LEGAL MEANS to AVOID IMPLEMENTATION of this resolution."
Kelssek wrote
"There are none. You implement, or you leave, which will hurt your own cause by removing yet another conservative vote. Not very smart, eh?"
We don´t want to leave the UN exactly for that reason. But as a result to this resolution our economy went down from thriving to strong and we needed to raise the income tax from 0% to 2%. If we are seeing a further decline we will leave the UN to avoid further damage of our econmy

By the way: if the UN continues that we the socialist and communists countries will be alone here. The UN who is now only representing only a third of the nations at nations states would even loose more members and would become irrelevant. You don´t want that, do you? That wouldn´t be very smart, eh???


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

It was a tiny majority of votes (8637 votes to 8526) in favour of this resolution. However: that does not represent the majority of UN nations.
Firstly because not even half of UN nations participated on the voting (especially considering the fact that UN delegates have more than one vote: so we can assumen that hardly a third of the UN members chose to participate. Therefore we are saying: A minority forces its will upon a majority of nations who are in open or silent opposition to this.
Then this totally imaginary 'silent majority' of yours should pass a counteractory resolution. This is the only way to prove your point which otherwise is moot. SHOW ME THE MAJORITY.

-Sahib De Guera
FOEnet

It was a tiny majority of votes (8637 votes to 8526) in favour of this resolution. However: that does not represent the majority of UN nations.
Firstly because not even half of UN nations participated on the voting (especially considering the fact that UN delegates have more than one vote: so we can assumen that hardly a third of the UN members chose to participate. Therefore we are saying: A minority forces its will upon a majority of nations who are in open or silent opposition to this.

Of course, this resolution had numerically higher total participation then the last 4 resolutions, and at least as good participation precentage-wise as any other proposal. Silent majorities are just that - and therefore they do not count.

(and in game terms, a good chunk of them are either on their way to deletion or only became un members for invasion purposes)

YOu know what sucks. I proposed a repeal proposal and they kicked me out of the UN. I didnt even knkow about tah rule!

I demand readmittance to the UN! :x

Honourable members,

I would just like to state that we have enjoyed the debate on this subject immensely. Arguments provided by both sides were thought provoking and its is gratifying to note that healthy debate still exists within the UN community and I believe the closeness of the vote reflects this.

Thank you all.

Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia.

Yes, delegates have more than one vote, but in most cases those with enough votes to have a serious impact have intra-regional votes on what the delegate will vote. Therefore, it is more representative of the ACTIVE nations. And given the small margin, it's safe to say that there is no clear majority whatsoever on either side.

The resolution was up for vote for long enough for nations to decide what to vote; and not to choose is also a choice. So, in fact, the majority didn't care either way about the resolution. If they opposed it, they'd have voted against, if they supported it, they'd have voted for it. Therefore, this "silent majority" which is in opposition to it simply doesn't exist.

Once again: All those who oppose it voted, all those who supported it voted. Those who opposed it asked their delegates to vote against, those who supported it asked their delegate to vote for. The resolution passed. Therefore, although it is clearly possible for the majority of nations to be against the resolution, it is a very small majority either way.

And while the UN has only 1/3 of the nations, I'm sure it has most of the PLAYERS in the game. Others have pointed out before, that most of the nations are puppets, only the principal player tends to join the UN. So your concern about the UN losing "relevance" is moot.

Agree with Kelssek totally.
Also, to those who keep claiming that resolutions like this cause mass exoduses (exodi?) from the UN - we've been monitoring UN membership levels since early on Saturday and it's held pretty steady. There was a slight drop last night, but at the same time the total number of NS nations also dropped quite heavily, so that was probably down to a bout of die-offs. Haven't got the figures at hand, but IIRC UN membership is up since Saturday afternoon.

So, frankly, it's looking more likely that valuable, powerful, progressive legislation like this persuades nations to join the UN than makes them leave it.

Lectoribus salutam!

Nos, Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii, de acceptione rogationis socialistii maxime commoti sunt. Nos de recedendo ex Nationibus Unitis cogitamus.

Avete!
Earendilyon Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii.



Id est in lingua vulgus: (Which is in the language of the commoners: )

Hail to the readers!
We, Earendilyon, Elevated Caesar, Dictator and Imperator of Romanum Imperium, are greatly disturbed by the acceptance of this socialist proposal. We are considering resigning from the United Nations.

Greetings,
Earendilyon, Elevated Caesar, Dictator and Imperator of Romanum Imperium.

Party at the Demo-Bobylon Houses of Parliament. They'll be enough room for all the populations of that "silent majority", but it's mainly for Free Soviets' foreign ministers, and anybody who is relieved this passed.

*Puts in cool shades* 8) Be there, or don't be there.

Free Soviets, tell me when you're done with this thread and I'll move it into the Archive for you :D


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Free Soviets, tell me when you're done with this thread and I'll move it into the Archive for you :D

thanks, you're awesome.

i say we give it another day or so, in case anyone wants a last chance to vent.

We have no problem with a 40 hour work week. We DO have a problem with a body outside our country telling our citizens that they cannot work more than 80 hours EVEN IF THEY CHOOSE TO.

We doubt the existence of large numbers of people who demand to spend more than 71% of their waking hours at work. In fact, we would take large numbers of people 'choosing' to work more than 80 hours per week as a sure sign of economic coercion. Have you perhaps heard of the concept of mandatory 'voluntary' overtime? It is to prevent such abuses from getting too far out of hand that the various authors of this resolution capped work at 80 hours. 80 hours is just about the maximum amount of time that any human being can work in a week and remain healthy and sane. If we have to prevent a few rare individuals from working as much as they would truly choose to in order to prevent the exploitation of others, so be it.
AFoFS UN CouncilThe fact that a body that has no power to create such laws and in supposedly dedicated to the rights of the member nations' citizens is taking away my citizen's right to choose is galling. Whether citizens actually were working over 80 hrs a week or not they always had that option. They had the choice. Now they do not.

Big Brother has no place in my country.

I would just like to state that we have enjoyed the debate on this subject immensely. .

Hear, hear. There was almost a competitive air to the United Nations page for a few days as the vote swung like a see-saw.

As the UK of Austica has made abundantly clear, we will and in fact have repealled this legislation in our nation.l The Free Soviets will not force us to adopt such a policy, and the UN as a treaty based organisation will not tell us, a sovereign country that we must do so.

If an Austican wants to work more than 40 hrs a week, then he or she shall. They don't have to; they have never been made too, but their right to do so is entirely thereown. No socialist country will ever tell us we can change this, and no UN resolution will ever deprive our citizens of their right to choose what hours they work

This is final

As the UK of Austica has made abundantly clear, we will and in fact have repealled this legislation in our nation.l The Free Soviets will not force us to adopt such a policy, and the UN as a treaty based organisation will not tell us, a sovereign country that we must do so.

If an Austican wants to work more than 40 hrs a week, then he or she shall. They don't have to; they have never been made too, but their right to do so is entirely thereown. No socialist country will ever tell us we can change this, and no UN resolution will ever deprive our citizens of their right to choose what hours they work

This is final

Then you are a rogue nation.

My UN colleagues: what are the sanctions at our disposal?

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

As the UK of Austica has made abundantly clear, we will and in fact have repealled this legislation in our nation.

"As a member of the United Nations, you cannot."

The Free Soviets will not force us to adopt such a policy,

"That is entirely true. The UN will."

and the UN as a treaty based organisation will not tell us, a sovereign country that we must do so.

"When your nation signed up to the United Nations, you gave up some of your national soverignty. We did not like the Common Sense Act, but did we gripe and moan when it passed? No, because the UN had decided that the resolution should pass. The trade-off in the UN is clear, Austica; if you want to influence international policy, you better expect to be influenced yourself. It's all about rights and corresponding responsibilites. If you don't want the responsibility of following UN resolutions, why should we give you the right to influence other nations?"

If an Austican wants to work more than 40 hrs a week, then he or she shall. They don't have to; they have never been made too, but their right to do so is entirely thereown. No socialist country will ever tell us we can change this, and no UN resolution will ever deprive our citizens of their right to choose what hours they work
This is final

"You make it sound as if in a capitalist economy the workers have all the power. They do not, and frequently the "choice" you so fallaciously talk about comes from the capitalist economy saying "work this long, or you shall not get paid." We, in drafting this proposal, were trying to prevent the race to the bottom that neo-liberal capitalistic policies enevitably create."

And for those who are saying that they'll just ignore the legislation, I would like to remind you that the game does not allow for this. You, as a member nation, are forced to implement this initiative.
Well, that depends.

For example, in my region we had an eight-day week. Ten-hour days were the norm and we had five-day workweeks and three-day weekends.

As an average we attained a 2281.25 work hours a year compared with the seven day week with a five day work week and eight hour days that results in 2085.71 work hours a year.

We have adjusted our calendar to a three-day week with a two-day work week and one day weekend. :P
This results in 2433.33 work hours a year.

Looking forward to stomping the rest of you into the ground with our productivity.

By the way, I would advise the UN to avoid my nation for a while. You guys aren't that popular. :twisted:

Nova yos'Galan

When did these wonders take place?
When we decided to re-write the dictionary.

For the record, for those saying "you cannot repeal these laws" - it can eventually be done if you answer your daily issues the correct way.

Oh well, time for this one to go into the archive.
Closest resolution to date!