NationStates Jolt Archive

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] This has been designated the official topic-of-disucssion for this proposal 'Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"' by "Leg-ends". All other topics on this same proposal will be merged or locked. [/modedit]

I ask all delegates to approve my proposal to repeal The 40 Hour work week, this unfair proposal actually hurts the low paid people the most, they often work for small pay on an hourly basis, if they cannot put in more hours then their earning are severly limited, on the other hand top executives often work fewer hours on a salary basis.

The original vote was particularly close, around 100 votes out of more than 16,000 decided the outcome. If people want to work more hours then they should be free to do so.

My proposal is currently on the 8th page of proposals. I thank you in advance for your support.

"Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #59
Proposed by: Leg-ends

Description: UN Resolution #59: The 40 Hour Workweek (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work without interference from the United Nations.

The consequences of Resolution #59 are the opposite of the aims. The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare."

We disagree

Perhaps a more productive way of altering your complaints would be to suggest a proposal which regulates pay and conditions of work, especially for the economically inept.

Would you care to expand on why you disagree?

this unfair proposal
False Fact - this is an opinion, I see no proof to back it up


actually hurts the low paid people the most
Again - opinion only

they often work for small pay on an hourly basis,
Not to be extremely generalised here, but yes - some jobs aren't well paid. People still have to do them though.

if they cannot put in more hours then their earning are severly limited
Wait...you're saying that poor people are getting a raw deal and you want to cut back the number of hours they work; but here you are saying if they DON'T work long hours, then they have limited earnings...surely poorer people need to work as much as they can.

My proposal is currently on the 8th page of proposals. I thank you in advance for your support.
You should get support for your proposal on the forums before submitting the repeal to the UN.

The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare.
Whuhhh? This paragraph is so badly worded that I can't make heads nor tails of it - nor can I be bothered to attempt to.


Basically - I believe that a 40 hour week is good on the grounds that it provides greater economic stability and growth both for the country and for the individual. However, I do believe that a Resolution is needed to dictate the pay and conditions of work to ensure equality and fairness for all.

Perhaps you could approach it from this angle instead, if you want to ease the burden on low income workers...

The proposal I am putting forward is simply to repeal a previous proposal not to submit one replacing it. I do not want to cut back on the number of hours the poor are working nor do I want them to work more. All I am saying is that the individual should be able to choose themselves, not the UN on their behalf.

My comment that this is an "unfair proposal" is an opinion, I did not attempt to dress this up as a fact at all.

But the previous resolution does hurt the low paid people's incomes. If you earn a low wage (not salary there is a difference here) and are then limited to how many hours you can work week your income is restricted. The higher paid (such as executives, directors and so forth) are often on salary and therefore will have no limit on their incomes in relation to the number of hours worked. The original resolution increases, not reduces, income inequality as it limits the pay of the low paid. "surely poorer people need to work as much as they can" (your words not mine) if they are to reduce income inequality not be forced to work less hours.

I agree, the resolution should be repealed. (unfortunately I'm not a delegate and can't support in more than words).

The Republic of Florida Oranges, from the region Change, has endorsed this proposed repeal. We, in the region, feel this imeasurably has strained our economies as it has burdened our lower income populace. It has, in effect, forced many of the low wage workers to have 2 or even 3 jobs just to make ends meet. Which is of course forcing many of them into the 70-80 hour work week.

The Individualist Republic of Reason and Reality wholeheartedly supports this proposal, not out of base pragmatic concerns, but out of objective moral principle. The Individualist Republic of Reason and Reality is aware of the objective fact that government simply has no legitimate place whatsoever dictating or regulating the terms of any agreement entered into voluntarily by all parties concerned, including employment agreements.

But the previous resolution does hurt the low paid people's incomes. If you earn a low wage (not salary there is a difference here) and are then limited to how many hours you can work week your income is restricted. The higher paid (such as executives, directors and so forth) are often on salary and therefore will have no limit on their incomes in relation to the number of hours worked. The original resolution increases, not reduces, income inequality as it limits the pay of the low paid. "surely poorer people need to work as much as they can" (your words not mine) if they are to reduce income inequality not be forced to work less hours.

Clauses 5 and 6 of the original resolution deal with your objection specifically. In fact, the resolution actually sets 80 hours as the upper limit; which is 11.5 hours a day, 7 days a week - a ridiculously long workweek by anyone's standards. It also makes sure that people working more than 40 hours a week are rewarded with overtime compensation, which means that the poor actually have to work fewer hours to make ends meet. The combined effect of the clauses of the resolution amounts to both a cut in hours and a pay raise for the poorest and longest working members of many countries.

AFoFS UN Council

Since this is close to reaching the queue, I felt it is important to include the text of the original resolution here:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #59
The 40 Hour Workweek
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Free Soviets

Description:
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.

Votes For: 8,637
Votes Against: 8,526
Implemented: Sun May 23 2004


This is the closest vote of a resolution to date. My nation did not vote on the original resolution (as we were way on holiday at the time). I've not looked to see if any pre-Jolt threads exist for the debates, but it might now be worth pulling any old off-forum archives about.

I've not looked to see if any pre-Jolt threads exist for the debates, but it might now be worth pulling any old off-forum archives about.
Approve: 40 Hour Workweek (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=328693)
NSwiki history post (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_40_Hour_Workweek)
CACE forums (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?act=idx) (where it was drafted, according to Free Soviets - no idea where the post might be)

Approve: 40 Hour Workweek (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=328693)
NSwiki history post (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_40_Hour_Workweek)
CACE forums (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?act=idx) (where it was drafted, according to Free Soviets - no idea where the post might be)

Thanks! I'd like you to know that I actually did go back and real the UN forum debate and was happy to see that my former statement was still there. I considered bumping that prior thread to bring the old arguments back to the UN floor, but I'd rather that the new motion be posted along with the text of the resolution and repeal in a new thread.

As I noted in that statement, I was (going to be) unable to vote and thus forced to abstain. At least my government has a second chance now to send in its vote.

And yes, the CACE has been following this repeal today ... hence where I realized it was going to reach the floor.

Approve: 40 Hour Workweek (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=328693)
NSwiki history post (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_40_Hour_Workweek)
CACE forums (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?act=idx) (where it was drafted, according to Free Soviets - no idea where the post might be)

there is also the thread that went into the archive (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=327993)

the thread where it was written is located somewhere in the un think tank forum on the cace boards, but i don't particularly feel like wading through it just now.

You want the average worker to be taken advatanged of. This would happen if you repeal the resolution.

The resolution allows the common worker rights that are needed. The resolution allows such basic rights as time and a half for overtime work.

This is very imporant and should be kept.

The United Socialist States of Owenarcia fully supports the 40 hour week. Why? because it guarantees that the workers are not exploited and aren't forced to work long, tedious hours. It is important for the health of the people that work and rest is properly proportioned.

The People's Assembly of Enn has signalled its desire for this repeal effort to fail. The Assembly is of the opinion that only resolutions like this can work to prevent the working class being taken advantage of, in all UN nations rather than just some nations.

The Council of Enn has decided to concur with the Assembly, as it does not wish to create an internal division within Enn at this time.

Our Nation will vote against this repealing proposal. We think the 40 hours limitation is a great conquer for the worker and for the social welfar progress. We want also advice to our comrades to do like we are going to.
Always on the workers side!

I wish to thank all delegates who supported the proposal for their common sense and judgement on the matter. I hope all UN members will show those same characterstics of commone sense and judgement when they come to vote and, consequently, the resolution repealed.

The resolution, which is up for repeal, would work if there were enough workers in every area of the job market to cover the toatl need of all areas. However as we know from the real world this is not the case.

Having read resolution #59 I support the repeal. I suggest amendments be made:
part 7. gives me cause for concern I remember from my history lessons that Hilter used similar sounding clauses to gain power
Part 4. On call hours count towards the 40. hello doctors! may be on call all night thats 12 hours are you saying they can only work for 4 days.

If the resolution was amended to say give a 45-50 hour working week I would support it. Some people like to work and get great job satisfaction from their work. Why make them stop doing what they enjoy.

The resolution is flawed. Only contractual work is covered by the resolution. I believe that businesses will use this deffinition of "Contratual work" against the resolution and thereby manage to bypass the resolution.

Comrades!

I have heard much of this supposed "proposal" to repeal the U.N.'s fair and just resolution on the standard 40-hour-workweek. I have read many articles, documents, et cetera, on both sides of the issue, and thus I believe that my position is informed and unbiased; a repeal of this act IS FOLLY!

It is ridiculous to even attempt to strike down such a helpful, beneficial resolution to all! Under the 40-hour-workweek, not only workers but GOVERNMENTS benefit! If there were no standard work rate, what would prevent people from working at all? What would there be to prevent a labor shortage and consequental weakening of the government?

This proposal may have been made in the best interest of others, but here I quote the great Benjamin Franklin: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Clearly, distorted arguments and a foggy idea of the real picture caused this attempt to repeal such an excellent resolution.

Comrades- I urge you- nay, I ASK you, to please NOT REPEAL Resolution #49. The repeal of such a fantastic act, which secures both government power and humitarian concerns, would be disasterous not only for nations around the world, but for the people that live in them.

Description: UN Resolution #59: The 40 Hour Workweek (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work without interference from the United Nations.

That's nonsense. The resolution states that no-one mya be contractually obliged to work for more than 40 hours. If you want, you can work up to 80 hours. It can be argued that that is a good maximum, as more is simply unhealthy, and people should be protected from that.

The consequences of Resolution #59 are the opposite of the aims. The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare."

Longer hours get paid more. I'd say that closes the income gap. But I think the aim of the resolution was to prevent people from being forced to work long hours, leaving them unable to do other things such as socializing, getting education, etc.

The 40hour workweek resolution should stay.

This amy have been saidbut this repeal is missing the point, the resolution is stopping people working more than 40-hours a week, they can if they want they just can't be compelled. This prevents exploitation of the workforce and is precisely why we need to vote against the repeal

If the resolution was amended to say give a 45-50 hour working week I would support it. Some people like to work and get great job satisfaction from their work. Why make them stop doing what they enjoy.

If people want, they can. They simply can't be forced.

As this resolution gives people who want a 50 hour workweek, I suggest you support the resolution and do not support the repeal.

40 hours... in ONE week - what an outrageous proposal.
there is enough technology and resources on the planet to allow only those who want to work to do so.
why then must we slave away wasting what time we have in an inconsequencial office?

and now someone wants to remove the limits to employers?
so they can make more money out of their staff?

:headbang:

Against. People are not contractually compelled to work more than 40 hours, but they can if want. How they choose to spend the other 128 hours of the week is entirely up to them. Go to night-school, moon light, raise a family, get high or wasted, their choice. To improve the poor : Work Better, Not Longer.

The delegate from the Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood stands:

My dear delegates. It is cleat that both arguments have faults and are both wrong. You should not be 'rewarded' for working for your country. Working for your country should be a privilage. What do these mere workers need money for? Food? Clothes? NO! I decree that once a week every worker should be designated food, by the state, which befits there family status eg. how many children they have. Also, once every six months, they shall be given a batch of clothes, shoes etc.

So clearly, workers do not need money. They wont be going on holiday, as borders are closed to EVERYBODY except army personel and government officials. Also, they wont be going out for meals, renting videos, buying t.v's to watch and stereos to listen too. You know why? Because they will be working. An employer has the right to work his/her employers as hard and as long as he wants.

So, there is my decree. I hope it becomes a resolution at some point, but I need support from other nations. But since the UN is full of nice and happy nations, I guess we will be pressing this matter for a long time. Thank you!

The People's Republic of Nargillah is 100% against repealing the 40 hour work week.

How else will the Proletariat be protected if not by the government?

Leg-Ends and the other Capitalists are merely tools of big businesses who are merely putting this 'Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"' proposal up to thank some big businesses who supported them.

Workers can STILL work over 40 hours if they want to, and they would earn more then before, this 'Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"' would destroy years of hard work to defend the Proletariat's rights.

If this International governing body (The United Nations) cannot meet the standards of the Proletariat, then the People's Republic of Nargillah will regretfully be forced to resign from the post of Regional Delegate of Southern Boner, and as a member of the United Nations.

The People's Republic of Nargillah will also be forced to urge other nations in Southern Boner to take the same measures as itself.

As a new delegate to the United Nations, we weren't here for the vote on the item for which the repeal is being discussed.

Looking at the original bill, it seems that it sets the maximum mandatory work week at 40 hours, but allows voluntary work of up to eighty hours. By repealing this legislation the doors will be reopened for abuse by employers. I submit as evidence section five of the original bill:

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.
A vote for this new resolution is a vote for a return to forced indentured servitude. Arxanimo will vote "no".

in light of ACTUALLY reading the original resolution, it has become clear to many that this is a ploy by the capitalist nations and their leaders corrupted by big businesses into breaking the rights of the proletariat in a ploy to force longer working hours upon the masses. I hope that all nations will have vote against the repeal.

It is our duty as government to protect the workers and the people in our nations from these types that are trying to exploit the populace of many nations all around the world.

people... defining the maximum hours per week a person can work is one of the most basic laws for all workers. This law prevents employers to take advantage of their employees, by making them work tirelessly.

If you remove this law, bosses all around the world will start hiring people to work 18 hours a day. The law does let a person decide how much does he/she wants to work since it only defines the MAXIMUM hours they are allowed to work.

I don't see the point of this repeal but nevertheless...

Leg-ends is right.

People should show some common sense and judgement. Vote against the repeal.

This is one of the greatest resolutions. It is common sense. People should only work 40 hours.

He says that if you don't let people work more, the buying power of the poor will decrease and thus their welfare will go down. Actully he is wrong about this. You see this make sure that people have a chance to relax. This gives people the option of working. This allows workers NOT to be exploited by people for profit.

Vote AGAINST this repeal. It is not warranted.

1. The original resolution allows for more working hours a week on a voluntary basis. The repeal therefore has no basis.

2. The original resolution was a good idea - let's not the debate again.

3. Income disparity has other primary causes, not hours worked.

Leg-ends, I notice that your central argument, that the poor are be made poorer by this resolution, was thoroughly disproven by Free Soviets:

Clauses 5 and 6 of the original resolution deal with your objection specifically. In fact, the resolution actually sets 80 hours as the upper limit; which is 11.5 hours a day, 7 days a week - a ridiculously long workweek by anyone's standards. It also makes sure that people working more than 40 hours a week are rewarded with overtime compensation, which means that the poor actually have to work fewer hours to make ends meet. The combined effect of the clauses of the resolution amounts to both a cut in hours and a pay raise for the poorest and longest working members of many countries.

And yet you have offered no reply. Care to justify your repeal in light of the point made by Free Soviets?

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites vited in favor of the original resolution and still approves of the 40 Hour work week. Therefore we will be opposing this repeal.

The 40 hour week proposition is one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation i have ever witnessed. So ridiculous that the moment after it was passed i spent days trying to get it repealed. Only for the moderators to deny every chance because you cant repeal legislation.

Now i find you can?

Well good, its a ridiculous piece of legislation. No nation in the world would force its citizens to only work 40 hours a week, its ridiculous. Both my parents work 42 hours a week and i have college and still work 20. Its such a huge limit its ridiculous, you cant force people to follow these stringent deadlines and you would effectively force 50% of the nation - and lets not forget these would be the poorest people - to cut their earnings. Also the original legislation is not very specific.

In my opinion, the legislation should be changed so that you can only work a maximum of 12 hours a day. This would stop people from having two jobs and working them night and day, afffecting their lives as they have limited sleep.

Lets look at the Real World, the average working week is 40.4 hours in europe. Fact. This isnt a developing part of the world yet neither does it average out to be rich. This features rich and poor people, yet the average would imply that roughly half of working europeans work more than 40hours a week. Meaning, that roughly 200million of my citizens cannot work as much as they would like. If they dont like their employees working them so long, they can quit. Its their decision. However if they dont like their employees not working them enough, they have no where else to go.

Scrap the legislation, its ridiculous and awful. If people can work more than 7 hours a day for 6 days a week, then let them. Its not an awful strain on anyone, but it is an awful strain on my nations economy to keep it in place.

The Commonwealth of Idealistea strongly backs the original resolution (#59 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/47474/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=58)), and will undertake all means to defeat the current repeal attempt on the floor of the UN.

We feel that this is an underhanded attempt by a "right-wing Utopia" (the UN's current classification for The Conservative Republic of Leg-Ends (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=leg-ends)) to deceive the working people of the world into relinquishing their hard-won rights. If UN resolution #59 is repealed, there will be no official limit on the number of hours that an employee can be forced to work! The original resolution in no way dictates the number of hours an employee may voluntarily work, as long as it is fewer than 80 per week, which, as was mentioned by Free Soviets, equates to an 11.5 hour day, 7 days a week, more than enough time for a corporation to extract the maximum profit from any worker that it manages to cajole and/or seduce into such servitude. If anything, the people of Idealistea would be in favor of modifying UN resolution #59 to lower the maximum number of hours that may "voluntarily" be extracted from an employee.

-Patricio Nervionense
Secretario del Estado y Delegado al ONU
Granada, Idealistea 14/12/2004 at 11h00 EST

Tassemark will vote against this proposal of repealing the 40 hour work week for the following reasons:

1. The 40 hour work week serves as a protection for the employees against the employer. The job-market is not a "free market" most people have little or no choice between different jobs and are therefore unable to "shop-around" looking for the one they like best. People have to work to make a living and with no protective legislation they would be compelled to "voluntarily accept" the demands of the employer - as is obvious if you look at history or at working conditions in the so called "third world".

2. The 40 hour work week is not simply an individual issue - it directly affects the econmy and welfare of the nation. Even if you feel that you would be able to handle an 80 hour work week it would wear down both your body and mind pretty fast - resulting in higher rates of sick people, higher medical costs and a shorter effective total life of work. You would probably also have some problem with finding the time to make a family and raise your kids.

3. If the problem is large wage gaps between rich and poor then surely it would be a better solution to try distributing incomes more equally (education, welfare-programs, extensive collective-bargaining or a higher minum wage - or something else that could work) and phasing out obsolete parts of your industry.

English is not my native language and i apoligize for grammar and spelling etc.

Well good, its a ridiculous piece of legislation. No nation in the world would force its citizens to only work 40 hours a week, its ridiculous.
Frisbeeteria Approved this for discussion and vote, and stand against the concept of mandatory regulation of hours on the international level for purely intellectual and libertarian reasons.

Despite our vote in favor of the repeal, we have to ask Donthoran, "Have you even read the existing proposal, or any of the arguments in this topic?" If your primary objections are for the reasons stated above, then you haven't read the resolution. Perhaps as UN Ambassador for your nation, you should acquaint yourself with the actual code of law imposed, rather than making rash and incorrect assumptions based solely on the title of the resolution.

Clauses 5 and 6 of the original resolution deal with your objection specifically. In fact, the resolution actually sets 80 hours as the upper limit; which is 11.5 hours a day, 7 days a week - a ridiculously long workweek by anyone's standards. It also makes sure that people working more than 40 hours a week are rewarded with overtime compensation, which means that the poor actually have to work fewer hours to make ends meet. The combined effect of the clauses of the resolution amounts to both a cut in hours and a pay raise for the poorest and longest working members of many countries.

AFoFS UN Council


This sums it up.

Don't repeal! I fear that it may if people don't actually read what they are repealing.

I would hope that all delegates voting on this resolution would actually read the original legislation and not simply vote based on the wording of the repeal proposal. The repeal proposal is poorly worded to the point that the sponsor would probably agree with the original resolution (unless the delegate is attempting to remove the low-income worker protections that the delegate is supposedly fighting for in the repeal support language).

Description: UN Resolution #59: The 40 Hour Workweek (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work without interference from the United Nations.

The consequences of Resolution #59 are the opposite of the aims. The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare."

Now, let's have the resolution being repealed.

The 40 Hour Workweek



A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Free Soviets

Description: 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.

Votes For: 8637

Votes Against: 8526

Implemented: Sun May 23 2004

The resolution allows workers to choose how many hours they work beyond 40, but I do not see any evidence within it that contradicts the second point of the repeal. Support to be decided upon a review of this topic.

We in the Iron Fist Consumeristst Empire of Gzellagrad believe that UN resolution #59, "The 40 Hour Workweek", should be repealed and have voted thus. Our workers should be able to work longer hours and employers should be able get their workers working without having to send them home after 40 hours when there is still work to be done. A hard working patriotic citizen should have no trouble in working a 60-80 hour week so that the nation may grow stronger. If anything there should be a minimum working week, to ensure that all citizens give their dues to society. We encourage all other nations to vote this way, the needs of the workers does not out weigh the needs of the nation.

Strength and Honour
The Esteamed Diplomat of the Great Empire of Gzellagrad

The Armed Republic of hkdl agrees with Gzellagrad. The needs of the nation and the services this country exports should not be hindered by the restrictive nature of the resolution in question. I have cast my vote to repeal.

in light of ACTUALLY reading the original resolution, it has become clear to many that this is a ploy by the capitalist nations and their leaders corrupted by big businesses into breaking the rights of the proletariat in a ploy to force longer working hours upon the masses. I hope that all nations will have vote against the repeal.

It is our duty as government to protect the workers and the people in our nations from these types that are trying to exploit the populace of many nations all around the world.

I agree. Karibekuzstan will vote no on the repeal.

...as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare.....

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. If you work overtime, you get paid at least 1.5 of your wage. How does that make things more harder for the poor than a flat rate of unlimited hours?

Hold on, hold on. I'm fine with the 40-hour part, because it says 'contractually obligated' and that leaves open a *lot* of wonderful loopholes in phrasing.

But the 80-hour part I'm not too keen on.

1) How long is a week in your nation or on your planet?

2) What about people who work 24-7? In Adam Island, journalists, mountain climbers, performance artists and sex workers are often compensated for 24 hours of work a day, including sleep time. Adam-Cola Inc. paid one man $100 for every hour he lived on the top of their billboard, and that lasted for months. Are we in violation with this resolution?

If any of you have any sense, The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood urges you to repeal against this outrages proposal. If this does not happen, The Irish Brotherhood will be forced to withdraw our support for the UN and withdraw membership. We hope it does not come to this.

Tommy O'Bannon, President of The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood

Well it's entirely your choice if you want to leave the UN, but I don't think that threatening to do so will get increase the support for the repeal particularly.

there is also the thread that went into the archive (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=327993)


ZOINKS!

Now that is a long thread. It was no problem for me to read the shorter version posted earlier in order to education my government on what was said 7 months ago, but I can see I'll have to ask my home government to send more aids in the review.

That said, the text of the original resolution is still excellent and as my prior public statement was in support of this resolution I've cast my government's vote against this repeal. While we'll read with interest the debates, we do not agree with the opinion that this resolution represents a significant handicap to our nation's economy.

A hard working patriotic citizen should have no trouble in working a 60-80 hour week so that the nation may grow stronger

*counts to ten, trying to remain calm*

That's perfectly legal under the original resolution. What you're not allowed to do is force people to work 60-80 hours against their will. Your hard-working, patriotic citizens have nothing to fear from Resolution #59.

Please, please, people: read the text of the original. This repeal proposal is nothing but a cynical attempt to allow exploitation of ordinary workers by repressive governments and/or corporations. If your citizens want to work 80 hours a week in order to pay for their kids' education, or whatever it might be, they can. #59 just ensures that dilligence is appropriately rewarded, that's all.

And wot is wrong with expoiting hard working citizens? They should work until they are told to stop!

If any of you have any sense, The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood urges you to repeal against this outrages proposal. If this does not happen, The Irish Brotherhood will be forced to withdraw our support for the UN and withdraw membership. We hope it does not come to this.

Tommy O'Bannon, President of The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood

Tommy,
Threats aren't going to help your cause. Go ahead and leave the UN then we can pass all sorts of resolutions that you aren't in favor of while you're at home working your laborers into the ground.

Resolution #59 is worded in such a way that allows for very few legal loopholes. It states, in more words, that no business can contractually obligate you to work more than 40 hours in a week. By doing away with this, businesses would be allowed to require 40+ hours of all their workers. And believe me, I guarantee most businesses would take advantage of this, as their would no longer be overtime pay.

Secondly, although resolution #59 applied to a standard work week and business hours in a day, the proposal was designed in such a way to proportiate to fit any amount of hours. An example: As you can fit 7 days into 40 hours 5.7 times, this would validate another 5.7 hours added ( or subtracted ) for every extra (or missing) day. An 8 day week could have 45.7 hours in it. A 6 day work week could have 34.3 hours in it. The same adjustment can be made for hours in a day etc etc.

Not only would the new proposal potentially cut millions from the work force who could not manage 40+ hours a week required from their employers, especially noting industrial work, but would possibly cause child labor issues to rise to an astounding rate.

Moritoriad urges you to reconsider this proposal, and vote no in lieu of the bad wording of this proposal, and the lack of need for change. Thank you.

The resolution, which is up for repeal, would work if there were enough workers in every area of the job market to cover the toatl need of all areas. However as we know from the real world this is not the case.

Having read resolution #59 I support the repeal. I suggest amendments be made:
part 7. gives me cause for concern I remember from my history lessons that Hilter used similar sounding clauses to gain power
Part 4. On call hours count towards the 40. hello doctors! may be on call all night thats 12 hours are you saying they can only work for 4 days.

If the resolution was amended to say give a 45-50 hour working week I would support it. Some people like to work and get great job satisfaction from their work. Why make them stop doing what they enjoy.

The resolution is flawed. Only contractual work is covered by the resolution. I believe that businesses will use this deffinition of "Contratual work" against the resolution and thereby manage to bypass the resolution.


People can work longer hours. If they do though, they are required to be paid over time to make up for it.

(OOC)
And if you can reference Hitler then I can tell you that the average working week round my way is 37.5 hours, and 40 is considered quite long.

(IC)
But outside of that this also details overtime rules and so on - it stops workers from being exploited in to 120 weeks with no over time. Which is a good thing!

After reading the arguements on here and seeing how the resolution has affected my economy, I vote against the repeal. It has done no economic damage, has forced companies to hire more power for shifts, and is not using a time scale I do not use. Totally, no losses or damage done.

If any of you have any sense, The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood urges you to repeal against this outrages proposal. If this does not happen, The Irish Brotherhood will be forced to withdraw our support for the UN and withdraw membership. We hope it does not come to this.

Bye. If you want to leave fast, the window is faster, as you dodge all of those nasty stairs. Here, let me open it for you and help you out.

The resolution allows workers to choose how many hours they work beyond 40, but I do not see any evidence within it that contradicts the second point of the repeal. Support to be decided upon a review of this topic.

The problem is that if it is repealed, it is not going to cure the second part of his repeal. Instead companies will be free to enforce any contractual hours they like upon their employees, for any salary they like.

So you go from 40 hours at time, then up to 80 hours at over time

to

Any amount of hours at time. This could be asking someone to do 96 hours a week, with no overtime and no benifits.

The resolution as it stands protects workers rights to a large degree, even if it can not protect all of them.

And what is wrong with exploiting workers? Thats what they are there for.

And what is wrong with exploiting workers? Thats what they are there for.

That is one way of looking at it.

Dear United Nations -

The Republic Nation of JunoSprite hearby brings up the following points:

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

This simply states that no person can work over 40 hours a week..who really wants to work more then 40 hours? If there isn't a max that means the companys can say: "You have to work 120 hours a week." And you could do nothing, but quit, but is that as simple as it sounds? I mean think about it if all you have is either NO MONEY or a JOB what will you pick? Your family is starving and you need the money to feed them.... If someone works from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM a day (For six days a week) that's 54 hours so that does go above 40. JunoSprite would like to suggest that 60 should be the highest number. This would make sense, because, that way no one can force anyone to work too long but it's still a good number.

EDIT: What I meant was 60 without counting the extra hours; however I still standby the original resolution.

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.

This makes sense because military personnel, etc, if at war or even at peace are normally needed more then other such jobs. Doctors work longer, they always have, but with the increasing medical interns, there are enough nurses and doctors, etc, which have been applying in most nations.

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

This should stay because without being paid, it hits the fine line of being a slave, we need to watch these lines.

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

This also makes sense, afterall, if you are "on call" you most likely agreed to this then therefore the hours should not count to the 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.

This is also good, except, if we decide to go with another number as proposed above in my comments.

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.

This should also stay, because, if we reamp this by any suggestion then it should take effect slowly, just to allow time, for businesses and/or the government to reamp itself.

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.

This should also remain, if the government needs help, anywhere--in any workforce--such as for electricity reasons, times of war, etc then they should be able to suspend this--within reason.

The Original Repeal:

Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal Resolution: #59 Proposed by: Leg-ends

Description: UN Resolution #59: The 40 Hour Workweek (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work without interference from the United Nations.

The consequences of Resolution #59 are the opposite of the aims. The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare.

~ Letter Sent From The Republic of JunoSprite

~ Letter Sent From The Republic of JunoSprite

You did read the bit about 40 extra hours that can be done, paid at over time rates?

Someone can work 54 hours - if they agree to it, and if they are paid overtime for the 14 hours extra.

Same with doctors - if they agree to be on call then that's fine, as long as they are paid for the extra hours. (If you take that out - that on call hours don't count, then a hospital might just say "ok - you are required to do 40 hours in the hospital, and be on call all the time or you will be sacked" which is clearly a violation of the resolution as it stands, but not if you don't count the on call hours. And out of all the professions, surely it is best that Doctors are not forced to work to exhaustion?)

I think the resolution works fine as it is (unless you want to exploit all your workers, not pay them properly and basicaly skirt the edges of slave labour without crossing the line of course!)

<The delegate from New Tyrollia stands up, and looks around.>
Excuse me, but is there anyone here in this forum who actually supports this repeal? Aside from the honorable delegate from The Irish Brotherhood, of course.
. . .Anyone?

<silence>

. . . I see.

<Sits back down.>

Votes For: 1,623

Votes Against: 1,086


It could be worse I suppose :}

You did read the bit about 40 extra hours that can be done, paid at over time rates?

Someone can work 54 hours - if they agree to it, and if they are paid overtime for the 14 hours extra.

Same with doctors - if they agree to be on call then that's fine, as long as they are paid for the extra hours. (If you take that out - that on call hours don't count, then a hospital might just say "ok - you are required to do 40 hours in the hospital, and be on call all the time or you will be sacked" which is clearly a violation of the resolution as it stands, but not if you don't count the on call hours. And out of all the professions, surely it is best that Doctors are not forced to work to exhaustion?)

I think the resolution works fine as it is (unless you want to exploit all your workers, not pay them properly and basicaly skirt the edges of slave labour without crossing the line of course!)

I personally agree; however I was simply making a suggestion that if people wanted to increase it the hours, then they shouldn't go too far, I like the original resoulution too, it's just nations seemed to say they wanted more hours. Personally I think the resoulution covers a lot, which is why I made the comments, the repeal suggested that it all should be taking off. That would mean that companies could force all workers to work as much as they wanted. They meaning the companies, not the workers, which really doesn't make sense.

If people want to work longer, that's fine, but there has to be a law. I completely agree, with the standing resoulution, but if people wanted to change it a bit that's fine if they don't go overboard, right? But these are just my comments and clitiques on this.

~ The Republic of JunoSprite

<The delegate from New Tyrollia stands up, and looks around.>
Excuse me, but is there anyone here in this forum who actually supports this repeal? Aside from the honorable delegate from The Irish Brotherhood, of course.
. . .Anyone?

<silence>

. . . I see.

<Sits back down.>

I think a large number of nations voting for the repeal don't realise that the original resolution allows for 80 hours of work and ensures that those working long hours are handsomely rewarded with overtime pay, thus negating the repeal author's arguments. Those bothering to go to the forum are more likely to bother to read the original resolution carefully.

If I may, I think those supporting the repeal disagree with it on 2 levels.

1./ It's not something the United Nations should be inserting itself into anyway. This kind of issue ought to be addressed on the national and not international level.

2./ There are some types of work where a +40 hour week is necessary. Being an intern at a hospital immediately comes to mind. I'm sure there are others. Forcing all industries to comply with an employment regulation that may not be suitable to all industries applies a burden to those whom it doesn't apply to...and that's a concern that ought not be overridden in the interests of "social justice". People that choose to work in such industries do so of their own free will and have the ability to look for other work should a 40+ hour week outweigh the considerations for retaining such a job.

My 2c.

Considering the fact that clauses 5 and 6 of the UN resolution give an enormous amount of latitude to the lower classes when it comes to work hours and increase the hourly wage for anything over 40 hours to time-and-a-half, the Confederacy of Swordsmiths disagrees with this proposal. The resolution also ensures that the lower classes get payed for overtime, something that wouldn't be guaranteed if the resolution were repealed. All said and done, a worker that takes up the extra 40 hours (resulting in an 80 hour work week) would only re-earn their salary if the resolution were repealed, if they get payed at all. If the resolution stays, the same worker is guaranteed to get 1.5 times their salary again.

Now to make ABSOLUTLY SURE that I've made my point, here's some math assuming that the worker works 80 hours:

Repealed: 1n<o<2n
Retained: 1n<o<2.5n

where "n" is the 40-hour week wage and "o" is the overtime wage.

That clear?

The Individualist Republic of Reason and Reality, due to its recognizing and acceptance of the objective fact that, as the quantity and composition of working hours is solely a matter between employer and employee, government has no moral authority whatsoever to interfere in such matters, reiterates its wholehearted support for this proposal.

The Individualist Republic of Reason and Reality, due to its recognizing and acceptance of the objective fact that, as the quantity and composition of working hours is solely a matter between employer and employee, government has no moral authority whatsoever to interfere in such matters, reiterates its wholehearted support for this proposal.

if all the governments in the worlds allowed employers and employes to choose freely I would agree with you. Unfortenlty that is often not the case. There are many contries which are dictator ships. Hence I will change my vote so it is agianst resolution 59 not to protect the worker from companies, but to protect workers from tyranical governments.

<The delegate from New Tyrollia stands up, and looks around.>
Excuse me, but is there anyone here in this forum who actually supports this repeal? Aside from the honorable delegate from The Irish Brotherhood, of course.
. . .Anyone?
Frisbeeteria support the repeal.

I don't think it has adequate international scope to have been passed by the UN. National law would have been fine. The fact that it's a well thought-out and internally consistent resolution is irrelevant to the fact that it wasn't necessary in the first place. Let nations address their own workforce as they see fit.

We're not campaigning on behalf of the repeal, but neither will we let the principle of "less law" go undefended. It's intrusive resolutions like this that drive away the conservative voices, and frankly you lot need some negative feedback every once in a while. Any student of engineering knows that exclusive and continuous positive feedback will eventually cause any machine to oscillate out of control.

In addition, please note our fully-qualifed name.

Sincerely,

MJ Donovan, CEO (retired)
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States

Tanakeir in fact supports this repeal. It's called freedom to govern our nation as we see fit as stated above. I myself may work 20-90 hours a week as the job needs or sees fit. This doesn't set the hours as b4 it gives the freedom to work as many or as few as the "laborer" chooses. They wanna work seven 12 hour days a week, they are allowed. I myself do that consistently; but they are not forced to do so by any words included in the repeal.

Lord Delandou

"The intelligence of a human being is incredible; the stupidity of the masses is astounding"

If I may, I think those supporting the repeal disagree with it on 2 levels.

1./ It's not something the United Nations should be inserting itself into anyway. This kind of issue ought to be addressed on the national and not international level.

2./ There are some types of work where a +40 hour week is necessary. Being an intern at a hospital immediately comes to mind. I'm sure there are others. Forcing all industries to comply with an employment regulation that may not be suitable to all industries applies a burden to those whom it doesn't apply to...and that's a concern that ought not be overridden in the interests of "social justice". People that choose to work in such industries do so of their own free will and have the ability to look for other work should a 40+ hour week outweigh the considerations for retaining such a job.

My 2c.

I think it should be adressed on the international level. It is imporant that workers have rights and this is were it can happen.

Here is a great example of somebody not reading the resolution. It does not say that a person has to work just 40 hours. It says that if a person works more then 40 hours they need to get overtime. Plus it has a list of expections.

Tankeir people have rights too. People have the right not to be exploited and forced to work long hours.

Frisbeeteria resolutions like this give rights to workers to better their lifes. It frees them from corrupt corporations who only exploit them.

Hail,

Upon reading the call to repeal Resolution No. 59, it seemed to be a compassionate option. My nation first decided to vote for the repeal.

After this decision, I read the original resolution. I call unto you to do the same. Having read this resolution, I determined it was the better option, as it has been well-planned and thoroughly written, unlike the repeal.

My nation has since retracted its first vote and decided to vote against the repeal, as Resolution No. 59 is clearly the better of the two options.

Matthew, Most Holy Emperor
The Holy Empire of Gnidrah

Yet another example of not comprehending the words written b4 someone as proven by the spelling of my proud nation.

This is giving people the right to choose!! They are not being forced to do anything, they are being given the freedom to choose, plain and simple. there is nothing in the repeal that states that a nation will force all people working therein to work 100 hours a week. voting against this repeal is a direct insult to all who govern their nations as they see fit to benefit the citizens living there. it is so obvious, that is all.

Lord Delandou
"The intelligence of a human being is incredible; the stupidity of the masses is astounding"

I think it should be adressed on the international level. It is imporant that workers have rights and this is were it can happen.

Here is a great example of somebody not reading the resolution. It does not say that a person has to work just 40 hours. It says that if a person works more then 40 hours they need to get overtime. Plus it has a list of expections.
You think it should be addressed on the international level because you agree with it. Personally, regulations regarding individual citizens is something that ought to be left to the citizen's national government...particularly when that local government is democratically elected. But, I also tend to shy away from anything that smacks of Marxist/socialist rhetoric and the concept of "international workers rights" is right up that alley.

Insofar as my disagreeing with your position on this matter goes, it does not equal an example of not reading the resolution. My primary objection to it is that the United Nations is overstepping it's mandate and interfering in the internal politics of member nations.

For instance, you believe that the mandatory overtime provision makes it all good and sunny. Suppose you're dealing with a nation wherein overtime pay would make zero difference because the workers is being taxed at 100%? In other words, the worker takes home the same amount for 90 hours as he does for 40. Yay, to that you say?

I can read...but reading also requires contemplation and critical thought. My vote stands...perhaps it is you that ought to reconsider?

It seems like you're all still forgetting that this proposal makes it illegal for a person to work for more than 80 hours a week. A doctor on call 24-7 would be violating UN mandate. Being a firefighter is against the law. Being a soldier is against the law. Working extra on a contract for your dad's small business is against the law. Testing awesome new video games for 80 hours a week is against the law.

And this is all just assuming that everyone uses a 24-hour, 7-day week. Adam Island hasn't gotten around to ratifying a new calendar yet, but its not too hard to imagine a 14-day week with 60 hours each on some of these massive planets floating around.

Should we have protection for workers to make sure they're not exploited? Of course! But at the expense of liberty? No.

-Albert Thompson, AI UN Ambassador

In my opinion the UN has no business telling people how much they can work. Therefore I think this resolution should be repealed.

Having longer work weeks could benefit Third World countries economically. To make a long story short: longer work weeks = more profit = more tax = more schools = better jobs for the next generation. Theorethically anyway.

But of course that's just my humble opinion.

Here is a great example of somebody not reading the resolution. It does not say that a person has to work just 40 hours. It says that if a person works more then 40 hours they need to get overtime.
That's solely a matter between employee and employer. It is not the concern of government.

People have the right not to be exploited and forced to work long hours.
If there's no gun to the head, no one's being "exploited" or "forced" to do anything.

Frisbeeteria resolutions like this give rights to workers to better their lifes.
Rights cannot be "given" or "taken away". They are simply possessed or not possessed. Every individual throughout history and into the future has had and will have the exact same set of rights as every individual now alive possesses. The existence of rights stems not from institutional fiat but from an human individual's existence. The question is not whether individuals "should" or "should not" have a right but whether they DO or DO NOT have such a right.

It frees them from corrupt corporations who only exploit them.
It's not exploitation if it's voluntary. And any act taken without being done on fraudulent terms or under the threat of physical force is voluntary.

A doctor on call 24-7 would be violating UN mandate.

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

Being a firefighter is against the law.

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

Being a soldier is against the law.

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

Adam Island go read the resolution. It has expections to it. Once again a supporter of the repeal doesn't understand the resoluton.

Nieuw Hollandia how does working longer benefit third word countries? When you work more, you get burnt out more.

Reason and Reality how is it between the employee and company? Again this doesn't make it illegal to work more then 40 hours. Get this in your head people.

It gives them to right to be able to collect overtime.

This law is in place to protect against the exploitation of working people.

It states a worker will not be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours a week. Up to 80 hours a week is permissible.

My nation will defend a worker's right to be at home with their family. Their lives extend beyond the workplace. The unions in my nation fought for the right to eight hours of work, eight hours of rest, and eight hours of sleep. We will do everything in our power to make sure this resolution does not pass. I urge other nations to do the same.

I realize that probably all of my points have been said at some point, and apologize for repeating them, but I feel I need to make a short speech regardless.

The United Federation of Hersfold, Regional Delegate of Part123, firmly places it's vote AGAINST.

The aims of this resolution were not simply to reduce income inequality. They were also placed to prevent companies from abusing their employees.

The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare.

Huh?

Well, yeah, they'll work longer hours, but read the resolution....

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.

Which means, if you choose to stay and work overtime, you're making more than those who only work 40 hours/week. I see no way, by the author's logic, or lack thereof, how this increases income inequality.

Should this be repealed, NationStates will fall victim to the digital equivalent of the Real-Life Robber Barons of the late 19th century in the US, who overworked their employees, and paid them insufficent wages, simply because they knew that it would get them huge profits, and that the workers couldn't get jobs elsewhere. Income inequality will start to rise rapidly, and economies will be boosted for a short while, but eventually start to falter as the employed fall into a state of poverty. Crime rates will rise, as they did during that period in US history. Your nations will suffer if this repeal is not passed, I can almost guarantee you.

I cannot allow this repeal to pass, and will do all I can to prevent it from doing so.

The problem is that if it is repealed, it is not going to cure the second part of his repeal. Instead companies will be free to enforce any contractual hours they like upon their employees, for any salary they like.

So you go from 40 hours at time, then up to 80 hours at over time

to

Any amount of hours at time. This could be asking someone to do 96 hours a week, with no overtime and no benifits.

The resolution as it stands protects workers rights to a large degree, even if it can not protect all of them.

Upon examination of arguements present, I decided to vote against the repeal. In this case, I continue with that decision as this adds more evidence to be considered.

In fact, I'm placing my vote the next time I log Tiamat Taveril on.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::
NO ONE WILL TELL MY PEOPLE WHEN TO WORK!!!! I WANT ABSOLUTE FREEDOM AND RIGHTS TO ALL MY POPULUS. I WILL NOT STAND AROUND AND WATCH PEOPLE WORK TO FEW OF HOURS WHEN THEY NEED THE MONEY. I WILL NOT WATCH A PERSON WHO MAKES LARGE SUMS OF MONEY MAKE THAT MONEY DOING HALF THE WORK HE IS SUPPOSE TO DO. I AM ONE FOR THE PEOPLE.. AS IS MY NATION!!!

DOWN WITH THE 40 HOUR WORK WEEK!
DOWN WITH THE 40 HOUR WORK WEEK!

LEG-END HAS THE RIGHT IDEA! WE NEED TO REFORM IT AND MAKE A NEW LAW FOR GOVERNING HOURS!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::
NO ONE WILL TELL MY PEOPLE WHEN TO WORK!!!! I WANT ABSOLUTE FREEDOM AND RIGHTS TO ALL MY POPULUS. I WILL NOT STAND AROUND AND WATCH PEOPLE WORK TO FEW OF HOURS WHEN THEY NEED THE MONEY. I WILL NOT WATCH A PERSON WHO MAKES LARGE SUMS OF MONEY MAKE THAT MONEY DOING HALF THE WORK HE IS SUPPOSE TO DO. I AM ONE FOR THE PEOPLE.. AS IS MY NATION!!!

DOWN WITH THE 40 HOUR WORK WEEK!
DOWN WITH THE 40 HOUR WORK WEEK!

LEG-END HAS THE RIGHT IDEA! WE NEED TO REFORM IT AND MAKE A NEW LAW FOR GOVERNING HOURS!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Just so as you know, your arguement would be more convincing if you used less capital letters, and less smiles.

This protects workers rights. By repealing it you can easily get to a point where a nation would be flirting with the violation of the End Slavery resolution (you work someone 23 1/2 hours a day, seven days a week for 1 gold piece, what is the difference between that and slavery?)

Since quite a lot of people seem to have decided workers rights are not important, and want to see the return of slavery, I can only hope a proposal will be put forward to bring us back to a decent, civilized society.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::
NO ONE WILL TELL MY PEOPLE WHEN TO WORK!!!! I WANT ABSOLUTE FREEDOM AND RIGHTS TO ALL MY POPULUS. I WILL NOT STAND AROUND AND WATCH PEOPLE WORK TO FEW OF HOURS WHEN THEY NEED THE MONEY. I WILL NOT WATCH A PERSON WHO MAKES LARGE SUMS OF MONEY MAKE THAT MONEY DOING HALF THE WORK HE IS SUPPOSE TO DO. I AM ONE FOR THE PEOPLE.. AS IS MY NATION!!!

DOWN WITH THE 40 HOUR WORK WEEK!
DOWN WITH THE 40 HOUR WORK WEEK!

LEG-END HAS THE RIGHT IDEA! WE NEED TO REFORM IT AND MAKE A NEW LAW FOR GOVERNING HOURS!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Wow. Abuse of smileys combined with capital letters and demands with no support behind them really proves you right. I may convert right now.

Please. If you're going to make such statements, at least have an arguement to back it up. As it is, you provide a simple case of me being able to say you didn't bother to read the FAQ and dismissing your entire attempt with it.

The fact of the matter is the 40 hour work week does not keep workers from being exploited. What it DOES do however is limit the amount of extra work that a low paid employee can put in at one job. If a low wage earner wants to put in more hours to bring over more members of their family or put their kids in better schools or to care for sick relatives The Rogue Nation of Yeast Infected Nurses sees no reason why the U.N. would step in and stop them. This would stop the ridiculous practice of somebody having 3 different jobs because they can't work more hours at the main job they have.

All of you social utopians need to deal in real facts...like this itch...god this is irritating.!

I do agree to the resolution in principle, however, I do have two problems to the 40 hour work week resolution. First, I believe it should not be up to the UN to impose this law on countries. It should be up to individual countries to determine their own work laws. If we do not believe an individual country is not treating it's citizens properly than we can impose embargos or retracting most favored nation trade status or like.

Plus, this law is a hinderance to those countries attempting to industrialize. Throughout history those countries that are now industrialized nations with high standards of living once had it's labor force work long hours in unsafe conditions at underpaid wages. I do not believe the UN should hinder countries from attempting to industrialize and achieve higher standards of living for it's children in the future.

the 40 hour work week should not be repealed, the main purpose of the repeal is to help low income familys. However what is not being taken into account is that most people in poor familys work 2 or 3 jobs. thus they avoid the 40 hour work week limits. However if the work week were to be repealed many ppl inculding low income familys may be hurt by this. this done by employers forcing employes to work lot longer hours thus not being allowed to spend much time with familys. Poor ppl may be hurt because they can not get to their second job and thus possible lose money.

I do agree to the resolution in principle, however, I do have two problems to the 40 hour work week resolution. First, I believe it should not be up to the UN to impose this law on countries. It should be up to individual countries to determine their own work laws. If we do not believe an individual country is not treating it's citizens properly than we can impose embargos or retracting most favored nation trade status or like.

Plus, this law is a hinderance to those countries attempting to industrialize. Throughout history those countries that are now industrialized nations with high standards of living once had it's labor force work long hours in unsafe conditions at underpaid wages. I do not believe the UN should hinder countries from attempting to industrialize and achieve higher standards of living for it's children in the future.

Instead you support slave labour and exploitation of those most vunerable?

"Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #59
Proposed by: Leg-ends

Description: UN Resolution #59: The 40 Hour Workweek (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work without interference from the United Nations.
No they should not. It's the poor that are discriminated against in ridiculously long work weeks. During the Industrial Revolution, workers were extremely poor, and the owners made all profits, paying the workers nearly nothing for their ridiculously hard labor.

The consequences of Resolution #59 are the opposite of the aims. The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare."
They should not work more because they are poor. Instead, wages must be encouraged to be increased. After all, once the work week extends for a period of time that is just too long, the workers become inefficient at their craft, whatever it is, and inefficiency causes greater problems, such as defective products, which can endanger humans.

Repealing that resolution would, in fact, be harmful and endagering to the citizens of the world.

For these reasons, The Old Empire of Pininfarino has voted against this resolution.

The fact of the matter is the 40 hour work week does not keep workers from being exploited. What it DOES do however is limit the amount of extra work that a low paid employee can put in at one job. If a low wage earner wants to put in more hours to bring over more members of their family or put their kids in better schools or to care for sick relatives The Rogue Nation of Yeast Infected Nurses sees no reason why the U.N. would step in and stop them. This would stop the ridiculous practice of somebody having 3 different jobs because they can't work more hours at the main job they have.

All of you social utopians need to deal in real facts...like this itch...god this is irritating.!

We do deal in real facts. And a real fact is if you repeal this, you risk turning the UN, or some of it's nations, in to slave labour camps.

The United Socialist States of Urban Consolidation urges other nations to wholeheartedly reject this proposal.

Hurrah. Has anyone noticed that while almost everyone on this thread is against the repeal, it's still winning by several hundred votes? Not a good sign, even though most of the Delegates with +100 votes haven't done so yet.

Hurrah. Has anyone noticed that while almost everyone on this thread is against the repeal, it's still winning by several hundred votes? Not a good sign, even though most of the Delegates with +100 votes haven't done so yet.

I am kind of hoping that all the Delegates from the large regions (mine included) will be supporters of the workers.

You are saying that the current resolution eliminates the right to work overtime, but the current resolution establishes the right to overtime. If you repeal the current resolution, the poor that you claim to protect will lose the overtime pay you say they deserve.

Leg-ends, I notice that your central argument, that the poor are be made poorer by this resolution, was thoroughly disproven by Free Soviets

And yet you have offered no reply. Care to justify your repeal in light of the point made by Free Soviets?

The silence is rather telling, no?
AFoFS UN Council

Adam Island go read the resolution. It has expections to it. Once again a supporter of the repeal doesn't understand the resoluton.

Reason and Reality how is it between the employee and company? Agaim this doesn't make it illegal to work more then 40 hours. Get this in your head people.

It gives them to right to be able to collect overtime.

Hey Kerla, how about YOU go read the resolution. Once again people have decided to pretend that a resolution says what they want it to rather than what it actually says.

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

The ONLY exemption is for the 40 hours a week. Believe it or not, there are other parts of the resolution in there. It FORBIDS working 80 hours or more a week, including 'on call' time, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS aside from a sector-wide state of emergency declared by the national government and the national government only.

Jeez, I still can't understand how so many people that can't read manage to log onto the internet.

We do deal in real facts. And a real fact is if you repeal this, you risk turning the UN, or some of it's nations, in to slave labour camps.

And the real fact is that if you don't repeal this, you risk turning many UN nations into ex-UN nations, and into slave labor. Seems like an even cost-benefit analysis to me.

To everyone whose come in here waving the flag of National Soverigenty, saying 'the UN has no right to tell me what I can or can't do to my people!', may I remind you that this body is not a social club. The very purpose of this body is to violate National Soverigenty in order to protect the ideals it's member nations believe in.

If you have a reason why the people in your nation should not be protected from overworking, then say so. There are delegates from various nations who have done so already in this thread. However, do not come in here and say that it is your right to govern your nation however you see fit.You waived that right the minute you accepted membership into this body.

If you wish to have sole and total control over your populace, leave the NSUN, and run your country as you see fit. If you wish to be a member of the United Nations, however, become used to the idea that 'National Soverignty' is not a valid arguement against anything in these halls.

It FORBIDS working 80 hours or more a week, including 'on call' time, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS aside from a sector-wide state of emergency declared by the national government and the national government only.seeing as there is only 168 hours a week...take into account 6 hours of sleep per day...

Yeah, we want to be able to make people work 46 more hours!
Living only to sleep, eat, and work!
At normal wage rate!
And no day off!
So they will be less poorer!

:rolleyes:..No.

The ONLY exemption is for the 40 hours a week. Believe it or not, there are other parts of the resolution in there. It FORBIDS working 80 hours or more a week, including 'on call' time, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS aside from a sector-wide state of emergency declared by the national government and the national government only.

Ah, I can see how you got a little confused. If you don't mind, I'll just read out the sections in question.

"No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week, except for the following exemptions"

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

Now, the 80 hour limit refers to people who are contractually obligated to work 40 hours, and voluntarily accept overtime. However, the groups exempted in clause 2 are allowed to be contractually obligated to more than 40 hours. As a result, they are not part of the group referred to later on in the resolution, since they are not 'voluntarily undertaking' the additional work. The resolution is very well worded, but I can see how it would be easy to overlook some of the nuances there. Does that clear things up?

[OoC: By the way, if anyone else comes in here and says 'I support the repeal because people might want to work overtime', I'm going to scream.]

Here's a thought. Why don't all nations in favor of the repeal, instead declare yourselves in a state of emergency...that way...the 40 hour workweek is suspended for you and your nations alone.

And we can offer assistance through medical efforts as your people get overworked and start dropping like flies!

^^ That's actually kind of funny.

As President of Bushlia, I rule over a Democratic, capiitalist society whose members work hard to earn the money they deserve. However, they work of their own will, no one is forcing them to get a job. They either work or they don't. It is therefore the Bushlian government's belief that repealing UN resolution #59, the 40 hour work week, would open the channels by which nations could ensnare their citizens into working excessive hours. I agree with the author of the proposal to repeal the resolution in that people should have the right to work however long they want to work. However, as it stands right now, they DO--to the extent that they can choose to work or not. And keep in mind, the option to voluntarily work overtime is still there. So when asked your opinion on this propsal, make your voice heard, vote NO! on the repeal. The repeal is unnecessary and dangerous to the common man. A repeal of resolution #59 is a passive endorsement of excessive work hours.
Respectfully,
Nico, President of Bushlia

I support the repeal of the 40 hour work week resolution.

Although I do support a 40 hour work week, I feel this resolution is badly written and does not clearly include the normal exemptions for "salaried professionals". This would include management, doctors, the self-employed, etc. Also, other parts are unclear, someone mentioned that a state of emergancy would allow you to force everyone to work 24 hours a day. Although I do not beleive that is what the ammendment says, it should be remedied. Also, I feel it is fair to leave a loophole to allow those who the ammendment is inappropriete for to escape from it because I am partially libertarian.

For those reasons, I would like the 40 hour work week resolution repealed. I will propose another one in its place I beleive.

The 40 hour work week is a safety issue. You can't have people working 18 hour days without expecting to see quality suffer. It would also be dangerous to themselves and the others around with people falling asleep on the job. It isn't worth sacrificing saftey so that the workers can get ahead.

Argument: Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work without interference from the United Nations.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesnt the 40 hour week resolution allow worker on a volentary basis to work up to 80 hours. No worker could possible work over 80 hours on a sustained scheduale. The only reason that Leg-ends would ant this resolution repealed because it says that workers CANNOT BE FORCED TO WORK OVER 40 HOURS. It seems that the 40 hour week gives more rights to choice rather than takes them away as Leg-ends claims. I am severly disapointed that a nation of the UN would outright lie to other member nations.

The 40 Hour work week should not repealed in this manner, instead a new proposal should be drawn up rather than the ambiguous one right now. The new proposal should look into careers that involve lower work hours, overtime hours, and proper minimum wage regarding the 40 hour work week. The 40 hour work week should stay in place as a maximum amount of work weeks allowed other than overtime and emergency hours. Repealing this proposal and accepting this proposal would allow many loopholes which would allow the world's corporate businesses to extort and possibly increasing the workday schedule whilst lowering pay. This would return many nations of the world to Industrial Age work hours.

I support the repeal of the 40 hour work week resolution.

Although I do support a 40 hour work week, I feel this resolution is badly written and does not clearly include the normal exemptions for "salaried professionals". This would include management, doctors, the self-employed, etc. Also, other parts are unclear, someone mentioned that a state of emergancy would allow you to force everyone to work 24 hours a day. Although I do not beleive that is what the ammendment says, it should be remedied. Also, I feel it is fair to leave a loophole to allow those who the ammendment is inappropriete for to escape from it because I am partially libertarian.

For those reasons, I would like the 40 hour work week resolution repealed. I will propose another one in its place I beleive.

he resolution clearly defines who is exempt from the 40 hour time limit. Managers of corporations should not be forced to work any longer than those they manage. Doctors are exempt from this. The self-employed are obviously paying themselves, and are unaffected by this resolution.

As for the state of emergency, I fail to see your logic here. You propose to repeal the resolution that prevents this sort of thing, thus allowing nations to work people for 24 hours a day without facing any breaches of international law. The state of emergency clause is in place so that nations may increase production during war-time, for example, not something that will last premanently without the great possibility of civil revolt.

Also, what amendment do you speak of? Amendments have been declared illegal at least since I tried to fix my own resolution. And also, if you do decide to send in any proposals, please run them through a spell checker.

This resolution is wrong and unfair. Individuals do have the right to decide how many hours a week they work (up to 80) under the current resolution, without intercerence by the UN. That is the first "mistake" in the wording of the resolution at vote. The 40 Hour Workweek is to ensure that for any hours worked above 40 by a worker, he/she recieves time and a half pay at minimum. So there is another "mistake" in the current resolution. The 40 Hour Workweek does not increase income inequality, it reduces it. If it is repealed, workers will be unfairly exploited and be forced to work overtime hours without overtime pay. I hope all of you will realize this (you should read the original resolution if you haven't already) and I hope you all vote against the repeal.

We are most curious about what PUNNS says about this one.

http://www.uaw.org/solidarity/02/0502/front05.cfm
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/ns08052004.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek Haymarket Tragedy (http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/haymarket.htm)

when do people ever get to decide the number of hours they work on an individual basis? most of the time you are hired to work a certain number of hours a week, decided by the employer based on his or her needs. if you don't want to work that much, you probably won't get hired. if it is an insufficient number of hours for you to make ends meet, don't take the job. either way, the number of hours is set by the employer, not the job.

i support the original resolution. i think it prevents abusive overwork by employers while still allowing optional overtime for more pay. and 40 hours is a really freaking long time anyway. the repeal's emphasis on "individuals setting their own hours" is unrealistic. however, how is the section about "this shall be implemented without compromising the workers' quality of life" supposed to be enforced?

"No one may be contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week, except for the following exemptions"

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

Now, the 80 hour limit refers to people who are contractually obligated to work 40 hours, and voluntarily accept overtime. However, the groups exempted in clause 2 are allowed to be contractually obligated to more than 40 hours. As a result, they are not part of the group referred to later on in the resolution, since they are not 'voluntarily undertaking' the additional work. The resolution is very well worded, but I can see how it would be easy to overlook some of the nuances there. Does that clear things up?
Why yes it does, thank you. I was mistaken in how I read it. I think that it came down to how I was interpeting "voluntarily"- I figured that contractual obligations were voluntary.



[OoC: By the way, if anyone else comes in here and says 'I support the repeal because people might want to work overtime', I'm going to scream.]
Well, if you're an employer, would you rather allow an employee who desperatly needs money to work 5 more hours and pay them Salary X 7.5 or a different employee and pay them Salary X 5? Overtime wage laws serve to discourage voluntary overtime work. [OOC: At one place I worked my employers refused to schedule me for more than 40 hours in the 7-day week and wouldn't allow me to switch shifts with another employee, despite the fact that I was a far better worker and I had nothing to do because I was out of school.]

Think of it this way- if a worker enjoys their job and wants to work extra to finish up a project (perhaps a chef working on a masterpiece or an actor fine-tuning his lines or an athlete practicing extra) then this resolution is just going to make it so their employers forbid them from doing so because they don't want to pay the extra cost.

And besides, there is still the problem of varying work weeks and hours. We have to keep in mind that there are many many planets in the NS universe and some of them have days longer than 24 hours and weeks longer than 7 days. (or maybe they just use a different calendar) It would be completely unfair for us to forbid their citizens from working more than 80 hours if they have a 100-hour days and 10-day weeks. That's why this is a local issue and best left to the local governments and unions to manage.




Here's a thought. Why don't all nations in favor of the repeal, instead declare yourselves in a state of emergency...that way...the 40 hour workweek is suspended for you and your nations alone.

Not a bad idea.... check out this article (http://adamisland.blogspirit.com/archive/2004/12/15/thompson_supports_workweek_rep.html)

The current resolution does contain loopholes that Adam Island domestic courts have generally held open, using a liberal interpetation of the phrases "contractually obligated" and "declared emergencies." The latter phrase was called into question over President Rodriquez's proclamation that the resolution had "created an emergency that we are now declaring. We are hereby suspending this directive to any sector of the workforce that contains free citizens, as the basic liberty to work is deemed essential to the effective running of our great country of liberty."

This proclamation effectively rendered the entire resolution null and void. There was some grumbling, but Parliament and the Supreme Court unanimously stood behind the President. The reasoning is that if law-abiding citizens are in danger of being forbidden to work, there is definatly an emergency across all sectors. The idea is that the 'effective running' of Adam Island includes effective basic liberties for all.

As in general we the United Socialist States of Snoogit view corporations and infact any form of capitalism as imorral and corrupt, we cannot imagine the rights abuses corporations would inflict upon the citizens of our nation should we abolish the 40 hour work week.

We are voting against this resolution

Well, if you're an employer, would you rather allow an employee who desperately needs moey to work 5 more hours and pay them Salary X 7.5 or a different employee and pay them Salary X 5? Overtime wage laws serve to discourage voluntary overtime work. [OOC: At one place I worked my employers refused to schedule me for more than 40 hours in the 7-day week and wouldn't allow me to switch shifts with another employee, despite the fact that I was a far better worker and I had nothing to do because I was out of school.]

Think of it this way- if a worker enjoys their job and wants to work extra to finish up a project (perhaps a chef working on a masterpiece or an actor fine-tuning his lines or an athlete practicing extra) then this resolution is just going to make it so their employers forbid them from doing so because they don't want to pay the extra cost.

And besides, there is still the problem of varying work weeks and hours. We have to keep in mind that there are many many planets in the NS universe and some of them have days longer than 24 hours and weeks longer than 7 days. (or maybe they just use a different calendar) It would be completely unfair for us to forbid their citizens from working more than 80 hours if they have a 100-hour days and 10-day weeks. That's why this is a local issue and best left to the local governments and unions to manage.


(OoC: heh, I was mostly referring to the thousands of people who come in, decide they don't want to read any of the pages before, and post saying that the current resolution is stupid because nobody is allowed to work any more than 40 hours. Which, as we all now by now [:rolleyes:] is untrue.)

Those are very good points, and I believe they highlight two flaws that actually do exist in the current Resolution.

The first is mandatory overtime pay at 150%. Now, we understand that this is to represent that overtime work is something 'above and beyond' the normal working hours, but as our respected delegate from Adam Island so clearly pointed out, sometimes it is advantageous to both the employer and the employee to simply have overtime work at full pay.

The other problem is, of course, that the resolution assumes 'Earth Time'.

In our opinion, better wording of the resolution might have stated that overtime pay would have to be at least at full rate, and that individual governments could regulate higher levels of overtime pay across the board or in specific instances as they see fit. Of course, to repeal an otherwise perfectly sound resolution for the sake of such a minor adjustment would be, in the eyes of our Own government at least, needlessly trivial.

The other problem, however, has a very simple solution. The problem of adapting the UN resolutions, which are typically worded so as to assume a standard Earth environment, to non-Earth settings is not a new one. Recently, a delegate (I believe it was Vastiva, though please correct me if I am wrong) crafted a piece of legislation ensuring that the term 'humanity' would be applicable to the citizens of nations whose primary inhabitants were non-human. I see no reason why another delegate could not simply follow in those footprints, and pass a resolution establishing an objective definition of 'weeks', 'days', 'months', 'hours', etc. (Defining one 'year' as the time in which it takes the Earth to revolve around the sun, one 'day' as a full rotation of the Earth, etc.) Being from a Nation firmly grounded on Terra Firma, I'm afraid I myself have little knowledge of all the nuances respective to these situations, but New Tyrollia would be more than willing to support any Nations for whom this was a concern.

Dear UN Members:

The Republic of JunoSprite would like to point out the following:

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.

The Nation of JunoSprite would simply like to remind people of that. Please remember to check the original resolution too -- thank you.

(OOC) The page is: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/42437/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=58

(IC)

Argument: Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work without interference from the United Nations.

The consequences of Resolution #59 are the opposite of the aims. The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare.

The repeal will leave people without jobs, and those who choose to still work, will be forced to work very long job hours. Sure there are many nations, which don't follow a seven-day week; however is it right to force people to work for 999 hours a week? Sure this is just a random number, but think about this logically, companies could force someone to work from 3:00 in the morning to 12:00 in the morning and they could do nothing but quit.

And if they did quit, they'd have no money, and therefore would be in trouble so they'd have to work as long as the employer wishes. And the UnitedNations could do nothing about this, and before anyone starts about how governments should be in charge, of their own laws read these quotes:

The UN is the world's governing body. Membership is voluntary, but all member nations must abide by UN rules.

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

If you're ready to take your nation onto the world stage, though, the UN is for you.

The whole point of The UN is to be a Governing Body, and by joining, your nation gives up all rights to go against UN resolutions. You HAVE to follow these Resoulutions, sure you can repeal them, but think about this wisely. Do you really want to have companies forcing your citizens to work all week with only two hours of sleep?

If someone if facing work or unemployment, they will most likely choose work, even if they're forced to work painful hours with lack of sleep, all for their family. Remember this when voting, for or against, this repeal or any resolution/repeal.

Please read this quote:

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

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

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

Votes For: 6,939
Votes Against: 1,753

Implemented: Tue Jan 21 2003

This resolution is to stop what is trying to go on here, my friends, it's time to think before we act. Do you really want to force someone to work, as much as the company wants, or should there be a maximum set of hours aloud?

If we repeal this resolution, it's only a matter of time, till someone tries to start slavery again. And I'm sure people have tried, but what will happen next time, will they win? Do you want slaves, if so, you shouldn't be in the UN. The UN stands for exploration of knowledge, of all people, not just the few.

If we start repealing acts, won't we be no better, then that communist country which bans freethought? I say neigh, neigh my fellow nations, we will not allow this -- please think before you vote EITHER way!

(OOC) http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/42437/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=58

(OOC)

Ahem...okay so a little over dramatic I got into the post -.- lol anyway see ya!

[OOC: At one place I worked my employers refused to schedule me for more than 40 hours in the 7-day week and wouldn't allow me to switch shifts with another employee, despite the fact that I was a far better worker and I had nothing to do because I was out of school.]


OOC: Actually at my office often the decisions on overtime (even though I'm salaried, I only work 40 hours a week ... I'm a government employee) are based on a number of factors, but one of which is how much money is budgeted to the group. When I first hired on, it was trival for the state to pay me 1.5 when I'd put in a few extra hours each week. But as I've slowly advanced, that money isn't enough anymore.

Just talking about the work place, one of the reasons I love my job, is I can focus on my engineering work without worrying about billable hours. Oh, I do bill water projects all the time, but somebody else is the one that makes sure I don't over spend, which is great, it has allowed me to really focus on water quality issues and help the state.

This protects workers rights. By repealing it you can easily get to a point where a nation would be flirting with the violation of the End Slavery resolution (you work someone 23 1/2 hours a day, seven days a week for 1 gold piece, what is the difference between that and slavery?)
The fact that it is a consensual, rather than coercive, relationship.

Since quite a lot of people seem to have decided workers rights are not important, and want to see the return of slavery,
No, not slavery. No agreement which is agreed to voluntarily by all concerned parties is slavery, because it is not coercive. Slavery is an issue of coercion, not compensation.
I can only hope a proposal will be put forward to bring us back to a decent, civilized society.
So then you agree with repealing laws concerning agreements between employer and employee? Because such wholesale violations of individual rights are most certainly barbaric and uncivilized.

I am amazed to see a general consensus on the forums to the wrongdoing that is this proposed resolution, though we are losing in the vote count at the moment. I wish there was a better way to spread the word and the truth about this resolution and to inform people on what the 40 hour work week resolution covers.

I am convinced this is a ploy by the capitalist nations to exploit their workforce and people.

If this works, then I'm actually going to submit that proposal on weapons of planetary destruction and see if I can actually get it passed.

If you want to be a "hero" to the poor do so but do it in your own country, just resign from the U.N. I am sick of resolutions like this one passing. Many people don't read the resolutions, they just vote for the one that has the most votes. If a person has to work harder in that period of time to work up an income that is good there is something very wrong in your country. Sort out your own issues first, if this resolution passes the gap between the poor and the rich in your country will still be there the only difference is that the people will have to work more-the income will be more too but the gap will still be there. What you need to do if you want your people and your country to be the same on all levels is to start a real marxist kommunist revolution, a country without a leader, commerce and classes. People will grow what they eat and that will be it. That is to say if you really are a kommunist wich you seem to be.
Regards.

I don't understand why this repeal seems to be passing. Why would anyone need to be able to force their workforce to work more than 40 hours per week? Is this some poorly thought out attempt to remove parents from their children?

Or is it that they want their workforces to be allowed to work more than 80 hours per week? That's crazy talk! You may as well just force everyone to work drunk, you'll get the same standard of workmanship out of them!

There seems to be something everyone is missing. The 40 hour work week does not limit workers' ability to work more than 40 hours, it just binds employers from being able to contractually obligate their workers to do so. And it is MORE than within the rights and bounds of any community of persons or states that adhere and subject themselves to common law (as the UN does) to agree, through law, that a certain standard working week should be observed for all persons, and that persons choosing to go beyond that standard must be fairly compensated (ie: time and a half pay). Repealing the 40 hour work week will DO NOTHING to help the working poor, and it will take away any international structure through which humane and fair nations might expect to uphold fair employment and decency standards for the world community. DO NOT REPEAL THE 40 HOUR WORK WEEK, AND TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO VOTE "NO!"

Keep 40 hours as:

Leisure time is life quality.

Much community vital production occurs out of office, like caring for family, friends and neighbourhoods, NGO-work, self fullfilment, etc.

It is the lack of distribution rather than the lack of production that limits the life quality in most states. Both internally and externally in a state.

UN-members should not compete economically among themself by increasing the workload of their population.

Every state today has extensive unemployment. Dividing the tasks of the community will not only even out the workload amongst the population but also diminish the exclusion from the community.

By repealing the 40 hour week we will alter the balance of the economic system making place for unfair and community negative competition within as well as between states. In no sustainable system is productivity more important than efficiency.

I am amazed to see a general consensus on the forums to the wrongdoing that is this proposed resolution, though we are losing in the vote count at the moment. I wish there was a better way to spread the word and the truth about this resolution and to inform people on what the 40 hour work week resolution covers.

I am convinced this is a ploy by the capitalist nations to exploit their workforce and people.
I am surprised but not amazed to find that so many nations in the UN want to force everyone to follow the same internal rules that they follow. I am also surprised but not amazed to see that so many people believe that workers would become the equivalent of slaves if this resolution is repealed. I would believe that some of you were engaging in satire if there were some more "smilies" around.

Let's look at resolution 59, shall we?

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.

4. On call hours shall count against the 40 hour limit.
I presume civil defense forces include the police and fire departments and that emergency response personnel include doctors but not lawyers. Thus, the current U.S. work schedules for police, fire fighters, doctors and lawyers -- all of which obligate personnel to work more than a 40 hour workweek, including on-call time -- would all be prohibited in general. Perhaps that's a good thing, but there doesn't seem to be any shortage of people opting to enter those professions despite the onerous mandatory schedules.

Oh, and this is probably the most expensive single resolution ever passed by the UN. Why?

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.
So, in the US case, companies can't cut the pay of doctors and lawyers, and municipalities can't cut the pay of police and fire department staffers, even though they can't work more than 40 mandatory hours per week any longer and so these areas would need 2x the number of people (hey, who would agree to VOLUNTARILY work the extra time if the company/government was already blocked from reducing your standard of living as a result of the hours cut?). If a resolution like this were actually passed by any real international body, the international body would quickly cease to exist, because no country could absorb the expense that this measure would mandate.

The 40 hour work week is a safety issue. You can't have people working 18 hour days without expecting to see quality suffer. It would also be dangerous to themselves and the others around with people falling asleep on the job. It isn't worth sacrificing saftey so that the workers can get ahead.
Right ... the reason so many foreign nationals come to the US for medicine and law issues is because of the low quality of US doctors and lawyers. And where do the 18-hour days come into it? Seems to me that working 8.5 hours a day on a mandatory basis would be a violation every bit as severe under this resolution as working 18 would be.

Doctors are exempt from this. The self-employed are obviously paying themselves, and are unaffected by this resolution.
That is true for some doctors and some lawyers. But it is by no means true for all or even for a majority. And it isn't true for any policemen or any firemen.

And it's not clear to me from the original resolution that this wouldn't apply to doctors and lawyers who work for their own professional corporations, as well as entrepreneurs who own start-up corporations and LLCs, since they normally would be treated as employees of the entities. I think the better view is that it applies to all employees, regardless of their ownership status.

Should this be repealed, NationStates will fall victim to the digital equivalent of the Real-Life Robber Barons of the late 19th century in the US, who overworked their employees, and paid them insufficent wages, simply because they knew that it would get them huge profits, and that the workers couldn't get jobs elsewhere. Income inequality will start to rise rapidly, and economies will be boosted for a short while, but eventually start to falter as the employed fall into a state of poverty. Crime rates will rise, as they did during that period in US history. Your nations will suffer if this repeal is not passed, I can almost guarantee you.
The fallacy in this argument is that it only holds true in a time of economic stagnation ... or a rapid rise in the size of the workforce (as happened in the US during the period of unrestricted immigration in the 1880s and 1890s). In boom times with relatively stable populations, workers are in demand, and companies offer better terms to attract workers -- so it wouldn't be true that "the workers couldn't get jobs elsewhere" and "would be paid insufficient wages," as asserted. Anyway, if your country wants a 40-hour workweek, feel free to institute one. But that doesn't mean that you should be able to dictate commercial relationships in other countries.

To me, a relative newcomer at NationStates, it looks like the UN has been "hijacked" by a cabal, who are now outraged that others have seen fit to disturb their attempt at hegemony. See this, for example:

To everyone whose come in here waving the flag of National Soverigenty, saying 'the UN has no right to tell me what I can or can't do to my people!', may I remind you that this body is not a social club. The very purpose of this body is to violate National Soverigenty in order to protect the ideals it's member nations believe in.

If you have a reason why the people in your nation should not be protected from overworking, then say so. There are delegates from various nations who have done so already in this thread. However, do not come in here and say that it is your right to govern your nation however you see fit.You waived that right the minute you accepted membership into this body.

If you wish to have sole and total control over your populace, leave the NSUN, and run your country as you see fit. If you wish to be a member of the United Nations, however, become used to the idea that 'National Soverignty' is not a valid arguement against anything in these halls.
Well, guess what, some of us have decided not to leave the UN but instead to try to reform it from within. We accept that the UN can override national sovereignty in some areas, but we think that the UN has blundered its way into far too many intrusions into national sovereignty, and we would like to remake the UN into something other than a clique for fellow travellers. Note that all of those people whom you insult so freely have chosen to belong to the UN. They have a different view of the organization than you do, and they want to undo what in their view are some of its more egregious acts.

What makes your view "right" and their view "wrong"? Apparently just the fact that, once upon a time, people holding your view about the 40-hour workweek were able to dredge up 111 more votes than people holding the other view, out of a total of over 17,000 votes cast. But the times, they are a-changin'.

We disagree

Perhaps a more productive way of altering your complaints would be to suggest a proposal which regulates pay and conditions of work, especially for the economically inept.

we agree with Aligned Planets. the 40-hour work week also allows everybody to have a healthy balance of work and social life, which is exceptionally important (we feel) to economic success. i don't want the citizens of Victoria Sqaure to work while overtired and unrelaxed as this would lower production and increase the chance of workplace accidents.

The Republic of JunoSprite Has Opted To Address Squirrelmania:

Dear Squirrelmania -

The point of the original resolution was not to hold people back, it is to protect them, by making sure they cannot be forced to work past 40 hours. The point of "on call" is only if it required and if they applied, such as, to my understanding for example is in a state of emergency.

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.

This is only during the emergency situations as previously mentioned; however a person can work more hours as mentioned below:

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.

This is basically saying they can work up to 80, if they so wish to, people can only work so long before they pass out. If this resolution is not here, to protect them, they could be forced to the blint of slavery. Already someone is wishing to repeal the "End Slavery" act. This appears to not be going through, totally, but just look at what is happening!

(OOC) http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7719033&posted=1#post7719033
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/22384/page=UN_proposal - currently first on first page.
(IC)
The End Slavery Repeal currently only needs 112 more approvals, to then be brought into the actual body of the UN. Please Squirrelmania don't think we don't want to hear your side, or even others, we are all here to debate our sides in a calm and friendly manor. I admit, I got a little roudy, but this happens.

Please think about this, if this resolution is not here, then what will happen to the workers? They will be forced to work more and more, even if the End Slavery Repeal doesn't pass. They will be forced to work 23-hour days--assuming the maximum hour per day is 24--and then what will happen? They could quit, true, but then if the UN cannot step in and do something about jobs they could just force them to not quit!

And before anyone says, you have the right to control your nation how you see fit, remember the UN is formed on the principles that we discuss the laws. Someone passes a ressolution, you either follow it or leave, The Republic of JunoSprite has made its decision and shall stay in The UN; however does not want to see this resolution repealed.


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.

This is simply stating that it must be taking into effect, after one year--no later then five years of it being passed.

~ The Republic of JunoSprite

(OOC) Just so everyone will know I'm going to sleep, but I have cable so it may show I'm still logged in, just ignore not...bbl!

And the real fact is that if you don't repeal this, you risk turning many UN nations into ex-UN nations, and into slave labor. Seems like an even cost-benefit analysis to me.

So because we are going to have slaver labour camps anyway we might as well be happy and welcome them in to the fold?

How about standing up for what is right and kicking them out of the UN until they accept that workers are people and should not be exploited?

The fact that it is a consensual, rather than coercive, relationship.


Consensual? A boss says "work these hours for a crappy wage or you will be fired"? That's consensual?


No, not slavery. No agreement which is agreed to voluntarily by all concerned parties is slavery, because it is not coercive. Slavery is an issue of coercion, not compensation.


Like I said - if you don't have a choice because you need the money, how it is not coercion?


So then you agree with repealing laws concerning agreements between employer and employee? Because such wholesale violations of individual rights are most certainly barbaric and uncivilized.

I would say ensuring someone can only work so long and if they work longer they are suitably compensated is not the act of a barbaric society. Forcing people to work 24/7 or telling them they lose their job - is.

Junenk urges No to repeal - the Resolution #59 restricts maximum work week 40 hours a week on standard rates. This does not imply states cannot set their hours-per-week lower, but enforces humane restrictions on maximum amounts. Repealing the original resolution only leads the way towards states where 40 hours is but a dream.

contractually obligated to work more than 40 hours per week

Why do you want employers to be capable of forcing people to work as many hours as they see fit? I would not accept a job where I am CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED (ie. made to by the terms of the contract) work more that 40 hours per week. You believe that this increases inequality? If poor people are FORCED to work longer hours, it won't make any difference whether they are forced to or not - they can work overtime regardless of the 40-hour contracted limitation.
Sunkite Islands, as UN Delegate is still collecting it's Realm's opinion, but currently stands against.

If this works, then I'm actually going to submit that proposal on weapons of planetary destruction and see if I can actually get it passed.

(smirk) I have one on child prostitution that is well thought out, totally logical and totally legal. I am really wondering if it could get passed as well!

We find this repeal to be shocking and utterly disgusting. This is another example of the wealthy capitalist powers trying to keep the power and money for themselves by enslaving the workers. The proliteriat must never be allowed to become the masters of the poor. The 40 Hour workweek bill provided workers with the option of working up to 80 hours a week (which we believe is cruel and unusual). The bill simply protected workers from employers wishing to force them into longer hours.
Who will this repeal most affect? The salaryman at a major corporation? No, the average worker who will no longer have time to care for his or her young children, the poor mother trying to feed her family. Students, who will be forced to give up too much of their young lives to the workforce, or risk loosing their jobs. Some wealthy people will also be negatively affected. Doctors in many nations are facing burnout from long hours.
Furthermore companies will be able to survive with few employees thereby increasing the worldwide unemployment rate. Studies have also shown that workers work more effeciently in fewer hours, then when faced with many hours.
We urge every goverment that is concerned with the welfare of its citizens to vote against this terrible motion.

:headbang:

People who want to work more than fourty hours because they are the sole supporter of their family and want extra money should be allowed to work for that extra time without some b.s. resolution keeping them from doing so.

People who want to work more than fourty hours because they are the sole supporter of their family and want extra money should be allowed to work for that extra time without some b.s. resolution keeping them from doing so.


Another one unable to read carefully. Maybe you should read twice or three times, so as not to miss the points of interest: there is specifically stated in said resolution that a person may *voluntarily* work up to 80 hours a week. What the resolution is about is to prohibit people BEING FORCED to work more than 40 hours. But since you are seemingly illiterate, you will also not understand what I have written here.... :headbang:

And the real fact is that if you don't repeal this, you risk turning many UN nations into ex-UN nations, and into slave labor. Seems like an even cost-benefit analysis to me.

Strange, for it seems to me that there has been no dropping of UN member numbers since the passing of 40 hours resolution...

But since you are seemingly illiterate, you will also not understand what I have written here.... :headbang:
It's possible to get your point across without flaming. It's also highly improbable that your intended victim will ever come back to the topic and respond (9 posts in 4 months?). In essence, the only ones who will read your complaint are the ones who ARE literate and aren't the target of your statement.

Just wanted to point that out. On with the whining.

If you read the original amendment it states that you CAN work over the 40 hours but it has to be VOLUNTARY (you can be forced to work over 40hrs), and you get paid at least time and a half. The argument that it doesnt allow you to work over 40 hours if false. If anything, repealing this will actually be likely to hurt lower income workers as they will lose their overtime pay. Think about it - choose to work extra hour for extra pay... or have the possibility of being forced to work extra hours for same pay. VOTE AGAINST THIS REPEAL!!

The Idea of letting individuals work is a nice one, but reapealing the proposal is not the solution, beacuse some workers will surely be exploted.
I think you sould improve the resolution with a new proposal, instead of repealing a nice resolution.

The People's Republic of Masca Chapas voted NO. And I'd like to ask you to think twice about it before voting. It's a Good idea to allow individuals to work more than 40 H a week (They'ld have another limit, of course), but repealing this resolution is the worst thing the UN could do.

I think that the limit of ours A DAY a worker should work should be eight, and ten for individuals. Furthermore, every state should help (economically) it's individuals.
(Excuse my bad english)

I first had voted for this repeal, but after I was informed by the misinformation within this repeal I went and checked everything out and found out that this repeal is wrong and will hurt all members of the UN.

Tibes

Everything I have to say has been said, but I might as well re-iterate it.

The repeal of this resolution is just a play to allow corporations the ability to take advantage of their employees. The original resolution protects workers by restricting the maximum required hours to 40. No corporation can ask more than 40 hours out of their employees.

If someone wants additional income, they are protected under the original resolution to get additional income, up to 80 hours worth. The latter half of that is also time and a half, so effectively 100 hours of pay per week. The original resolution does not cause an increased separation of the classes. It protects the masses from exploitation!

The most important thing to do before voting on any repeal is to read the original resolution. Anyone who votes for this repeal either hasn't read the original, doesn't understand the meaning of the original, or simply wants to be able to exploit their workers. The only reasonable choice is no.

The Idea of letting individuals work is a nice one, but reapealing the proposal is not the solution, beacuse some workers will surely be exploted.
I think you sould improve the resolution with a new proposal, instead of repealing a nice resolution.
The People's Republic of Masca Chapas will, I hope, be pleased to note that the Incorporated States of Ise Valley, as the elected Regional Delegate for the newly created United States of Mornington, plans to introduce such a compromise Proposal within the next few days, as soon as drafting is completed.

It is the agreed position of Incorporated States, supported by the consensus of the United States of Mornington, that a compromise should be sought on this issue which will hopefully allow the United Nations to provide protection against the exploitation of workers whilst at the same time allowing those who wish to work longer than 40 hours a week to do so.

The draft position is that:
1. There should be a presumption that workers should not be asked to work longer than 40 hours a week;
2. That this level should be calculated over a 10-week period, to allow flexibility for both employers and employees without needing to opt out of the 'working-time' proposal;
3. Allow those employees who wish to work longer than 40 hours a week to, on the signing of a form stating that position, opt-out from the 40-hour-limit, provided that they may revoke that opt-out at any time; and that
4. All UN Members should provide adequate remedies in their national laws to provide protection in employment law against dismissal and discrimination in the workplace for those employees who refuse to opt-out of the 40-hour-limit.

The Incorporated States of Ise Valley is of the opinion that a compromise Resolution on such grounds would be the appropriate way forward by providing proper and adequate protection against exploitation without unnecessary undermining the freedom of the individual or economic prosperity.

However, since the presumption of power should be in the freedom of the individual, Ise Valley, as a Regional Delegate, is inclined to support the repeal of Resolution 57 in order to provide an impetus for a sensible compromise to be reached.

In the meantime, the repeal of Resolution 57 would make individual Nation States free to adopt more sensible national legislation on this issue.

I think that the limit of ours A DAY a worker should work should be eight, and ten for individuals. Furthermore, every state should help (economically) it's individuals.
(Excuse my bad english)
The Ise Valley is willing to consider any such amendments to the compromise Resolution it intends to propose, but is concerned that restricting working hours in a day to 10 hours may prove unnecessarily restrictive.

The Ise Valley is inclined to lean towards a maximum length "shift" of 12 hours in a day, provided that, as above, proper opt-outs are available for those who wish to work for longer and that, for the purposes of such an amendment, it is calculated over a number of weeks (provisionally ten) so as not to impede flexible working practices.

The Incorporated States of Ise Valley will be happy to discuss these proposals with any NationState who wishes to do so.

----------------
Deputy Prime Minister, Incorporated States of Ise Valley
UN Regional Delegate, United States of Mornington

We disagree

Perhaps a more productive way of altering your complaints would be to suggest a proposal which regulates pay and conditions of work, especially for the economically inept.

Exactly why our nation disagrees, too. This is all opinion. I see nothing that causes harm to having the 40 hour work week. In fact, it made overtime mandatory; currently workers at low paying jobs aren't getting overtime...they just work a lot of hours. That's not fair OR just.

Ise Valley,

While your intentions are good, repealing this resolution is not the first step that should be taken. The resolution you propose may never go into effect. Vote against the repeal, propose your resolution, then if and only if it goes into effect, repeal the manditory 40 hour work week. Otherwise, the UN will permit the corporate states of the world to abuse their workers till we manage to get an additional resolution in place to protect them.

*counts to ten, trying to remain calm*

That's perfectly legal under the original resolution. What you're not allowed to do is force people to work 60-80 hours against their will. Your hard-working, patriotic citizens have nothing to fear from Resolution #59.

Please, please, people: read the text of the original. This repeal proposal is nothing but a cynical attempt to allow exploitation of ordinary workers by repressive governments and/or corporations. If your citizens want to work 80 hours a week in order to pay for their kids' education, or whatever it might be, they can. #59 just ensures that dilligence is appropriately rewarded, that's all.

Of cause when I say my citzens are patriotic, this is not to say that they are patriotic of their own accord and we in the Government of Gzellagrad believe that the populace needs to be encouraged to be patriotic. You say that 'What you're not allowed to do is force people to work 60-80 hours against their will' but thats precisly what I object to. The peoples will is weak afterall, and it is up to us to make them strong

I think a large number of nations voting for the repeal don't realise that the original resolution allows for 80 hours of work and ensures that those working long hours are handsomely rewarded with overtime pay, thus negating the repeal author's arguments. Those bothering to go to the forum are more likely to bother to read the original resolution carefully.

Workers should not have to be hansomely rewarded. Simply the knowledge of working towards the greatness of their nation should be reward enough. In the Great Empire of Gzellagrad the majority of wages goes into tax anyway so money simply isn't the issue and Im sure the same can be said for a lot of great nations. Also someone answer me this:

Why should one person be allowed to decide to do less hours of work than his neighbour? Does this not seem a little unfair. We wish to take this choice away from our citizens for the benefit of all.

The Supreme delegate to the United Nations from the Great Empire of Gzellagrad

I first had voted for this repeal, but after I was informed by the misinformation within this repeal I went and checked everything out and found out that this repeal is wrong and will hurt all members of the UN.

Tibes

Same here. We should keep the 40 hours weeks!

Strange, for it seems to me that there has been no dropping of UN member numbers since the passing of 40 hours resolution...

I was more referring to how *certain* nations are actively trying to make the UN a hostile place for other nations and trying to get everyone to resign their membership. This would leave their citizens without protection. Sure, we could pass anything we wanted, but at what human cost?

Well, now that all the problems have been pointed out, (infringement on voluntary contract liberties; discouraging employers from allowing workers to work overtime; forbidding 24-7 on call jobs) and the awareness of the resolution has been increased, I would be very surprised if many nations didn't drop out if this repeal failed.

The UN Organization has some excellent graphs and records detailing membership numbers and growth rates alongside the passage of certain resolution. Everytime we make a law that is unacceptable to large numbers of nations, those citizens fall through the cracks and we become powerless to help them.

While my nation has some misgivings over the mandatory 80 hour peak included in the original resolution, we see this as no reason to repeal what is otherwise a very fine piece of legislation. The repeal as drafted is emotive and inaccurate; the author's expression of concern for the poor both risible and disingenous.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Some representatives have stated that repealing the 40 Hour Workweek resolution would harm low-income earners because it would remove their guarantee of overtime pay. However, the fact is that low-income earners *never* get overtime pay. If an employer is forced to limit an individual's work to 40 hours each week, or pay that individual at an increased rate for each hour after the 40th, that employer will limit that individual's work to 40 hours each week. There is sledom if ever a shortage of unskilled or semiskilled laborers who can be hired to fill low-paying positions. Rather than pay one person the normal rate for 40 hours and a higher rate for another 40 hours, the employer will find a second person to work for the second 40 hours at the normal rate.

However, there appears to be nothing in the 40 Hour Workweek resolution prohibiting an individual from taking a second or even third job, regardless of how many hours the total of the jobs call for, as long as no one job contractually obligates the individual to more than 40 hours of work per week.

May have already seen this but the thread was locked so here it is again

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have 15 minutes to write this so I appologise for it's breifness, if anyone would like me to elaberate please ask and I will do so at a later date.

To begin I am shocked that this repeal has been approved by the delegates of the UN. The 40 hour work week is one of the finest, well written and humanistic resolutions the UN has ever voted on. It seems that this is not obvious for everyone so I have quickly come up with seven valid reasons why we should keep this resolution and vote AGAINST the repeal.

1. Circadium Rhythms: These are located in the hypothalmus oof the lower reigions of the brain. Basically it is a posh word for your body clock. By excesivly working or staying awake these can become very distorted and effictivly a mental health problem occurs. Studies have shown working too many hours or doing bad shifts is damaging and causes MANY MORE INJURIES IN THE WORK PLACE. (New York based DJ Peter Tripp can be used as an example of malfunctioning circadium rhythms).

2. Social Class: Lower socio-economic groups will be 'forced to work harder. This is highly unethical and encourages the rich and powerful to take advantage of these workers. In a sence this resolution stops disguised slavery.

3. Voluntary Work: People will end up working more and there will be less voluntary work (e.g. firemen, policemen) - these volunteers are cucial for the community.

4. National Emergencies : In national emergenicies this resolution won't apply, a national emergency is decided by the nation. So all you war go getters can still have fun.

5. Defence This doesn't apply to military defence or civil defence - so you nation is always has security with the resolution.

6. It is a very well written/worded resolution, with barely any flaws. Which is more than can be said for most UN resolutions.

7. It is an issue that has never been raised before, it is inventive and ethical, and should remain a resolution.



PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE REPEAL ON "THE 40HOUR WORK WEEK".

The Republic of Junosprite Qutoes:

Description: 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.

Votes For: 8,637
Votes Against: 8,526

Implemented: Sun May 23 2004

Does anyone notice the following:

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.

They CAN work more then 40 hours, if they show wish, but cannot be forced to and MUST be paid overtime. If they are not paid overtime, that corporation, and/or government is breaking a LAW!

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.

This applies to the above, only in emergency situations, not counting a) military personnel. Military personnel, but of course, work longer then 40-hours a week! They agree, way before they join, to this. Think about the training, and just the work, period! Think before you vote people!


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

Should we loose this too? If a resoulution is repealed, then the WHOLE resolution goes, not just some of it! Unless of course the repeal is specific enough but let us look here:

Description: UN Resolution #59: The 40 Hour Workweek (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work without interference from the United Nations.

The consequences of Resolution #59 are the opposite of the aims. The resolution actually increases income inequality as it is often the typically low paid poor who work longer hours to make up for the gap in income with the higher paid workers and thus has further consequences of decreasing basic welfare.

Hello! This is saying to take it ALL off, if there is no 40-hour work limit, then when will it end? Companies WILL force workers, and do workers really want to work, for 100 hours a week? They can work UP to 80-hours, does this not click, apparently it doesn't. I'm sorry but I've seen so many posts talking about how it's not fair, that workers can not work about 40-hours, they can!

If you want to repeal a resolution, that's fine, just think before writing the repeal. And also think before clicking "agree" or "disagree", peoples lives hang in the balance, this isn't a game these are lives. Please, all I am saying is, think before you vote!

Thank you my fellow UN members for listening,
The Republic of JunoSprite.

(OOC) Please remember that was IC.

I disagree. The result of this will be corporations dictating how long the worker actually works per week, not the worker themselves. The 40 hour work week resolution is put in place to keep corporations from exploiting their workers by making them work long hours for low wages.

Repeal the 40 hour workweek
Votes For: 4,534
Votes Against: 3,609

Arrgh. This is annoying. One of the main problems with the UN at the minute is that many people just go by the text of the resolution on the page, and do not look at the text of the resolution it is trying to repeal. Then you get what we have here. A repeal that is wrong in every claim it makes (and I mean factually wrong, not idealogically wrong) is actually winning.

Everyone vote against this resolution fast!

If this gets passed, I'm going to try to repeal some random resolution on made up grounds, just to see what happens.

Before this Sunday, vote against the repeal of Resolution No. 59, the "40-Hour Work Week."

This political advertisement sponsored by the Holy Empire of Gnidrah.

the original resolution does not, as you say, choose for people whether they want to work more hours. It simply mandates that no one be CONTRACTUALLY required to work more than 40 hours a week, and regulates that workers that do work more than 40 hours must be paid no less than time and a half overtime pay.

Read the resolution and make sure you understand it before you try to repeal it!

Why I have voted for the repeal:

all in all the 40hr week is a good idea, but I am opposed to some of the language of the resolution, and seeing as how it cannot be ammended, it must be repealed, re-worded, and re-proposed.

the sole exeptions to the resolutions are military personnel, civil defense forces and civilian emergency response personnel.


Assuming that I understand this correctly...By the letter of the law, the resolution does not account for retained, salaried, commission paid, or per item paid employees. These are all Contractually bound employees whos hours of work could easily exceed 40 per seven day week.

hypothetical example: If a stay-at-home mom wants to take on an at-home job of stuffing envelopes for .10 per envelope to give her a couple extra bucks, according to the resolution her hours must be tracked and any envelopes she stuffs after an accumulated 40hrs must be paid at a rate of .15 per envelope.

another example: a Lawyer put on annual retainer by a company, since a retainer essentially places the lawyer "on-call" his fees must be calculated accordingly, the company's cost goes through the roof, and the lawyer is limited in his ability to establish his own rates, not to mention the the damage done to the very heart of free enterprise.

if a artist is commissioned by the government to paint a mural inside a federal building, that artist's hours must be tracked, et cetera, et cetera...

again it is not the concept of Resolution #60 The 40 Hour Work Week that i oppose it is theliteral wording of it.

Thank you,

If this gets passed, I'm going to try to repeal some random resolution on made up grounds, just to see what happens.
As opposed to the 24 pages of current random resolutions and repeals that are written on made up grounds? Oh yes, fine idea. More spam to ignore.

the sole exeptions to the resolutions are military personnel, civil defense forces and civilian emergency response personnel.

I had similar objections to those you listed. However, I find that the exceptions are even more limited than what you state. From how I understood the resolution, military personnel are the sole exception. During times of emergancy, civil defense forces and civilian emergancy response personnel may be forced to work longer hours. Some nations interpreted it differently, saying that everyone was exempted during an emergancy which means the resolution as written is even more useless. I propose we make a new resolution that is more clear and complete.

Repeal the 40 hour workweek
Votes For: 4,534
Votes Against: 3,609

Arrgh. This is annoying. One of the main problems with the UN at the minute is that many people just go by the text of the resolution on the page, and do not look at the text of the resolution it is trying to repeal. Then you get what we have here. A repeal that is wrong in every claim it makes (and I mean factually wrong, not idealogically wrong) is actually winning.

Everyone vote against this resolution fast!

If this gets passed, I'm going to try to repeal some random resolution on made up grounds, just to see what happens.

Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they haven't looked it up. The fact is that the resolution stops a lot of employers (as in all the ones who like money) from allowing workers to work more than 40 hours, and it forbids the workers from working more than 80 hours voluntarily, even if they want to and they're begging for more hours. And this is all despite the fact that many nations and planets don't work on the 24-hour day, 7-day week timescale.

If you disagree, that's fine. Just acknowledge that there are arguments in favor of the repeal and not everyone who votes for it is either stupid or ignorant.

To the leaders of member nations of the UN:
When I read that suggested repeal, one word comes to mind: NON-SENSICAL. To vote for the repeal would be to passively tell your citizens, "I'm going to work you for more than 40 hours, I'm going to force every ounce of labor out of you and you don't have much choice." Whether done through loopholes or done directly, this IS what's going to happen and as leaders of nations around the world, it is your OBLIGATION, YOUR DUTY to protect your citizens and ensure their prosperity. True, every nation has the right of sovereignty and may therefore do virtually whatever they please, though there are doubtless exceptions. Germany in WWII had sovereignty but surely nations weren't going to sit idly by and allow Hitler to do to his citizens and citizens of other nations what he in fact did. The other nations had to put a stop to him. Similarly, as leader of your nation, you must use common sense and protect your citizen from labor exploitation. To pass the repeal would be NON-SENSICAL.
Respectfully,
Nico, President of Bushlia

JunoSprite addresses the nation Hoobajuia:

Why I have voted for the repeal:

all in all the 40hr week is a good idea, but I am opposed to some of the language of the resolution, and seeing as how it cannot be ammended, it must be repealed, re-worded, and re-proposed.

the sole exeptions to the resolutions are military personnel, civil defense forces and civilian emergency response personnel.


Assuming that I understand this correctly...By the letter of the law, the resolution does not account for retained, salaried, commission paid, or per item paid employees. These are all Contractually bound employees whos hours of work could easily exceed 40 per seven day week.

hypothetical example: If a stay-at-home mom wants to take on an at-home job of stuffing envelopes for .10 per envelope to give her a couple extra bucks, according to the resolution her hours must be tracked and any envelopes she stuffs after an accumulated 40hrs must be paid at a rate of .15 per envelope.

another example: a Lawyer put on annual retainer by a company, since a retainer essentially places the lawyer "on-call" his fees must be calculated accordingly, the company's cost goes through the roof, and the lawyer is limited in his ability to establish his own rates, not to mention the the damage done to the very heart of free enterprise.

if a artist is commissioned by the government to paint a mural inside a federal building, that artist's hours must be tracked, et cetera, et cetera...

again it is not the concept of Resolution #60 The 40 Hour Work Week that i oppose it is theliteral wording of it.

Thank you,

You're wrong it does, indeed, not effect self-employed people. It ONLY effects people who work for others. It does not even effect kids working for their parents, uncles, etc, if it does not go against child labor laws.

another example: a Lawyer put on annual retainer by a company, since a retainer essentially places the lawyer "on-call" his fees must be calculated accordingly, the company's cost goes through the roof, and the lawyer is limited in his ability to establish his own rates, not to mention the the damage done to the very heart of free enterprise.

He gets paid the more he works, yes, except in a state of an emergency. But what is wrong with being paid depending on how long/hard you work? It's only stating NO MORE then 40-hours a week, then if you do, you get paid overtime. And if he is set on an annual retainer, he still cannot work more then 40/80 hours a week. Does he really want to work 120 hours, a week, and not get paid more then 12.00 an hour? This is posible, if this law doesn't exist, they could pay him w/n overtime payment! People only can work so long.

~ The Republic of JunoSprite

The Original Ressolution:

Description: 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.

JunoSprite addresses the nation Hoobajuia:

You're wrong it does, indeed, not effect self-employed people. It ONLY effects people who work for others. It does not even effect kids working for their parents, uncles, etc, if it does not go against child labor laws.

~ The Republic of JunoSprite

Again it is not the intent of the resolution I oppose only the actual wording, so please if I am mistaken, show me where the exemption for family businesses listed, as well as retained, salaried, commission paid or per item paid employees are?

I will concede the points of a family business in which the employee benifits directly from the employer's prosperity, and i will further conced that the resolution does not directly involve the self-employed, unless the self-employed enter into an contract with a customer, at which point the contract must account for this resolution.


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.

JunoSprite addresses the nation Hoobajuia:

You're wrong it does, indeed, not effect self-employed people. It ONLY effects people who work for others. It does not even effect kids working for their parents, uncles, etc, if it does not go against child labor laws.

And where does it specify that? And does it apply to say... doctors?

He gets paid the more he works, yes, except in a state of an emergency. But what is wrong with being paid depending on how long/hard you work? It's only stating NO MORE then 40-hours a week, then if you do, you get paid overtime. And if he is set on an annual retainer, he still cannot work more then 40/80 hours a week. Does he really want to work 120 hours, a week, and not get paid more then 12.00 an hour? This is posible, if this law doesn't exist, they could pay him w/n overtime payment! People only can work so long.

Annual retainer means that he is paid a fixed amount a year to be available year round for advice. Since this would mean he is on-call and according to the resolution on-call hours count towards the 40-hours a week (although they shouldn't), he must get paid time and a half for 128 hours a week as he is expected to be availabe (on-call) 24-7. And then what happens when he actually does work?

Consensual? A boss says "work these hours for a crappy wage or you will be fired"? That's consensual?
It most certainly is. You are free to choose whether you want to work there or not; however, since it is your employer's property, you have to accept his conditions. No one his holding a gun to your head; no one's threatening you with the loss of what is yours to begin with.

Like I said - if you don't have a choice because you need the money, how it is not coercion?
You're free to choose whether or not you want the money--if you do, fine, but you've got to take it on the terms it is offered or not at all. It's a simple matter of individual rights. Just like you have no obligation to provide for someone else, neither does anyone else have an obligation to provide for you. If you want what someone else is offering, you've got to take it on his terms or not at all.

I would say ensuring someone can only work so long and if they work longer they are suitably compensated is not the act of a barbaric society. Forcing people to work 24/7 or telling them they lose their job - is.
Then you would say wrong. For government to interfere in voluntary agreements between individuals to which all concerned have consented is the pinnacle of barbarity.

I suppose now would be an interesting time to bring up a thought.

Is it really the decision of the international community to decide working times? Yes, Durnhost believes strongly in the idea that it prevents inhumane treatment of workers, but it's effectiveness is in definite doubt. This can't be an argument based on opinion- I have seen few facts thrown around this debate.

Has a 40-hour workweek proven to be beneficial to working conditions? These conditions are not even addressed by this resolution, and though one may have been passed in previous resolutions, the workweek resolution has the fallacy that it does not refer to any previous precedents that would make this less extreme of a resolution.

It is for this that Durnhost cannot support the resolution, and is in favor of the repeal until a more refined idea is brought forth.

The question of directing the working times of national industries (most corpoations are not international, and thus not subject to international law) and legality should be looked at heavily too.

Durnhost believes that this repeal should pass, and we avoid opinionated ideals toward corporate philosophy in hopes of creating a reasoned, logical resolution that does not infringe upon the rights of nation-states.

Dear Nation of Hoobajuia:

Again it is not the intent of the resolution I oppose only the actual wording, so please if I am mistaken, show me where the exemption for family businesses listed, as well as retained, salaried, commission paid or per item paid employees are?

I will concede the points of a family business in which the employee benifits directly from the employer's prosperity, and i will further conced that the resolution does not directly involve the self-employed, unless the self-employed enter into an contract with a customer, at which point the contract must account for this resolution.


This entire resolution protects the workers from the company officials, if you're self-employed you follow your own decisions. This therefore wouldn't apply to you, and for a child mowing a lawn, this really cannot count to this. You could count, the fact, that they're young etc. But the fact is, if they're doing it for money, with a few friends; it would not count to this.

A family business, may or may not, be effected. If it's a husband and wife, selling something, and they have no one but themselves doing it; then it would not effect them. If they have two-hundred, or so, people working for them it effects the workers. This can also count, to a board of execitives, however it is mainly for the common man. Such as construction workers, salesman, doctors, emergency crews, and gift wrappers -- etc. This is to protect them, from being forced to work over 80 hours a week, count the number of hours in a week. There is 168 hours, if my math is correct, in a giving week. That is assuming that you follow a seven-day week, so that's 168 hours to do whatever, do we really want people to work 160 hours a week?

This could happen, however, they cannot be forced to work for 168 hours, because of the slavery law(s). This resolution was recently repealed, even though it doesn't seem most delegates are agreeing, it still got mentioned for repeal! I'm not saying, my point is all good, or yours is all wrong. I am simply saying, if this is repealed think of the problems, people will abuse the "right" they're giving. If this is repealed, the governments/corporations, will gladly force people to work for inhuman hours.

People need sleep, right, if they're forced to work too much accidents will increase. We're already looking at worker accidents, right now, so if this repeal is passed how much will it increase? Think about this, if you still don't agree, that's your right. You have the right, to disagree, but what about the workers? Do they have a right, to choose not to work, over 40 hours? Of course, but if this is repealed, they won't have that right. The companies will force them to work, and then if they want to quit, they'll have to give a two weeks notice!

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

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


This other resolution will trap people, if they can't choose their hours, and have to give two weeks notice they're slaves! People WILL revolt, this isn't right, if no one sees this then I'm sorry but these are my believes/views.

~ The Republic of JunoSprite

PS: The UN is a Govern Body, by joining, you agree to follow their rules. Yes you can repeal them, but, don't say it's your country and the UN should not tell you what to do. The UN was designed, to protect the freedoms, of all nations and their people. We exist to tell members, what they can and cannot do, read for example:

The UN is the world's governing body. Membership is voluntary, but all member nations must abide by UN rules.

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

If you're ready to take your nation onto the world stage, though, the UN is for you.

Sure we can debate, that's what it is about, but remember our nations--upon joining--do agree to follow the rules of the UN. If we don't agree, we repeal, that's obvious but if we don't want the UN telling us what to do we don't join. This goes for any member, and/or delegate, in the UN.

PSS:

It seems people are not reading this, this is directed to everyone, not specificly Hoobajuia, or any nation and/or delegate.

Description: 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.

Votes For: 8,637
Votes Against: 8,526

Implemented: Sun May 23 2004

Arrgh. This is annoying. One of the main problems with the UN at the minute is that many people just go by the text of the resolution on the page, and do not look at the text of the resolution it is trying to repeal. Then you get what we have here. A repeal that is wrong in every claim it makes (and I mean factually wrong, not idealogically wrong) is actually winning.

How can people not looking "at the text of the resolution" to be repealed be "one of the main problems with the UN at the minute" when this is only the second repeal proposal to make it past the delegates to a general vote?

My take on the repeal (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7719378&postcount=127)

Recieving a phone call, Ambassador Omar of the Holy Empire of Hoobajuia, whispers quietly into the reciever "Yes, Your Majesty. At once, Your Majesty."

"If you'll excuse me Ladies, gentlemen, I no longer have time for this debate, it apears the Empire has befallen a Internation Incident (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382019)."

The ambassador, leaves the room, a consipiritorial smirk spreading across his face.





edit: link inserted

Do you not realise that God has given us only a certain time on this Earth. Any restrictions around this are simply futile and an intrusion on God's overall plan for us all - to worship Him in ALL HIS GLORY - and make lots of money (Afterall Jesus just banned the money lenders from the Temple, not all together).

Destiny Land hopes that the voting members of the hopelessly morally bankrupt UN see the light and vote against this motion. Destiny Land is not, nor is ever likely to be a member as the UN is the work of SATAN, AND NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED SO THE GLORY OF GOD CAN RIEGN...

Nice post Squirrelmania (the linked one that is).

Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they haven't looked it up. The fact is that the resolution stops a lot of employers (as in all the ones who like money) from allowing workers to work more than 40 hours, and it forbids the workers from working more than 80 hours voluntarily, even if they want to and they're begging for more hours. And this is all despite the fact that many nations and planets don't work on the 24-hour day, 7-day week timescale.

If you disagree, that's fine. Just acknowledge that there are arguments in favor of the repeal and not everyone who votes for it is either stupid or ignorant.

First off, I agree with Adam Island. I think people from both opinions have read the resolution. I also think people from both opinions (pro and con) have not read the resolution.

Let's focus on the merits of the arguments instead. Adam Island certainly has my government's respect as being civil and sincere in its activities in the UN, and is a voice I come to trust.

That said, I think employeers will still have the ability to get work done. Is there a provision in this resolution (which is being repealed) which prohibits a company from having two or three shifts of people?

For example, if I were to work 80 hours a week, while some would argue that I would be more effective than two 40 hours a week employees on the same project, I don't think that is true in all situations.

First, many employees due fatique. Believe it or not, but there really was a time in many of our socities when the idea of "work hours" didn't exist. Also, if you are self employeed, they still don't matter, as you set your own hours. The definition of a work week protects employees, but indirectly helps unskilled management not burn out their employees as well.

Second, sometimes two brains on a project is better than one. For example, when working on a public report, the burn out on a particular report isn't just measured on time per day spent on the project, but time spent on the project overall. If a single author has been working for months on a massive report, she may be more likely to make mistakes that two employees might catch.

Third, specialization is not only valid for national economies, but has some value in the work place. While it is nice to have general experts around all the time, a specialist isn't always needed all the time.

Fourth, employees may work at different jobs. If a man needs more money, he could take on a second job. Hours worked on the first job would be independent from the second.

To respond to the respected delegate from Squirrelmania, it seems you have misunderstood the point of our message.

Well, guess what, some of us have decided not to leave the UN but instead to try to reform it from within. We accept that the UN can override national sovereignty in some areas, but we think that the UN has blundered its way into far too many intrusions into national sovereignty, and we would like to remake the UN into something other than a clique for fellow travellers.

Excellent. I applaud you for doing so. In fact, if you examine my posts on some of the more recent resolutions passed, you'll note that I as well have opposed various proposals, and sought to limit legislation by the NSUN in several areas.

What I stated was simply that once a nation becomes a member of the United Nations, it can no longer claim unfettered national soverigenty. It may attempt to influence the body of the NSUN, and is strongly encouraged to do so, but in exchange it must abide by all the resolutions passed by that body. I doubt you could find any member state, and I include myself in this, who if left to their own devices would enforce every resolution currently on the books in their own country.

Everyone here is free to argue whatever view they choose, but the simple cry of 'national soverigenty' is by itself not an argumnet.

Note that all of those people whom you insult so freely have chosen to belong to the UN. They have a different view of the organization than you do, and they want to undo what in their view are some of its more egregious acts.

I'm not sure where exactly in my post I insulted anyone, if someone took offense, I apologise, but I think that was quite clearly not my intention.

With regard to 'having a different view', as I stated above there is nothing wrong with this at all. In fact, I become extremely nervous if an issue crops up and only one side is making it's voice heard. Just to clarify, I'll re-post part of what I said here:

If you have a reason why the people in your nation should not be protected from overworking, then say so. There are delegates from various nations who have done so already in this thread. However, do not come in here and say that it is your right to govern your nation however you see fit.You waived that right the minute you accepted membership into this body.

I believe I quite clearly state that if people have a differing opinion, they should make themselves heard. My only criticism was for those who did not explain why they opposed the current resolution, but simply stated that the United Nations was not 'allowed' to legislate international law.

What makes your view "right" and their view "wrong"? Apparently just the fact that, once upon a time, people holding your view about the 40-hour workweek were able to dredge up 111 more votes than people holding the other view, out of a total of over 17,000 votes cast. But the times, they are a-changin'.

I challenge the delegate from Squirrelmania to provide evidence of a single time when I arbitrarially stated that I was 'right', and that all who held a different view were 'wrong'. I have presented what I percieved to be flaws in arguments presented, and have advanced points in my own arguments, but I have never attempted to pass a value judgement upon people's opinions. In fact, if you'll examine my previous posts in this thread, you'll even notice that there are times when I openly acknowledge that there exist flaws in the resolution, and attempt to provide ways to solve them. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7718544#post7718544)

Now, while I intend to fight against this repeal, and while I intend to do my best to win, I encourage you continue your attempts to 'change the UN from within'. No person or government can effectively function without criticism, and the largest problem with the NSUN today is that too many dissenting voices would rather depart than continue to fight.

Seems like we are winning the battle in the forums, and people are changing their votes to "AGAINST". We must fight hard and we can put this repeal to rest. We must not let the wealthy greedy corporate power dominate the masses. We must stand up and fight for our people. The 40hour work week is something must of us thinking people strongly agree with.
Let's win this, we need to telegram as many people who voted against as possible. We have until Sunday.

Denusia
Principality of Prachya

Seems like we are winning the battle in the forums, and people are changing their votes to "AGAINST".

Take your posts to your allied regions. Ask to address their regional forums and briefly and politely state why your nations support the original resolution and are against the repeal. :)

Tonight I'll hit a few of the Pacifics (North, West, and East) where my government maintains embassies that can pass my government's position along.

Do you not realise that God has given us only a certain time on this Earth. Any restrictions around this are simply futile and an intrusion on God's overall plan for us all - to worship Him in ALL HIS GLORY - and make lots of money (Afterall Jesus just banned the money lenders from the Temple, not all together).

Destiny Land hopes that the voting members of the hopelessly morally bankrupt UN see the light and vote against this motion. Destiny Land is not, nor is ever likely to be a member as the UN is the work of SATAN, AND NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED SO THE GLORY OF GOD CAN RIEGN...

For some unknown reason President Jeff, of JunoSprite, responds to Destiny Land -

Dear Destiny Land:

Our nation, JunoSprite, was created with the main responsibility of holding religion and peace, above all else, we have--since joining--been better in our decision making and our rights as a whole. We are, now, on a close-ticked rulebook. We follow the UN, it isn't the devil, it's a body of delegates and members who try to make the best decision to their knowledge.

We might not all agree; however, we do agree to follow the rules. If we don't like them, then we can decide to repeal them, however I don't see how this makes us the devil. And I do believe we have morals, look around you, we're debating over a cause that some of us--if not all--find our side to be the best morality wise. This, in itself, proofs that we do have morals.

We do our best to uphold our believes, no matter how silly, they may seem. We follow basic rulebook of resolutions, yes, but we're not the devil. We listen to each other, and even help, sure some of us may not agree with others. But we are all partners, you see, we're nations in a group. The group is called, "United Nations", not "Corrupt Nations". Thank you for reading.

Please read our resoutions here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/37756/page=UN_past_resolutions) then if you wish to debate, please feel free to, but don't storm into the UN and tell us we're the devil
--
Thank you:
Jeffrey Doxion,
President of JunoSprite
--

(OOC) Please note all IRL (In Real Life) problems with The UN, Bush, or any world leader do not apply here. This UN is in no way related, to the real UN, so don't bring any of that up.

The fact of the matter is the 40 hour work week does not keep workers from being exploited. What it DOES do however is limit the amount of extra work that a low paid employee can put in at one job. If a low wage earner wants to put in more hours to bring over more members of their family or put their kids in better schools or to care for sick relatives The Rogue Nation of Yeast Infected Nurses sees no reason why the U.N. would step in and stop them. This would stop the ridiculous practice of somebody having 3 different jobs because they can't work more hours at the main job they have.

All of you social utopians need to deal in real facts...like this itch...god this is irritating.!

It is clearly stated in The 40 Hour Workweek, under



How exactly does that limit their ability to make money? Considering it's time-and-a-half for the extra 40 hours, they are GUARANTEED overtime, and that overtime will be even more than what they would usually take home! TELL ME!

Dear JunoSprite

Our nation was established to uphold His Word, as interpreted by His Godliness, Brian T. Destiny Land's position on the UN resolution is quite valid after pronouncement from His Holiness', following deep and careful reading of the Holy Book.

Our nation's opinion of the UN is obvious. We do not belong, at this point in time, as we do not feel that it would advance God's work on Earth. That is not to say that at a later date, once the Foot Soldiers of the Lord have amassed, that we would not join and reform the institution into the United Nations for the Lord.

(OOC: I appreciate that the IRL problems of the world do not apply here. However there is the option to create theocratic nations and Destiny Land is "biblical" in its orientation. I believe the opinion of DL is quite valid and correctly posted)

Hail All Members of the United Nations,

Do you wish for corporations (instead of you) to govern the citizens of your nation?

Do you so desire for your citizens to revolt against the national government (the government you allegedly control) because you stepped aside and allowed such corporations to move in and take control over their lives?

Do you want an increase of labor-related stress, fatigue resulting from that stress, and a number of outbreaks caused by diminishing health from a combination of both stress and fatigue?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, then continue your support for the repeal of Resolution No. 59. If you answered no to all of these questions, then I urge you to vote against the repeal of Resolution No. 59.

Repealing this resolution (which is in place for well-being of the people) would only raise more outrageous issues than in the scenarios listed above. If there is no government control over the corporations, then how should we expect them to abide by our laws, if such laws (like Resolution No. 59) are non-existent?

We all are governors of our nations. The people of our nations should be able to look to us as their protectors. I, for one, want to live up to such expectation, and protect the citizens of my nation from many threats, to include corrupt corporations.

Thank You for Your Time,
Matthew, Most Holy Emperor
The Holy Empire of Gnidrah

The Holy Empire of Gnidrah proudly endorses Resolution No. 59, the 40-Hour Work Week.

Do you wish for corporations (instead of you) to govern the citizens of your nation?
Yes.

That's what it means to be a Corporate Oligarchy. That's why we're classified "UN Category: Capitalist Paradise".
We all are governors of our nations. The people of our nations should be able to look to us as their protectors.
In our nation, the governors are also the CEOs. Don't assume that your way is everyone's way.

so far, the FOR votes are more than 1000 greater than the AGAINST votes. With peoples continued support, we can repeal the 40-hour workweek. Would your government want to tell you how many hours you can work? No! It's your choice! Vote FOR to repeal it!

How exactly does that limit their ability to make money? Considering it's time-and-a-half for the extra 40 hours, they are GUARANTEED overtime, and that overtime will be even more than what they would usually take home! TELL ME!

But they're not guaranteed overtime. They're guaranteed that if their employer is stupid enough to allow them to work overtime they'll get a bonus. The effect of this resolution is that the employee and the employer are forbidden from working out arrangements of their own. Instead of being given flexibility in their own contexts, where they could come up with a plan to give vacation time or health care in exchange for working extra, the international community has decided for them.

People against the repeal have found many situations where the overtime pay rule is desirable, and people for the repeal have found many situations where the overtime pay rule is not. Not everyone works in a sweatshop meat factory. So how about we keep in mind the reasons that many parts of government are left to local and personal authority.

Athletes, artists, politicians and businesspersons, among numerous others, have legitimate reasons for wanting to work more than 40 hours a week, but if their employer is fined by the UN for allowing this, they are pretty much being forbidden from doing their job.

Reporters, stock traders, tech support staffers, butlers and maids, veterinarians and harem girls all have legitimate job needs to be 'on call' full time, not just 80 hours a week. And honestly, its not like the repeal is banning national governments from figuring out their own laws that fit their own particular situations.

Hail Frisbeeteria,

If you would please note, I simply stated, "...corporations (instead of you)...."

That limits the term corporations to mean any corporation (quite possibly corrupt ones) other than your established corporate government. Are you willing to be recognized as a corrupt CEO, by your people and other nations, because of your support for this repeal?

Also, I realize not everyone shares the same moral values as my nation and I do. But those who do or might, whether fully or to an extent, are allowed to take my views and the views of my nation into consideration.

Matthew, Most Holy Emperor
The Holy Empire of Gnidrah

Currently I am AGAINST the repeal because with r59:

1) If you're paid by the hour then this gives you over-time (if you choose/forced to work overtime) which I think is fair.

2) If say you're an athlete who is paid by the year then you can work as long as you want, but cannot be expected to work over 40 'under contract' which I think keeps employers from being able to expect to work it's employees to death.

Yes governments can choose their own laws but I want r59 to be a part of the UN because I do not want my fellow nations to be driving their citizens into slave-like work.

I've overlooked many aspects, but until they're pointed out I am against the repeal and those are my reasons.

I am against this law being repealed, by not having citizens work a stadnard high amount, it decreases production, and increases the strain on the federal welfare system.

Athletes do not pertain to this because they do not manufacture goods, or perform any service that benefits the GDP, they are paid to create entertainment.

If this does not stay legalized I will have to draft a resolution in my countries parliament, and have the royal family's support continuous.

I support this repeal because I feel that the wording of the 40-hour work week resolution is too restrictive. Also, this resolution creates major problems for nations on planets with days and therefore weeks of non-Earth standard legnth.

If this resolution is repealed, I will be able to repass the more sensible 46-hour workweek that existed in my nation before this resolution passed.

I support this repeal because I feel that the wording of the 40-hour work week resolution is too restrictive. Also, this resolution creates major problems for nations on planets with days and therefore weeks of non-Earth standard legnth.

If this resolution is repealed, I will be able to repass the more sensible 46-hour workweek that existed in my nation before this resolution passed.
Might I ask how the resolution is too restrictive? We see no problem with the 80 hrs overtime, and as for the major problem with nations on planets with days and weeks of non-earth standard length, one would assume that they would be bound to 40 hours of earth time per earth week. That isn't a major problem at all.

The people of the Republic of Isle DeCole would like to make the point that the set limit of the 40- hour working week, makes sweat shop slavery in which people are forced to work all hours of the day 7 days a week illegal.... That said, It is agreeable that the 40 working week does severly limit the capacity for poorly paid workers to earn a living equitable with those who work for the same amount of time yet for far more money.... May I ask have there been any general proposals as to the ceasation of sweatshop operations-Sorry but I am a very new member to the UN...

This is, quite possibly, the worst resolution ever passed. It hurts the workers by forcing them to take out a second job rather than put the extra hours into the one they have, and also hurt buisnesses by making their employees divide their time.

This also encourages white color crime, book-doctoring and such. This will mean that buisnesses will not report their salaries, therefor allow their stocks to be higher than they should and when such stocks are sold, cause bankrupcy and a crash in the market.

Why do I care? Because if your economies fail, so do mine, so repeal it.

The people of the Republic of Isle DeCole would like to make the point that the set limit of the 40- hour working week, makes sweat shop slavery in which people are forced to work all hours of the day 7 days a week illegal.... That said, It is agreeable that the 40 working week does severly limit the capacity for poorly paid workers to earn a living equitable with those who work for the same amount of time yet for far more money.... May I ask have there been any general proposals as to the ceasation of sweatshop operations?
If anything, the required overtime would increase the amount of money the poorly paid workers would make, as I would doubt that they would get time and a half before the resolution. Remember, you can still work past 40 hours, up to 80 in fact, but your employer has to pay you time and a half for it.

Excuse me~
but why don't we just raise the limit of hours a week and then regulate the pay and conditions to so we can make BOTH sides of this debate happy
*Raise the hours to 60 hours a week so the lower income people can still make more if they want, to make the FOR happy
* Raise the minnimum wage and have better working conditions, to make the AGANIST happy
*Once both the sides are ready to compromise, then we can to negotiations and have this resloved

I fully disagree with repealing resolution #59. The 40 Hour Work Week simply means that no person can be forced to work more than 40 hours. However, there is nothing to stipulate that someone who wishes to cannot do overtime, provided the employer agrees. Repealing this resolution gives no guarantee that someone on a low wage can work as many hours as they wish, simply because their employer may not have the work available. Thus repealing this resolution will not effect current incomes. There is no way that resolution #59 can make someone 'poorer' as it does not limit the number of hours that someone can work (except for the 80 hour limit) but simply that you can not be forced or coerced into working beyond 40 hours. An example; someone can still hold three part-time, low earning jobs, work 60 hours and not be in violation of resolution #59. By repealing this resolution you are opening the door to forced labour beyond any reasonable standard. People could be threatened with the decision of, "work for 70 hours this week or you lose your job". This is intirely unacceptable and will be a consequence of repealing resolution #59. Individuals will not have the right to choose how many hours they work if this repeal is successful. They will be forced into long hours with the threat of losing their job otherwise.

This is, quite possibly, the worst resolution ever passed. It hurts the workers by forcing them to take out a second job rather than put the extra hours into the one they have, and also hurt buisnesses by making their employees divide their time.

This also encourages white color crime, book-doctoring and such. This will mean that buisnesses will not report their salaries, therefor allow their stocks to be higher than they should and when such stocks are sold, cause bankrupcy and a crash in the market.

Why do I care? Because if your economies fail, so do mine, so repeal it.
How does it force employees to divide their time? Paying time and a half is still cheaper then paying two employees regularly...

Greetings to your Hallowed halls from the honourable delegate representing the Realm of Hibernia.
It appears to me that Keeping a 40 hour week works better for productivity reasons. before it was introduces my workers would become slack and tired after an 8 hour period and not as much work would be achieved After the 8th hour. Also the workers were on A time and a half rate at this stage.
A a Business man and for continued worker Health i appeal to all members of the UN and all delegates to vota against this repeal.
Thank you and Good day.
Elder Murphy,
UN Delegate to the Realm of Hibernia. :gundge:

May I respectfully remind everyone that this was proposed by a RIGHT-WING UTOPIA!!! Speaking about being able to help laborers make more money is nothing less than populist demagoguery! This capitalist lacky is attempting to lure us all into repealing this! Vote against the repeal! Vote pro-labor!

Yeah, well I'm an inoffensive-centrist democracy and I support the repeal, so that arguement goes out the window real fast.

I never thought I'd be the most liberal person in my region, but my region is full of hard-core conservitives :)

so far, the FOR votes are more than 1000 greater than the AGAINST votes. With peoples continued support, we can repeal the 40-hour workweek. Would your government want to tell you how many hours you can work? No! It's your choice! Vote FOR to repeal it!

Better question:

Would your citizens like to choose how many hours to work each week, or would you rather have your corporations tell you? No! It's your choice! Vote AGAINST to keep it


Don't you love the stealth manners of big business. I love the crocodile tears all the FOR people are shedding as they strip the worker of his/her rights.

Solidarity forever, my friends

being a socialist i couldnt help but say that this needs to be voted against, big business cant control the people, thats their job. its not going to hurt a company to let people choose their working hours, if the people want to get paid theyll work, if they want to work part time, theyll work part time, if they want to work 20 hour days, then let them.

Repealing the 40-hour work week is disgusting. With or without it, people can determine how many hours they work each week. If a business doesn't want to pay the extra overtime, that's the business' problem, not the people's. No, I haven't read anything in this thread (except for the last two posts), and nor do I intend to. My mind is already made up on the matter.

With or without it, people can determine how many hours they work each week. If a business doesn't want to pay the extra overtime, that's the business' problem, not the people's.

What people in some nations might do is take on two different jobs, but the key here is that these people are choosing to take on that second job and the additional hours are not something that an employer is essentially forcing them into.

What people in some nations might do is take on two different jobs, but the key here is that these people are choosing to take on that second job and the additional hours are not something that an employer is essentially forcing them into.

Precisely. If somebody needs to work more hours to make ends meet and their job won't give them overtime, they can get a part-time job on the side. But they cannot be required to work 50 hours as a condition for keeping a job. Currently, voluntary. With the repeal, not voluntary. We honestly do not see what all the fuss is about. How is it that the 40 Hour Workweek (and not, for example, Abortion Rights) is the most contentious issue in the NS-verse? It just makes no sense.
AFoFS UN Council

The 40 hour work week prevents employers from making their employees work non-stop like indentured slaves. Instead of removing the 40 hour work week, perhaps the governments of the nations "worried about their low income citizens" should take better care of them with social welfare.

Stop being capitalist and pretending to care about workers.
Let this act stand. Let workers have some rest and pay them more. Repealing this act will give employers the green light to force their workers to work impossible hours.

But they cannot be required to work 50 hours as a condition for keeping a job. Currently, voluntary. With the repeal, not voluntary. We honestly do not see what all the fuss is about. How is it that the 40 Hour Workweek (and not, for example, Abortion Rights) is the most contentious issue in the NS-verse? It just makes no sense.
AFoFS UN Council

That is the real issue here, trying to find a way to improve the standard of living by putting some minimium protections on job descriptions.

The 40-Hour Workweek isn't the most contentious. There are plenty of appeals for abortion and prostitution (basically the sex topics) as well. Though I am a bit puzzled that this repeal came up first.

I think part of it, based on what I'm reading, really is a belief that in order for a company to do well is needs to work its employees for long periods of time.

OOC: Technically I'm a salaried government employee, my personal opinion is that work week laws are good, because even being salaried they create a political climate where employeers actually treat me with respect. I say technically, because as strange as it sounds, I actually do get paid *more* if I work over 40-hours per week. But it has to be approved, and it rarely is ... budget restraints prevent groups like mine that are swimining in work and money from actually using it all, because politically Arnold would look bad if I *gasp* started making something close to private sector wages. However, several times my old professor at my grad program asks me to come back and add my name to his overseas bids as a consultant. Basically we've yet to have one of these secondary projects get approved, but legally I'm allowed to consult at home doing a similar job, provided I don't let my second job impact or compromise my current work. This means I can develop forecast systems for California during the day and on weekends I can run watershed models for places like Turkey at night or on the weekends. The end result is I could theoretically double my salary ... though as I've pointed out, that particular job still is under negotiation, as international contracts like this (and this one is through the UN actually) take YEARS to iron out. Anyway, in the real world's private consulting field, this resolution is a good idea. I thought I would add this, because I wasn't sure how many of you have had experiences like mine. :)

Two issues have been raised recently. The first is the right of employees and employers to agree privately about working conditions. This sounds fine in an abstract sense, but in the real world the employee and the employer--whether a private capitalist, a corporation, or the state--do not meet on an equal playing field. The individual toilers are cut off from ownership of the means of production by means of organized violence--from the gang, to the private security firm, to the police, to the military--which in essence, although not formally, serve the same purpose as the slaveholder's lash.

The labor union, labor parties, and workers' states provide tools through which the workers, as a class, can confront the capitalists, as a class. However, they do not change this basic dynamic. These organizations today are compelled to engage mostly in defensive actions against the repeated attempts of the capitalist class to break them, and so they must devote the majority of their resources to these actions. As such, only a portion of the wealth they control can be dedicated to the relief of the individual members, who as a group are still compelled to labor for the benefit, largely, of the capitalists.

This brings me to my second point. Utopian proposals have been put forth to solve this question by other means, e.g., through wage adjustments, as if the UN--merely by decree--could arbitrarily change the terms of labor throughout the world. Actually, the 40-hour workweek--like all measures for relief of the poor--came about through class struggle. It came about through the efforts of the Knights of Labor, who organized the first May Day; through the subsequent fight for justice for the Haymarket martyrs; through the fight to organize unions and labor parties throughout the world; through the fight to defend unions, labor parties, and workers' states from internal degeneration through corruption; culminating in the worldwide class battles that led the UN to register the victory of the working class through the international establishment of a 40-hour week. If the UN resolution is later repealed, it will signify that, in fact, the bosses have succeeded in inflicting enough defeats on the working class to reverse this victory.

We have organized mass demonstrations in Sankara City to signify our readiness to help workers in other nations make sure this does not happen, and our readiness to take the offensive, when the time is ripe, in the fight for an international 30-hour workweek.

I have started a telegraming campaign to all the delegates that have voted for this resolution. I think this may be the only way to win this. Most people who have gone back and read the original resolution have changed their votes. So its just a matter of convincing all those people that aren't aware of the optional extra hours matter.
Denusia

Regardless of the arguments for or against the retention of the 40 hour work week, I still have one point of contention that will matter to Bobaenia and other nations that will keep the 40 hour work week, regardless of its passing vote.

If Bobaenians are kept to a 40 hour week(which we most certainly will, the Government doesn't run our economy and Capitalism is the controlled, agreed, and tolerated practice Exploitation) then goods from countries that overwork and under pay their citizens in hopes to boost a floundering national economy will flood the Bobaenian marketplace! Part of international trade is keeping some rules the same across the board, especially demands on the worker.

I would encourage everyone to vote against this act that threatens everyone's economy and only benefits those who exploit their fellow man and care not for the good of society.

and the 40 hour work week does not create the need for lower income level workers to get 2 and 3 jobs, it only causes their employer to pay overtime past the 40 hour week, and with conciencious employment and commitment to the public, any company can work with its employees to establish a fair management of hours past 40.

-Bobaenian Foreign Relations Committee

To respond to the respected delegate from Squirrelmania, it seems you have misunderstood the point of our message.

That is certainly possible. In a heated debate, the neutral sometimes seems less so...

I read your message #99 (which I quoted in my original post) as a reply to Adam Island's message #98, which says:

We do deal in real facts. And a real fact is if you repeal this, you risk turning the UN, or some of it's nations, in to slave labour camps.

And the real fact is that if you don't repeal this, you risk turning many UN nations into ex-UN nations, and into slave labor. Seems like an even cost-benefit analysis to me.

In that context, your quote seems to be supportive of the idea that some nations should leave. However, after re-looking at the post times, it seems more likely that you had started your post prior to Adam Island's posting -- which means that my inference about your intent was mistaken. My apologies.

Now, while I intend to fight against this repeal, and while I intend to do my best to win, I encourage you continue your attempts to 'change the UN from within'. No person or government can effectively function without criticism, and the largest problem with the NSUN today is that too many dissenting voices would rather depart than continue to fight.

Or, perhaps, not join in the first place. In my region (14 nations), only half of us decided to join the UN. Those of us who have joined and those who have not discuss the issues on a regular basis. Winning repeal of a law as obviously overreaching as the mandatory international 40-hour workweek would go a long way toward convincing the holdouts that the UN doesn't exist solely to override their ability to govern their own nations.

Our vision of the NSUN seems to be different than many other views here. We simply do not agree with the idea that the number of hours in a workweek is such an important international human rights issue that it should be decided by the NSUN instead of individual nations (by the way, Free Soviets, the only other NSUN resolution that we all generally agree is overreaching is the legalization of prostitution. We have a mixed but generally supportive position on abortion rights in our region, and most of us support gay marriage, so neither of those resolutions affect our nations very much. But the extreme restrictiveness of your 40-hour workweek resolution makes it a lightning rod for criticism).

And I can't go to sleep without responding to this:

Better question:

Would your citizens like to choose how many hours to work each week, or would you rather have your corporations tell you? No! It's your choice! Vote AGAINST to keep it.

But YOU can always chose for YOUR NATION to have a 40-hour workweek. The whole idea of this resolution is that it tells EVERY OTHER NATION that it, too, must go along with your ideal. Yes, the UN has the power to do so -- in fact, it has already done so. But that doesn't mean that the mandatory 40-hour workweek is a sensible or wise use of the UN's powers.

sigh

It is time we as voters defend and protect our workers! Save them from the corporate BS and VOTE NO

We simply do not agree with the idea that the number of hours in a workweek is such an important international human rights issue that it should be decided by the NSUN instead of individual nations

If this isn't an important international human rights issue, what is? The 40-hour workweek means the right to rest, the right to recreation, the right to education, and the right to jobs. We celebrate May Day and read the autobiographies of the Haymarket martyrs to this day, because this was THE issue that connected the American labor movement with the European labor movement, giving labor the combined strength to go on to future conquests, such as the abolition of child factory/mine labor in the industrialized nations ... or is that not an important human rights issue either?

Also, we disagree with the implication that we ought to modify our stance in order to enlist the sympathies of anti-labor or vacillating nations. The goal of the UN should be to set exemplary human rights standards, not to recruit nations for its own sake.

"Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work."

The current resolution starts off with this quote. But if this is actually our goal, then the "40 hour work week" resolution provides it much better than its repeal would.

Without the resolution, employers can legally force workers to work more than 40 hours a week, even without pay. That doesn't sound like "Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work" to me.

With the resolution, employees CAN work more than 40 hours a week; they simply can no longer be FORCED to do so. That sounds more like "Individuals should have the right to choose how many hours a week they want to work" to me.

The argument in the resolution's wording about the poor working more than 40 hours a week to make ends meet is moot. They can have two jobs, or they can work overtime in a system that isn't designed to exploit them.

The only way you can argue that the "40 hour work week" resolution does MORE to tell people how much they can work is by claiming that employers that previously offered paid overtime no longer will because it costs 1.5 times as much now. This argument is also fairly moot. If you assume the poorer people were working more than 40 hours before the resolution, then you assume the demand for labour was higher than what a 40-hour work week would provide. Need for labour to maintain that production level did not suddenly drop at the resolution's passing. If the employers are too stingy to pay 1.5xpay for the employees they previously worked overtime for 1xpay, then they most likely hired enough new workers so that none of they could keep up their old level of production without having to pay anyone overtime. Not only does that mean a drop in unemployment, but it's nothing that the employers couldn't do before the resolution was passed.

In closing: the claim that the "40 hour work week" resolution took away power to choose is without logic. Vote against this repeal.

Nevadastan, UN De Facto delegate to the UN for the Imperial Planet ADnD voted for this repeal.


If you do not want to accept the amount of work offered by the employer, take another job which you can accomodate.

If a some employer wants a job done in one week and it demands 75 hours of work to accomplish I say let the person who wants to attempt the quick buck a chance to do so.

Vote for workers! Vote against the plot of capitalists to make us robots into a system with the only porpouse to create money! VOTE NO!!!

Work less, work everybody!

Vote for workers! Vote against the plot of capitalists to make us robots into a system with the only porpouse to create money! VOTE NO!!!

Work less, work everybody!


I think its spelt p.u.r.p.o.s.e

I think its spelt p.u.r.p.o.s.e

well, I'm sorry if sometimes i spell words wrongly... I'm not English tongue as you are. And most of all is stupid to evidence other's spelling error in a debate. But I guess that's the only way fascists like you can talk, having no ideas.

Nevadastan, UN De Facto delegate to the UN for the Imperial Planet ADnD voted for this repeal.


If you do not want to accept the amount of work offered by the employer, take another job which you can accomodate.

If a some employer wants a job done in one week and it demands 75 hours of work to accomplish I say let the person who wants to attempt the quick buck a chance to do so....I'm tired of reading the same thing over and over...READ THE RESOLUTION! pls. spare us the cut and paste....

workers are NOT CONTRACTUALLY COMPELLED to work more than 40 hours a week, but they can CHOOSE to. In the event they work beyond 40 hours, they will be paid at least 1.5 times the normal wage rate for time in excess of 40 hours.

Under the resolution, the anecdotal person who wants to attempt the quick buck will actually get more bucks for the work done in 75 hours.

which will paid the equivalent of at least 92.5 workhours. Not bad, huh?
Please change your vote.

I disagree with this current resolution and I think it will do more harm than good. I respect everybody vote for the current resolution. I must urge you to look at your vote again. I feel you should vote NO, for the following reasons. I feel that this resolution will end up hurting not helping the poor of our nations. Before we look at the reason here are a few things which this resolution will not do. In looking in the issue you can find several things which can help the poor. First tax the rich and lower taxes on the poor, this will create more money in the core of an economy especial capitalist nations. Second, nations can increases welfare programs to increases funds but aim for them to keep jobs and just not work. This is a bit idealist but it is a possibility for the poor. Third you can increases the pay of the worker but not letting inflation make them poor. Final, nations can create opportunities for higher payer jobs, which is very is very accessible for the poor through grants and such. However being depends on the nation, as the nation grows economically so does the standard of living and the poor become a lit better off. Now let’s look at the current issue. First, this is a tool for exploitation. What I mean is true they work more hours will make more money but the part is not told is that they will still be poor. Early Capitalism taught us that because people were getting poor and the richer richer. In this time people worked long hours and had very little pay at the time, I don't want this to happen again because the only person that was benefiting by having no regulations was the employer. By having UN resolution #59, the contract that employer has regulations, which set 40 hours as a full time employee. However people can work overtime thanks to article 5. This current issue I feel is pointless and no need to have this pass, unless the main goal is to not help but hurt the employee. Second, just read the UN resolution #59 and look at their arguments to strike it null. I think if you use that argument then you might as well not have UN resolutions. On some level the UN has to over step the nation’s sovereignty in order for the benefits of the nation and the world. Finally, I would say that they are many ways to fix the problem of poverty but this isn’t on of them. You may disagree with me but that is fine, whatever you decide thanks for you time.

Once again, i see the replies to this post and i see so many nations replying w/ emotion attacking one that opposes or not by attacking their common sense or reading comprehension. read one, read the other and choose. I support this repeal for it is what is best for my country and all who are working in it. I give my people a few freedoms and one of them is how and how much they wish to work. Support of this repeal gives them the freedom to do so. If a worker only wishes to work 10 hours a week that is up to them and their economic situation will reflect that, maybe a blue collar worker wishes to work 84 hours a week if so he/she will have the goods and home that reflects his/her efforts that is up to them. it is as simple as that, I have the power to enforce any wage or workplace conflicts and the UN wil not have the power to force anything on me or my people.

that is all.

Lord Delandou

Two issues have been raised recently. The first is the right of employees and employers to agree privately about working conditions. This sounds fine in an abstract sense, but in the real world the employee and the employer--whether a private capitalist, a corporation, or the state--do not meet on an equal playing field.

Wrong. Neither the potential employer nor the potential employee may use coercive force (or the threat thereof) to get the other to agree to terms he would not otherwise agree to. The potential employer has something the potential employee wants (a paycheck) and the potential employee has something the potential employer wants (labor). So they negotiate to terms that are acceptable to all, or neither get anything.

Marx has been shown to be wrong. The labor theory of value has been shown to be wrong. And economics aside, it's a moral issue--government has no place interfering in private agreements to which all parties involved consent.

with the resolution as written, how would you pay a commission based sales person?

that is my only argument against the resolution, not that we should enslave people but that the wording of the current resolution does not allow for retained, commssioned, per item paid employess...

thus I feel, seeing as how the we currently have no means by which to ammend a resolution, that we musr repeal it, we must make the needed corrections to the language, and pass a new 40 hr work week resolution.

I stand by my vote. It's time for a shake up; Soviet style. Time to put our workers back to work, and dollars back in our pockets.

I realise this is a tiny little thing, but would it be possible for people to refer to something at vote as a proposal, and not a resolution. Normally it's not that bad, but when the proposal is a repeal, and someone says "I am voting against the current resolution" it is sometimes hard to work out if they are refering to the repeal (so they support the current resolution that is trying to be repealed) or they support the repeal proposal (and don't like the resolution that is trying to be repealed).

Feel free to ignore me and openly mock me. I just thought I would mention it, cause twice now I have started off on a rant against someone who says "I oppose the current resolution", only to realise they support the 40 Hour Work Week and are trying to stop the repeal (much like I am trying to do).

with the resolution as written, how would you pay a commission based sales person?

On commission. As long as their contract doesn't state that they must work more than 40 hours per week, or that they would be fired if they didn't, then there is no conflict. And if they do put in extra long hours sometimes, they have to be allowed to take time off some other time.

How can you trust an economic resolution from a country who's nation is greatly suffering economicly?

the original resolution says that the implementation of the 40 hour work week cannot be done in such a way as to reduce the livelihood of workers (which is standard: a cut in hours with no cut in pay, i.e. a raise)

and it says people can CHOOSE to work up to 80 hours
but can't be ordered to by bosses.

so basically you're saying that you think people SHOULDN'T be able to work less and get paid the same, and that bosses SHOULD be able to order people to work more than 40 hours.

so the repeal becomes about the bosses being able to order people around, not about "Freedom"

if people WANT to work more hours to increase their standard of living, they're allowed to. the 40 hour work week resolution says as much.
if people get a decent standard of living at 40 hours, then who's gonna choose to work MORE than 80?
i agree this needs some more explicit legislation about pay and conditions, but come on. MORE than 80 hours is getting on up towards 4 straight days, or MORE THAN HALF THE TOTAL TIME IN A WEEK
and if someone is "choosing" to work more than that, they probably need either counseling, or improved wages. not the "freedom" to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without pause.

Just out of curiousity mostly.

If this repeal goes through, would anyone be with me in putting forward a statement that says the undersigned nations are not willing to trade, support or assist anyone who doesn't write the 40 Hour Work Week resolution in to their national law?

Or would it just be me?

But YOU can always chose for YOUR NATION to have a 40-hour workweek. The whole idea of this resolution is that it tells EVERY OTHER NATION that it, too, must go along with your ideal. Yes, the UN has the power to do so -- in fact, it has already done so. But that doesn't mean that the mandatory 40-hour workweek is a sensible or wise use of the UN's powers.

Ah, then why wasn't this stressed in the resolution, that it preserved national sovereignty? Will we see more current resolutions stricken down for infringing sovereign rights? No, of course not!

Besides, with the power of multinational corporations, nations that try to maintain a 40-hour work week will find that eroded as Big Business continues its greedy cry of Gimme Gimme Gimme!

Wrong. Neither the potential employer nor the potential employee may use coercive force (or the threat thereof) to get the other to agree to terms he would not otherwise agree to. The potential employer has something the potential employee wants (a paycheck) and the potential employee has something the potential employer wants (labor). So they negotiate to terms that are acceptable to all, or neither get anything.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Currently the potential emplyer does use coercive force- the force of having the job which pays the money which allows the worker to pay the bills. There are only a limited number of jobs, and many qualified applicants. IN such cases, the employer holds all the cards.

In your scenario, the only time there is true equality between the employer and the employee is in highly specialized fields. Professional atheltics is probably the easiest to understand. Highly skilled athletes are paid very well because so very few can play at that level. In the vast majority of cases, this equality is theoretical at best.

And economics aside, it's a moral issue--government has no place interfering in private agreements to which all parties involved consent.

That's right; it is a moral issue. But the issue is not government interference, but on the proper relationship between the employer and the employee. As a wise Jewish carpenter once said, "that you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me."

So far over 7000 people have voted that it is humane for an employer to demand their employees to work over 80 hours, even if the employee has four kids.

Companies need to minimise their costs to stay competitive, without r59 every company will expect its employees to work until they drop dead.

I want resolution 59 to be implemented in all UN nations and am voting against this repeal.

The interesting thing here is there are some RL debates that could provide a bit of insight as well ...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001839155_longhours18.html

"Americans work more hours by far than any other workers in the world," said Benjamin Balak, who teaches economic history at Rollins College in Florida. "If you want to be a high-income wage earner, you have to work like a dog. If you want leisure in today's economy, you'll be stuck in a low-income job. It's income or leisure."

For many if not most professionals today, Balak said, working in excess of 40 hours a week "is expected. You don't have an option."

Recent government surveys appear to contradict Balak. They show the amount of weekly hours put in by full-time workers has remained virtually unchanged since the mid-1970s — 43 hours then, 42.9 hours now.


The entire article is worth reading, and offers some other items really worth thinking about. I quoted the above, because this man obviously had his impression on how the world works, but the paper is citing a US govt study that contradicts him.


Also worth reading (for you corporate hos) ...

http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/worktime/

An average worker needs to work a mere 11 hours per week to produce as much as one working 40 hours per week in 1950. (The data here is from the US, but productivity increases in Europe and Japan have been of the same magnitude.)

A bit shocking actually! :)

Highly skilled athletes are paid very well because so very few can play at that level. In the vast majority of cases, this equality is theoretical at best.

Please tell the NHL owners that. None of them seem to understand it.

If a worker only wishes to work 10 hours a week that is up to them and their economic situation will reflect that, maybe a blue collar worker wishes to work 84 hours a week if so he/she will have the goods and home that reflects his/her efforts that is up to them.

One week has 168 hours. 84 hours is exactly half the week. If someone needs to work 12 hours a day, every day, then you have serious economic or wage problems. And it's not true that someone working the full limit would have an economic situation reflecting the amount of time spent at work. A corporate executive would probably make more working 40 hours a week than a line assemblyman working 80 hours, even with overtime which the resolution guarentees.

Exactly.

What we should be going for is a 32 hour work week and a guaranteed living wage around the planet. Corporations should serve the people, not the other way around.

So say the ultra cool people of Ultra Cool People. :cool:

If this repeal goes through, would anyone be with me in putting forward a statement that says the undersigned nations are not willing to trade, support or assist anyone who doesn't write the 40 Hour Work Week resolution in to their national law?

Our government would be extremely willing to sign such a statement. Indeed, even if this repeal does not pass, we would support the issuing of such a statement with regards to the labour practices of non-UN nations.

Although we can't help but wonder whether or not a re-submission of the current '40-hour work week' resolution would pass, even without the minor changes that have been suggested here, immedietly after the hypothetical success of this repeal. While there certainly is a large group of nations who understand, and support, the repeal, this delegate thinks it is still fairly apparent that there is also a not insubstantial number of voters who are simply confused by the deceptive wording.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Currently the potential emplyer does use coercive force- the force of having the job which pays the money which allows the worker to pay the bills. There are only a limited number of jobs, and many qualified applicants. IN such cases, the employer holds all the cards.
Nope, the employee is not threatened with the loss of anything that was his to begin with--therefore, there is no coercive force involved.

That's right; it is a moral issue. But the issue is not government interference, but on the proper relationship between the employer and the employee.
No, it IS government interference. The proper relationship between employer and employee is whatever the employer and employee happen to agree to. Government has no place interfering.
As a wise Jewish carpenter once said, "that you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me."
Jesus of Nazareth was an evil collectivist rat-bastard, but that's beside the point.

Nope, the employee is not threatened with the loss of anything that was his to begin with--therefore, there is no coercive force involved.

The coercive force is that the employee would not be able to have an income source. No income means no food, no shelter, no nothing, especially if the welfare system doesn't give unemployment help or if there isn't even a welfare system.

No, it IS government interference. The proper relationship between employer and employee is whatever the employer and employee happen to agree to. Government has no place interfering.

There is an unequal relationship here, because the employer has the power and the employee does not. If all employers have similar working conditions, the employee has no choice but to accept them, no matter how bad or good they are. A limit on working hours is necessary to prevent exploitation. This is not the government telling people how long they're allowed to work. This is the government telling employers how long they can make the employees work. This benefits and protects employees, who are the great majority of the population the last time I checked.

That is also why labour unions are needed in the first place, because only collectively can the employees have any power over the employer.

Yes, it is government intereference, but the government has every right to interfere in an issue which is vital to a nation's economic health as well as that of the general population.

The coercive force is that the employee would not be able to have an income source. No income means no food, no shelter, no nothing, especially if the welfare system doesn't give unemployment help or if there isn't even a welfare system.
So? He's not being threatened with the loss of anything that was his to begin with. One's existence does not entitle him to the means of retaining that existence. If he cannot provide for himself, either by literally producing everything he needs or by producing one thing and trading it on mutually agreeable terms for other things he needs (either directly or with money as an intermediary), and cannot convince others to provide for him, too bad. No individual has an obligation to provide for another.

This is not the government telling people how long they're allowed to work.
I never said otherwise.
This is the government telling employers how long they can make the employees work.
They CAN'T make employees work at all! The employee is free to quit at any time. The consequences of such an action may be undesirable, but he's still free to do it.
This benefits and protects employees, who are the great majority of the population the last time I checked.
Why does that matter? Government's job is not utilitarian, to do "the greatest good for the greatest number". Government's job is to protect individual rights.

That is also why labour unions are needed in the first place, because only collectively can the employees have any power over the employer.
Yes, employees are free to band together if they wish in private organizations. But just like any other private organization, labor unions properly have no special legal status.

Yes, it is government intereference, but the government has every right to interfere in an issue which is vital to a nation's economic health as well as that of the general population.
Incorrect. The only proper role of government is to protect individual rights, and that is done by enforcing contracts that are entered into voluntarily by all parties involved, punishing violence or the threat of violence, and defending against foreign aggression.

Just out of curiousity mostly.

If this repeal goes through, would anyone be with me in putting forward a statement that says the undersigned nations are not willing to trade, support or assist anyone who doesn't write the 40 Hour Work Week resolution in to their national law?

Or would it just be me?

Tilenca, I'd love to support you on this but my nation already has laws favouring a 30 hour work week. As a socialist nation, our citizens recieve food rations, free healthcare, income assistance for low income earners, clothing stamps for students, forgivable loans for those wishing to obtain a house or condo, ect. We would like to work with you on this if it can be done in a way not to overturn our own system.
In regards to this repeal, we have been working overtime on the telegraming. Several nations have expressed their regards at the power of our lobbying team. So people, don't give up yet. We need to explain the original legislation to as many people as we can.
Denusia

It frankly amazes me (having looked at several other debates as well) how many nations are really objecting to the title of the resolution, but don't understand that you can work 40 to 80 hours, and be entitled to overtime.

Furthermore, does the resolution restrict salaried employees? If not, then a portion of many countries work forces are already allowed to work more.

In any event, I'm about to head out and will be unable to address comments or questions with respect to my nation's position until after the vote. Unfortunate this is. :(

As for the proposed economic boycot of nations that violate the work ethics, I'll be happy to bring this proposed idea to the Council of Mayors. While I am afforded certain liberties with respect to the UN (largely because my government has issued me a series of position papers, which I should release at some point), bi-lateral arrangements need to be cleared via my government first.

But I will recommend to my government that preferred trading status be granted to nations that maintain the principals behind this resolution.

Mik, remember the first rule of the universe.

Sorry, make that The First Rule of The Universe!


"People are stupid".

:p

Just out of curiousity mostly.

If this repeal goes through, would anyone be with me in putting forward a statement that says the undersigned nations are not willing to trade, support or assist anyone who doesn't write the 40 Hour Work Week resolution in to their national law?

Or would it just be me?
I would be glad to sign my name on that statement.

---------------------
Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other if I boycott somebody. I only export raw materials anyway, and that is a competitive market.

While I understand what you are doing, don't be surprised if I am unable to join you.

He's not being threatened with the loss of anything that was his to begin with...

Incorrect. The only proper role of government is to protect individual rights, and that is done by enforcing contracts that are entered into voluntarily by all parties involved, punishing violence or the threat of violence, and defending against foreign aggression.

Private property is BASED on violence. Take, for example, private property in land. No one creates land. Someone buys it or has it given to them ... but where did the original owner get it from? At some point along the line, the establishment of private ownership of land was based on the forcible denial of the rights of anyone else to the produce of it.

The same is true of capital. In our capitalist system, capital does NOT belong to the person who creates it--it belongs to the owner of the means of production. So factories, for instance, belong to the owner of the tools used to build the factory, not to the workers who build it. These tools don't belong to the workers who create them, they belong to the suppliers of the raw materials used to make them. And these raw materials don't belong to those who do the work to extract them from the earth, they belong to the mine owners--whose original title is based on an original act of violent expropriation.

The last paragraph ignores, for purposes of simplification, the fact that the workers themselves are among the tools used to build their factory. They rent out their labor power in exchange for wages, which reflect the value of the consumer goods needed to maintain their labor power. These in turn give the capitalists who own these goods--who are in turn paying rents of their own to the owners of mines and farms, if they are not themselves these owners--a stake in the surplus value produced by the worker (e.g., the new factory that is built).

The key that makes this whole system possible is that the vast majority of people do NOT have ownership of means of production sufficient to sustain their own lives ... it is only in this situation, which is maintained by government interference in the economy--the establishment of police, prisons, military forces, etc., to maintain the "individual rights" of buying and selling, against the individual rights of workers to a life of human dignity--that anyone would make the "choice" to produce wealth for someone else's enjoyment and not for his/her own.

I admit to not reading all 16 pages of this thread, so I will try to be brief.

The resolution being repealed allows someone to work up to 80 hours a week on one job, and says nothing about multiple jobs.

The resolution being repealed calls for extra pay for people working more than 40 hours a week on one job, and makes it illegal for an employer to insist that a person work more than 40 hours a week on their job if they do not wish to.

This repeal has nothing to do with helping the poor or the hourly employee.
They are actually aided by the existing law.

The restrictions in the "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution are mild and reasonable.

The greatest rationale for this repeal is either the argument that 1) none of this is the UN's business, or 2) that regulation of commerce is somehow automatically a negative.

We believe that both these notions are false.

The UN does widely promote fairness and progress. It promotes freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. It outlaws child labor, slavery and torture. We do not believe the right of employers to demand more than 11 hours a day, 7 days a week labor is so far from slavery, or out-of-bounds for the UN to speak to.

And the same goes for "regulation of commerce". The UN also does this by regulating child labor, slavery etc.

Completely unregulated commerce is madness. The world would descend to sweatshops, slavery and indentured servitude. We believe reasonable international standards are most appropriate.

Vote NO on repeal.

Peace,
ARMED LOVE

Just out of curiousity mostly.

If this repeal goes through, would anyone be with me in putting forward a statement that says the undersigned nations are not willing to trade, support or assist anyone who doesn't write the 40 Hour Work Week resolution in to their national law?

Or would it just be me?

Let it be known:

The Holy Empire of Gnidrah stands firmly behind any nation opposing the repeal of Resolution No. 59. Any such nation will have the continued support of my nation's people and its government.

Likewise, I will refuse to recognize any nation supporting this repeal. I know these words are of no value to such nations and their governments, but I feel it should be addressed and known, nevertheless.

That is all.

Matthew, Most Holy Emperor
The Holy Empire of Gnidrah

Let it be known:

The Holy Empire of Gnidrah stands firmly behind any nation opposing the repeal of Resolution No. 59. Any such nation will have the continued support of my nation's people and its government.

Likewise, I will refuse to recognize any nation supporting this repeal. I know these words are of no value to such nations and their governments, but I feel it should be addressed and known, nevertheless.

That is all.

Matthew, Most Holy Emperor
The Holy Empire of Gnidrah

Don't over-react, I have voted for the repeal, even though I am against the repeal. Not all of us have the luxury to merely vote by our own beliefs... Especially us Delegates...

No individual has an obligation to provide for another.

I would beg to differ.

They CAN'T make employees work at all! The employee is free to quit at any time. The consequences of such an action may be undesirable, but he's still free to do it.

The consequences are more than "undesireable", in fact, they could potentially result in that person's death. Granted, that is an extreme case, but you have to admit that there is coercion present - if he doesn't work, he doesn't get money, he doesn't get food/shelter/etc.

You don't recognise that in many cases the employee is NOT "free to quit at any time". Think about your own job. If you can tell me that you can quit right now and not worry one bit about the consequences, such as how you're going to find another job with equal or better conditions, then you really are one lucky guy.

Why does that matter? Government's job is not utilitarian, to do "the greatest good for the greatest number". Government's job is to protect individual rights.

Yes, employees are free to band together if they wish in private organizations. But just like any other private organization, labor unions properly have no special legal status.

Incorrect. The only proper role of government is to protect individual rights, and that is done by enforcing contracts that are entered into voluntarily by all parties involved, punishing violence or the threat of violence, and defending against foreign aggression.

These are all matters of opinion and I guess there isn't much point in me saying anything other than "I disagree".

It is easy to see from those statements why you are for the repeal; you do not have the same views of government as I or many others do. You believe in a minimalist role for government, I believe the government should be actively working for the good of the people who (ideally) voted them in.

Hello all. I'm absolutely new here, and some of these posts have been a bit...confusing. My view on this is that the original resolution meant that no-one could work more than 40 hours. Now if that is right, I can see how the basic economics perspective would view that as increasing the rich/poor divide, as poorer people can't keep working to increase their incomes. Now, I haven't read most of this thread (for which I will probably be told off) but it seems to me that this person who has set forth the repeal has missed the point entirely. Yes, the rich/poor divide may increase a little, but if the repeal is instigated then quality and standard of life would plummet.

For example, Person A (lets call her Mindy, for no reason at all) works a 40hr week in her local diner, waitressing on various people. It's not a great job, and sometimes the customers are idiots, but Mindy can cope. She isn't paid too well either, but she can cope. Suddenly, the UN allows her to work all the hours under the sky. She immediately begins working 80hrs a week, and, as a result, doubles her gross income. However, she is constantly tired, feels abused and degraded, and is developing varicose veins and painful worn-out knees. She keeps working, though, because she is sooo much richer now. Until her knee gives out. She can no longer work and has to throw herself upon the govt.

So, to sum up my position - don't vote this repeal. I might have agreed with a system of a slightly longer week, but to be able to work almost indefinitely? That is close to torture

The reasons given for the repeal are poorly thought out and to some degree nonsensical.

The point of the original resolution was to stop people being forced to work over 40 hours. They are free to work up to 80 hours.

If the poor are too poor, pay them more. It's quite simple, really.

32 hour work week and a guaranteed living wage!

32 hour work week and a guaranteed living wage!

32 hour work week and a guaranteed living wage!

Come on everybody lets make these corporate bastards sorry they tried to mess with the 40 hour work week. :D

The resolution at vote, to repeal the existing resolution, is dishonest in its wording. It suggests that the poor will be financially better off if they are allowed to work more than 40 hours per week, and that they are somehow restricted from doing so by the existing resolution. This is nonsense - the existing resolution provides for a worker being allowed to work more than 40 hours per week should he or she so desire, it merely stops an employer from being able to force a worker to work more than 40 hours. The poor can therefore work more than 40 hours per week in exchange for extra remuneration should they so desire already.

If you vote in favour of this resolution, do so because you think it is fair that employers should be able to force their employees to work more than 40 hours in a week. Do not do so because you think employees should be able to chose to work more than 40 hours in a week should they so desire - because they already can. The resolution is dishonest, and therefore Pantocratoria will be voting against it.

Monsignor Hugh de la Morée
Pantocratoria's Ambassador to the United Nations