NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution #59 does not harm the lower paid people the most. It does not prevent them from working more than 40 hours. It prevents them being contracted to work more than 40 hours at normal pay rates without their consent. The resolution clearly states that they can work double that amount of time voluntarily, and that such hours will be rewarded with 150% of the standard pay rate they would have earned in their 40 hours of work.

There is not a single unjust clause in the legislation threatened by repeal, and we fear that the repeal of it is gaining FOR votes simply because people are not taking the time to read the for and against arguments in the fora, and assuming the framer of the repeal legislation is correct in their 'thinking'.

The repeal of Resolution #59 is poorly thought out, if at all, and reeks of nonsense in the extreme. The people of the Socialist Commune of Demographika hold Resolution #59 as a defining document of their rights, and it is framed on the wall of many workplaces in our country. We abhor the attempt to repeal the resolution, especially under such nonsense grounds.

Attempting to repeal Resolution #59 is an attempt to remove a protection of the workers' rights. The attempt looks like, feels like, sounds like, and smells like what it is: Fascism; put the poor in their place and keep them there.

The Socialist Commune of Demographika.


[P.S.: This is the part where the framers of the repeal legislation admit they misunderstood the resolution they are attempting to repeal, and strike down their own resolution. Yeah right.... like something as just as that could happen.]

I do not understand how the 40 hour work week hurts low income workers. The resolution states that if you want to voluntaraly work over 40 hours a week you can do so. And not only that but you will be paid at least time and a half. If you ask me, that's an increase in their pay, not a cap on how much they can work. What the resolutin actually does is prevent emplyoers from taking advantage of low income workers by forcing them to work more hours at the same debilitatingly low pay with the treat of being fired if they don't.

Everyone should vote against this law because this law gives the mean corporations the right to slave their workers for 8 h a day. I'ts everybodys one problem how long he works. :headbang: :eek: :confused:

The only way this resolution has reached the point of being almost passed, is something like half the voting leftists here being too retarded to read it and the one it is repealing properly.

To hell with all the so-called leftists who couldn't see this for what it is, candy-coated slavery. You're like children! Haven't you been taught not to accept candy from a stranger?

Mutual Liberty gives its pre-emptive support to a reproposal of the 40-hour workweek when the voting is done.

I do not understand how the 40 hour work week hurts low income workers. The resolution states that if you want to voluntaraly work over 40 hours a week you can do so. And not only that but you will be paid at least time and a half. If you ask me, that's an increase in their pay, not a cap on how much they can work. What the resolutin actually does is prevent emplyoers from taking advantage of low income workers by forcing them to work more hours at the same debilitatingly low pay with the treat of being fired if they don't.
How it hurts is that market forces will prevent the employers of low-income workers from allowing low-income workers to work more than 40 hours each week, because it will be cheaper to hire someone else to work the rest of the necessary time, especially if there is little or no training involved.

However, Resolution 59: The 40 Hour Workweek does not prevent someone from taking a separate job, which should alleviate the problem I outlined above. (Basically, instead of two people who work 80 hours each week on one job apiece, there are two people who each work 40 hours each week on each of two jobs apiece.) Also, it appears only to apply to jobs in which someone works for an hourly wage, not those who work for a weekly or biweekly salary, nor those who work for commissions. Furthermore, it has no effect on those who are self-employed, and, as it is worded, appears not to affect anyone who is not contracually obligated to perform a job.

How it hurts is that market forces will prevent the employers of low-income workers from allowing low-income workers to work more than 40 hours each week, because it will be cheaper to hire someone else to work the rest of the necessary time, especially if there is little or no training involved.

However, Resolution 59: The 40 Hour Workweek does not prevent someone from taking a separate job, which should alleviate the problem I outlined above. (Basically, instead of two people who work 80 hours each week on one job apiece, there are two people who each work 40 hours each week on each of two jobs apiece.) Also, it appears only to apply to jobs in which someone works for an hourly wage, not those who work for a weekly or biweekly salary, nor those who work for commissions. Furthermore, it has no effect on those who are self-employed, and, as it is worded, appears not to affect anyone who is not contracually obligated to perform a job.

Could I ask you to re-read the original resolution? The resolution that the whole of the NSUN appears to be trying to repeal does NOT stop anyone from working more than 40 hours if they chose to. Low income workers can work more than 40 hours if they chose to. And employers can let them work if the workers want to.

Did anyone ACTUALLY read the original resolution? At all? Cause quite honestly it appears that everyone read the repeal, and didn't bother reading what it was they were now going to strike down. And most of those who did read it don't appear to have understood it!

Democracy is great, isn't it?

It prevents them being contracted to work more than 40 hours at normal pay rates without their consent.

But it only allows for them to work upto 80 hours, and does not allow for people to be paid salaries, put on retainer, paid by commission only or paid by per item performance only.

there is no provision to amend this error.

This is why I support the repeal, and why I will support a new 40 hour work week proposal that also accounts for pay scales other than per hour wages.


(ooc: this is why the RL U.S. has a Wage and Hour Division in the Dept. of Labor.. because not everyone is paid by the hour.)

Could I ask you to re-read the original resolution? The resolution that the whole of the NSUN appears to be trying to repeal does NOT stop anyone from working more than 40 hours if they chose to. Low income workers can work more than 40 hours if they chose to. And employers can let them work if the workers want to.

Did anyone ACTUALLY read the original resolution? At all? Cause quite honestly it appears that everyone read the repeal, and didn't bother reading what it was they were now going to strike down. And most of those who did read it don't appear to have understood it!

Democracy is great, isn't it?

It is quite lovely. All of those people having the power to violently restrict the freedoms of others is wonderful. That's what government is all about. Unfortunately, in democracies more than any other form of government, the government is a reflection of the people, which means that if the people are cool, your government is cool. Of course, it's also going to be the case that if the people are morons, the government will be moronic.

Could I ask you to re-read the original resolution? The resolution that the whole of the NSUN appears to be trying to repeal does NOT stop anyone from working more than 40 hours if they chose to. Low income workers can work more than 40 hours if they chose to. And employers can let them work if the workers want to.

Did anyone ACTUALLY read the original resolution? At all? Cause quite honestly it appears that everyone read the repeal, and didn't bother reading what it was they were now going to strike down. And most of those who did read it don't appear to have understood it!

Democracy is great, isn't it?

But by forcing the people to be paid time and a half, we create higher prices for domestic goods which is damaging for competitivness.

Red Stovals are fully opposed to this resolution. This constitute a social regression, and a declaration of war against all workers of the world ! Freedom is an ideological lie in a capitalistic system, it's freedom of exploitation. Poor peoples don't realy have the choice, capitalists create the need for money, and this is the way for a so-called freedom.

In the name of socialist ideal and for the emancipation of oppressed people, vote against this shameful proposal.

We rather must claim for 25 hours workweek !

I believe the 40 hour workweek must go. Not because of the reasons stated in the repeal, but because of Clause 7 of the original 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.

Any country can declare anything an 'emergency' for any reason and thus completely ignore the Resolution. The 40 Hour Workweek is thereby rendered completely ineffective in its stated goal and must be repealed.

But by forcing the people to be paid time and a half, we create higher prices for domestic goods which is damaging for competitivness.

I can't deny that. Making sure people are not treated as slave labour and ensuring the workers are not exploited by employers who know that they have all the power, while the work force has pretty much no power what so ever, might have an effect on someone's profits.

But I, and all the people who support workers' rights believe that the rights of people not to be treated as virtual slaves is worth more than money.

I believe the 40 hour workweek must go. Not because of the reasons stated in the repeal, but because of Clause 7 of the original Resolution:



Any country can declare anything an 'emergency' for any reason and thus completely ignore the Resolution. The 40 Hour Workweek is thereby rendered completely ineffective in its stated goal and must be repealed.

I think you are slightly misleading people. The resolution only indicates that people who are related to the emergency can be asked to work more than 40 hours. And only for the length of the emergency. I think if a government kept the nation in a state of ermergency for every single worker, the workers would probably use their union rights to yell at the government and go on strike.

I don't believe this is enough reason to repeal one of the greatest step forward for workers rights that has happened in recent history.

But it only allows for them to work upto 80 hours, and does not allow for people to be paid salaries, put on retainer, paid by commission only or paid by per item performance only.

there is no provision to amend this error.

This is why I support the repeal, and why I will support a new 40 hour work week proposal that also accounts for pay scales other than per hour wages.


(ooc: this is why the RL U.S. has a Wage and Hour Division in the Dept. of Labor.. because not everyone is paid by the hour.)

(OOC)
Back in my civil service days, I was paid monthly, not weekly. I was paid for a set amount of hours, and if I agreed with my manager I could work overtime paid by the hour (eg I was contracted for 37.5 hours, and if I agreed to work 50 hours I got my standard salary, plus 12.5 hours in overtime which was worked out by scaling down my yearly rate to an hourly rate)

(IC)

That is how we do it in TilEnca. People work 40 hours a week for a monthly salary, and overtime is calculated by the hour based on the monthly rate they are paid.

The resolution does not say anything that makes what I am doing illegal or wrong.

The resolution does say that I can not force people to work more than 40 hours without giving them overtime though, and that I can not ask someone to work without paying them. Which is a good thing!

I think you are slightly misleading people. The resolution only indicates that people who are related to the emergency can be asked to work more than 40 hours. And only for the length of the emergency. I think if a government kept the nation in a state of ermergency for every single worker, the workers would probably use their union rights to yell at the government and go on strike.

I don't believe this is enough reason to repeal one of the greatest step forward for workers rights that has happened in recent history.

A lot of the people in these nations don't have rights! A dictator can declare a national emergency for every sector of the economy if he wants.

A lot of the people in these nations don't have rights! A dictator can declare a national emergency for every sector of the economy if he wants.

And a new resolution would protect these people how?

Seriously - you arguement is that people can find a way round the resolution by declaring an emergency. So how would repealing it help them at all? It would just mean that the dictator would not have to bother with the hassle of a state of emergency.

But for all the other nations in the world - the ones who aren't run by the evil, the insane and the just plain mean - this resolution is the only protection that workers have from being exploited.

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.
How appallingly irrational. The only violence involved in land ownership is retaliatory violence (which is good) as opposed to initiatory violence (which is bad). Private ownership of land is not merely a social construct, it is an objective moral absolute.

The same is true of capital. In our capitalist system, capital does NOT belong to the person who creates it
Your ignorance of basic moral as well as economic principle is so basic I don't know where to begin.

Individual A owns several items, which can be used to produce consumer good Z. However, in order to use these items more efficiently, he needs more labor than he alone can provide. Thus, he contracts with individuals B, C, and D to provide labor in exchange for a wage. Do you understand this so far?

against the individual rights of workers to a life of human dignity--
Define "dignity", and I will explain to you how either (a) a right to such does not actually exist, or (b) it is completely consistent with everything I have said so far.
that anyone would make the "choice" to produce wealth for someone else's enjoyment and not for his/her own.
This is just ignorant. When you go to work, why do you do it--do you do it primarily because you want your boss to have more money, or because you want a paycheck?

I would beg to differ.
Then you would happen to be wrong.

To hold that each individual has an obligation to provide for another is to give sanction to slavery.

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.
And?

Ultimately, an individual is free to choose whether he wants to live or die. If I don't get to decide for someone else whether he wants to live or die, then I have no obligation to provide for him if he chooses to live. It's only fair and just.

These are all matters of opinion
Actually, no, they're objective facts.
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.
Then you and many others happen to be incorrect.

Individual A owns several items, which can be used to produce consumer good Z. However, in order to use these items more efficiently, he needs more labor than he alone can provide. Thus, he contracts with individuals B, C, and D to provide labor in exchange for a wage. Do you understand this so far?


Before I became the president, I worked for a small software company. The owner of the company had me writing software. But when I had written the software, it did not belong to me. It belonged to the owner of the company, because I had written it for him.

So even though I was quite active in creating the software - creating the money - I did not own the software, or the money that was made by selling it. Instead I got paid for the one thing that was mine - the work I put in.

So that would be the only thing I have to bargin with. And if this resolution is repealed then I would be in a very bad position. If I refuse to do more than 40 hours, I can be replaced pretty easily by someone else who can do the work. The owner of the company, however, has the money he can give me, or not give me, and the job he can give me or not give me. This resolution puts more of a balance of power in to the relationship, and without it the workers have no power and the employers have all the power.

To hold that each individual has an obligation to provide for another is to give sanction to slavery.

Which is kind of funny, because if this resolution is repealed then you will be allowing every employer in the NSUN to use slave labour from then on.

Personally I do not think an employer has a duty to provide a home, a family and a happy life for their employee. But they do have a duty to treat them fairly, to not expect them to do unpaid work, and to pay them suitably for the work they do. And, arguably, they also have a duty not to exploit them.


Ultimately, an individual is free to choose whether he wants to live or die. If I don't get to decide for someone else whether he wants to live or die, then I have no obligation to provide for him if he chooses to live. It's only fair and just.


Which I have no problem with. But if they work for you, you have a duty to pay them. And if you expect them to work for no money, or for very little money, then you would be forcing them to work far longer and far harder for the same amount they would have expected before the resolution if it was repealed.


Actually, no, they're objective facts.


There are no objective facts when you express an opinion. You think that the government is there to protect individual rights, and yet every decision it makes will give advantages to some individuals and not others. This would indicate they are engaging in group rights, not individual rights.

You also say the government should protect contracts freely entered into. But what if someone agrees to something because they have no choice. Not because someone is pointing a gun at their head, or because someone is threatening their family, but because there really is no other choice.

Say I have a husband and five children. I have been working for my software company under the current resolution for ten years. All well and good. I sometimes do overtime, and get paid for it.
Then the resolution is repealed, because the government is not there to do the greatest good for the greatest number, and suddenly the head of the copmany now requires me to renegotiate my contract, or face the sack. I think about my husband and my five children, and realise that if I lose my only source of income they will all be screwed, as will I. So I agree, and I am now working eighty hours on half the salary I was before. Because the government is there to protect individual rights - my rights not to be exploited - I am now virtually working for free. And not because he put a gun to my head, or a gun to the head of my husband or children, but because I need a job, and this is the job I am being offered.

So the government that set out to protect my rights has failed in the worst way, and I, and all of my fellow workers across TilEnca, are now at the mercy of the people who own the companies.

Is that really what you think the government is for? Putting money in to the hands of the rich while leaving the poor to get poorer?

Red Stovals are fully opposed to this resolution. This constitute a social regression, and a declaration of war against all workers of the world ! Freedom is an ideological lie in a capitalistic system, it's freedom of exploitation. Poor peoples don't realy have the choice, capitalists create the need for money, and this is the way for a so-called freedom.

In the name of socialist ideal and for the emancipation of oppressed people, vote against this shameful proposal.

We rather must claim for 25 hours workweek !



OK so a 32 hour work week is my minimum, I think it's a good compromise epecialy for those Nations that don't have good sidewalk cafes for its citizens to lounge in on thier weekly four day weekend. I think a universal three day weekend must be the norm for this planet. Coupled with a guarateed living wage at twice the poverty level for that Nation.

Well, by repealing it, you are effectivly getting rid of overtime pay! how can the poor catch up to the rich if they continue their same hourly salary no matter how long they work. The way to bridge the gap is to start overtime pay at a shorter hour time. If the hours for overtime is lower, then the poor will work longer hours, getting more money, and the rich will continue to work only a fraction of the hours for overtime.

Repealing the 40 hour workweek will only separate further the rich and poor.

Again - people are confusing the resolution and the repeal.

Hey, I've got a crazy idea... if you think the original resolution harms lower income workers why not AMEND it? Lift the 80 hour cap and allow people to work as much as they want and increase the overtime pay the longer they work.

Hey, I've got a crazy idea... if you think the original resolution harms lower income workers why not AMEND it? Lift the 80 hour cap and allow people to work as much as they want and increase the overtime pay the longer they work.

That would be the solution to most of the problems people have with the resolutions. However amendments are not coded in to the system. The only way to change a resolution is to repeal it and get a new one in it's place.

I agree that amendments should be added to the possiblities for UN resolutions.
Heck, we Americans do it to our Constitution all the time for our own personal gain (Don't blam this statement here, do it in a different topic.)
Anyway, I am against this getting repealed, people still have the choice for how many hours they work in the origional resolution, it is just frowned upon.
The people working even get overtime pay!
There is really no reason to repeal this resolution, I'd like somebody to come up with one reason not in the original resolution #49.
I'll try to come up with a counter arguement.

Which is kind of funny, because if this resolution is repealed then you will be allowing every employer in the NSUN to use slave labour from then on.
Not at all, because slave labor is non-consensual. Joe Blow going to work every day is, unless the employer held a gun to his head, a consensual act.

But they do have a duty to treat them fairly... and to pay them suitably for the work they do. And, arguably, they also have a duty not to exploit them.

That's a matter between employee and employer. Government has no place involving itself.
to not expect them to do unpaid work,
Unless the employee and employer have agreed otherwise.

But if they work for you, you have a duty to pay them.
Unless the employee and employer have agreed otherwise.
And if you expect them to work for no money, or for very little money, then you would be forcing them to work far longer and far harder for the same amount they would have expected before the resolution if it was repealed.
That is just as much a matter solely between the employee and employer now as it was 36 seconds ago when I last pointed this out.

There are no objective facts when you express an opinion.
It's not an opinion--it IS an objective fact.
You think that the government is there to protect individual rights,
No, I know for a fact that it is.
and yet every decision it makes will give advantages to some individuals and not others
If that's a consequence of steadfast devotion to individual rights, so be it.

You also say the government should protect contracts freely entered into. But what if someone agrees to something because they have no choice. Not because someone is pointing a gun at their head, or because someone is threatening their family, but because there really is no other choice.
There's ALWAYS a choice. Again, one ultimately has the choice whether or not he wants to live or die.

Say I have a husband and five children. I have been working for my software company under the current resolution for ten years. All well and good. I sometimes do overtime, and get paid for it.
Then the resolution is repealed, because the government is not there to do the greatest good for the greatest number, and suddenly the head of the copmany now requires me to renegotiate my contract, or face the sack. I think about my husband and my five children, and realise that if I lose my only source of income they will all be screwed, as will I. So I agree, and I am now working eighty hours on half the salary I was before. Because the government is there to protect individual rights - my rights not to be exploited - I am now virtually working for free. And not because he put a gun to my head, or a gun to the head of my husband or children, but because I need a job, and this is the job I am being offered.
You have to decide what is most important to you, and act accordingly. Sorry, but your desire for a better situation does not justify violating individual rights.

So the government that set out to protect my rights has failed in the worst way
No, it hasn't--it's just refused to violate the rights of others for your benefit.

I must agree with reason and reality on this. The resolution before us benefits the whole better then the single minded individuals.

That's a matter between employee and employer. Government has no place involving itself.
Are you familiar with the 1880's?

i noticed the race is very close, separated by only a few hundred votes.
i voted against it after reading the description. after looking into it further, i decided to change my vote because, as it turns out, i actually did agree with it's concepts.
i submit a straightforward and simple meaning for descriptions of resolutions in the future would be beneficial for the supporters, as people tend to vote against something they have difficulty comprehending. :confused:

Not at all, because slave labor is non-consensual. Joe Blow going to work every day is, unless the employer held a gun to his head, a consensual act.
By your arguements, even if the employer held a gun to his head, it's still a consensual act. After all, the state of external affairs and possible consequences of "Joe Blow's" actions is not taken into account in the previous examples given, why should it be in this one? After all, as you later state:
There's ALWAYS a choice. Again, one ultimately has the choice whether or not he wants to live or die.
Seems just as applicable in this situation as in all others. After all, why should we violate individual rights just because the employer has an advantage in this particular negotiation? He still has a choice whether or not he wants to work or not, and he just has to accept the consequences of that choice.

You think that the government is there to protect individual rights,
No, I know for a fact that it is.
How is this, in any way, a 'fact'? I challenge you to prove to me, in any manner beyond stating the opinion of yourself or others, that this is the purpose of a government.

That's a matter between employee and employer. Government has no place involving itself.
Are you familiar with the 1880's?

Thank you.

It seems that much of the drive for this repeal is from true-believer ideologues who believe that there is no place in commerce for governmental regulation.

The 19th century in the industrial world (like the present in much of the developing world) was full of sweat shops, child labor, no safety standards for laborers in dangerous work (toxic chemicals, unsafe machinery), millions working dawn to dusk 7 days a week in unhealthy (often fatal) conditions, etc.

In the western republics (and some of the autocracies) the national governments, pressured by their populations (and, actually, fearing widespread revolution) instituted reforms in labor law and other aspects of commerce. Since then health indices, longevity, and national wealth have continually increased.

Please remember that the real tragedies of the 20th century were caused not so much by “government interference” in the private sector, but by those who put a blind faith in disembodied and inhumane ideology over common sense and practical moderation.

We, the people, can regulate our own behavior, and for the better of us all.
Please vote against this repeal.



Ulaghchi
Obek of the Dog God
Delegate of the BUDDHIST REGION OF JAMBUDVIPA

How appallingly irrational. The only violence involved in land ownership is retaliatory violence (which is good) as opposed to initiatory violence (which is bad). Private ownership of land is not merely a social construct, it is an objective moral absolute.

Your ignorance of basic moral as well as economic principle is so basic I don't know where to begin.

Individual A owns several items, which can be used to produce consumer good Z. However, in order to use these items more efficiently, he needs more labor than he alone can provide. Thus, he contracts with individuals B, C, and D to provide labor in exchange for a wage. Do you understand this so far?

Define "dignity", and I will explain to you how either (a) a right to such does not actually exist, or (b) it is completely consistent with everything I have said so far.

This is just ignorant. When you go to work, why do you do it--do you do it primarily because you want your boss to have more money, or because you want a paycheck?

1) I could just as easily sit here and call you "irrational," "ignorant," and so forth. Instead, I prefer to let my arguments speak for themselves. Objectivists tend to be particularly fond of the sort of "argument by intimidation" that you practice. Your claim--without any evidentiary backing whatsoever--that "the labor theory of value has been disproved" is of the same nature. I fully expect you to reply by calling me ignorant of all principles of economics, by appealing to authority, etc.

2) How could private land ownership be established except through initiatory violence? Our species did not emerge from the process of natural selection with some people owning land and some people not owning land. Did some individuals tell others, "We will own this land and you will not," and did the others reply, "Ok?" Or was private land ownership established through such historical phenomena as the genocide against the American Indians?

3) Individuals B, C, and D are NOT paid for their labor in terms of the market value. The market value of their labor is equivalent to their wages, PLUS the surplus value that goes to profit, wear and tear, capital improvements, etc. After all, the only difference between raw materials E, F, and G--supplied by the owner, A--and consumer goods Z is the labor done by B, C, and D. Yet the profit, etc., are greater than the value of raw materials E, F, and G.

What B, C, and D sell to A is their labor POWER--that is, they sell A the right to enrich himself through the work B, C, and D do. The reason they do this is because they do not themselves have access to E, F, and G, as they are not members of the class to which these goods are reserved by government violence. As the laws of supply and demand guarantee that the average wage will be a subsistence wage, unless they are anomalous cases, they never will have access to these goods.

4) "Dignity" is the right to determine one's goals, interests, and values for oneself, and includes, among other things, the right to sole and exclusive ownership of the fruits of one's own labor.

5) I go to work for my paycheck. But because I am not a capitalist, I am compelled to divide my working time between the amount of time I'm working for myself, and the amount of time I'm working for my employer. In other words, I can't just go home when I've earned the company enough money to cover my own wages--I must continue to work for an extra period of time, to earn money for the company. Otherwise, they wouldn't hire me.

I can't deny that. Making sure people are not treated as slave labour and ensuring the workers are not exploited by employers who know that they have all the power, while the work force has pretty much no power what so ever, might have an effect on someone's profits.

But I, and all the people who support workers' rights believe that the rights of people not to be treated as virtual slaves is worth more than money.

Well surely what you must agree is that if we remove this ridicoulous proposal to force a wage rate upon the market at time and a half, this will allow peoples costs to come down and indeed increase employment for the population of our nations as the labour market becomes more flexible and employers can afford to take on more workers.

On the issue of consumers, you support workers' rights, and they have plenty of rights already in that they are protected by other legislation (Safety etc). What I support is having the best thing for consumers and that is allowing them to have the cheapest price avalible and that is done through the free market and we in cozzamundeee support giving the consumers more money to spend and helping our industry - it can only be throuhg industry being able to compete on an international level in a globalized world that we can encourage growth of this industry which has knock on benefits for employment, economic growth and living standards.

The Nation of JunoSprite has officially posted the results, so far, on the repeal of #59:

Votes For: 8,386

Votes Against: 9,761

It isn't over yet, people, so keep it up, no matter what side you're on.

~
Jeffrey Doxion,
President of, JunoSprite.
~

Thats interesting, cos last time I checked the no camp was nearly a thousand votes down. Quite a swing, but thats politics for you.

Thank you.

It seems that much of the drive for this repeal is from true-believer ideologues who believe that there is no place in commerce for governmental regulation.

The 19th century in the industrial world (like the present in much of the developing world) was full of sweat shops, child labor, no safety standards for laborers in dangerous work (toxic chemicals, unsafe machinery), millions working dawn to dusk 7 days a week in unhealthy (often fatal) conditions, etc.

In the western republics (and some of the autocracies) the national governments, pressured by their populations (and, actually, fearing widespread revolution) instituted reforms in labor law and other aspects of commerce. Since then health indices, longevity, and national wealth have continually increased.

Please remember that the real tragedies of the 20th century were caused not so much by “government interference” in the private sector, but by those who put a blind faith in disembodied and inhumane ideology over common sense and practical moderation.

We, the people, can regulate our own behavior, and for the better of us all.
Please vote against this repeal.



Ulaghchi
Obek of the Dog God
Delegate of the BUDDHIST REGION OF JAMBUDVIPA

:eek:

You scare me.

I thought people who made sense weren't allowed into the UN.

:D

I thought people who made sense weren't allowed into the UN.

:D

"A sensible UN member. We should have him stuffed."

Anyway, it looks like the vote is finally going in the right direction. The PRoGG is looking forward to the final result with confidence and happiness. Of course, in our enlightened state no-one can be contractually obliged to work for more hours than they want anyway, so that people can make time for other activities which have a positive impact on their lives and their production. Rather a happy labourer working hard for 36 hours a week than a depressed, burnt-out labourer stressing through 80 hours a week.

finally the vote has turned to the right direction. As the populace has become more aware of what this repeal is, they have begun to see the light.

thanks,
Owenarcia

I didn't have time to look through the full 20 pages of this debate, but so far as I can see, a person can work for up to 80 hours a week with 40 of them being at time and a half pay. Doesn't that in it's self disprove the reasoning for repealing the amendment?

Thankfully the nations of the Pacifics see the reasoning behind the repeal is flawed.
We congratulate all UN member states on voting to protect worker's rights.

Thankfully the nations of the Pacifics see the reasoning behind the repeal is flawed.
We congratulate all UN member states on voting to protect worker's rights.

The debate on the West Pacific board was quite entertaining :}

This is a good victory. We have overturned a FOR vote that was at one point leading by nearly 2000 votes, and turned it into a just win for workers' rights.

Bravo, N.S.U.N.

Can I just point out that the voting hasn't finished yet? And given the previous history of this resolution, it is not beyond reason that a swing of a very small percent is not impossible in the last few hours?

Also, on a slightly related topic, am I right in thinking that if there is a comma, followed by another comma, that someone has changed their vote?

(eg)

TilEnca, DLE, , Hersfold, GeminiLand

Would that indicate that someone voted one way, then withdrew it to vote another?

Well surely what you must agree is that if we remove this ridicoulous proposal to force a wage rate upon the market at time and a half, this will allow peoples costs to come down and indeed increase employment for the population of our nations as the labour market becomes more flexible and employers can afford to take on more workers.


I would have to disagree.

For example

Mr Smith employs fifty staff for 40 hours a week. He can't make them work any longer, because of the 40 Hour Week resolution.

Suddenly that resolution is repealed. and Mr Smith realises that he can make 25 staff work for eighty hours a week. So he fires the other 25. His costs come down, because not only is he paying half the staff he was, but he does not need to pay them overtime any more. So instead of being able to employ more workers because his costs have come down, he can infact half his employees and still make more money.

How is this a good thing for the workers?


On the issue of consumers, you support workers' rights, and they have plenty of rights already in that they are protected by other legislation (Safety etc). What I support is having the best thing for consumers and that is allowing them to have the cheapest price avalible and that is done through the free market and we in cozzamundeee support giving the consumers more money to spend and helping our industry - it can only be throuhg industry being able to compete on an international level in a globalized world that we can encourage growth of this industry which has knock on benefits for employment, economic growth and living standards.

While I agree it is a good thing for consumers to have cheap prices, I think that it should not be done at the expense of other people. Plus in the example above, the 25 people who are now out of work are probably consumers as well, but they can't afford anything since they are on the dole.

Free and fair trade can be managed without exploiting the people who are producing the goods you know.

Thank you.

It seems that much of the drive for this repeal is from true-believer ideologues who believe that there is no place in commerce for governmental regulation.

The 19th century in the industrial world (like the present in much of the developing world) was full of sweat shops, child labor, no safety standards for laborers in dangerous work (toxic chemicals, unsafe machinery), millions working dawn to dusk 7 days a week in unhealthy (often fatal) conditions, etc.

In the western republics (and some of the autocracies) the national governments, pressured by their populations (and, actually, fearing widespread revolution) instituted reforms in labor law and other aspects of commerce. Since then health indices, longevity, and national wealth have continually increased.

Please remember that the real tragedies of the 20th century were caused not so much by “government interference” in the private sector, but by those who put a blind faith in disembodied and inhumane ideology over common sense and practical moderation.

We, the people, can regulate our own behavior, and for the better of us all.
Please vote against this repeal.



Ulaghchi
Obek of the Dog God
Delegate of the BUDDHIST REGION OF JAMBUDVIPA


(OOC)
http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews3/triangle.htm

The summary of this article is that in New York City, in 1911, 146 women workers died in 15 minutes in a fire in a factory. They died because there was little regard given to their safety. The doors were locked so that the women would not wander away from their sewing machines, and the fire escape at the back was in a state of disrepair (it collapsed during the fire).


The Factory Investigating Commission of 1911 gathered testimony, and later that year the city established the Bureau of Fire Investigation under the direction of Robert F. Wagner (i), which gave the fire department additional powers to improve factory safety. The event crystallized support for efforts to organize workers in the garment district and in particular for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. It remains one of the most vivid symbols for the American labor movement of the need for government to ensure a safe workplace.


I think that the right of the government to ensure the saftey and wellbeing of the workers in it's nation has been shown to be valid.

Hi everyone,
I am ACC leg-ends delegate of the region 'Galts Gulch'

I got this TM from leg-ends yesterday

//The Conservative Republic of Leg-ends
Received: 21 hours ago:
I'm off on holiday from tomorrow for about 2 weeks so I won't be contactable for that period. I was wondering if you could post a message on the UN forum thanking them for support of the UN resolution (regardless of the outcome of the vote)//

And that is what I am here to do. Leg-ends and I support all your support for this resoultion. We also thank all of you, even the dissenters, for the time you guys put in debating this topic.

To all the capitalists out there we have come close on this one and even if we fail on this resolution we know we can come back with the next one and win. I assure you leg-ends will be back with another proposal soon.

The moral of the story: As much as the UN is socialist now, a new player has finally emerged onto the UN stage. The Capitalists are here to stay, and this time we are being organized under an organization called CEO, the Capitalist Economic Organization.

So beware UN.

Sincerely,
ACC on behalf of Leg-ends

We thank all of you for your support!

Well, the workers it has seemed have won this one. Keeping the 40 hour workweek is a very important thing to keep, safeguarding the workers from being overworked and underpaid, as well as their saftey. Companies will ahve to hire more peopel and unemployment will fall.

For those that voted for the workers, thank you.

The Secretary-General rises.

It having attained to the hour of 18:55 Universal Coordinated Time on the final day of consideration, on the question of adoption of the motion to repeal there are 8,641 votes in favor and 10,349 votes in opposition. The motion to repeal is thusly rejected.

The Secretary-General bangs down the gavel and takes his seat as the large board behind him that lists all of the Delegate votes flickers out.

Hi everyone,
I am ACC leg-ends delegate of the region 'Galts Gulch'

I got this TM from leg-ends yesterday

//The Conservative Republic of Leg-ends
Received: 21 hours ago:
I'm off on holiday from tomorrow for about 2 weeks so I won't be contactable for that period. I was wondering if you could post a message on the UN forum thanking them for support of the UN resolution (regardless of the outcome of the vote)//

And that is what I am here to do. Leg-ends and I support all your support for this resoultion. We also thank all of you, even the dissenters, for the time you guys put in debating this topic.

You're welcome. Debate is a sign the resolution or repeal is being taken seriously. Ridicule is a sign it has no chance of ever succeeding.

To all the capitalists out there we have come close on this one and even if we fail on this resolution we know we can come back with the next one and win. I assure you leg-ends will be back with another proposal soon.

You do realize I'm capitalist and I oppose this, right? Capitalism and the military are the standing stones upon which my nation rests. The corporations compete with the military for jobs, and the government finds the people and the country benefit from this. However, repealing this resolution suddenly changes the rules of the game and forces me to rebalance it. The people and my economy will not benefit from this.

The moral of the story: As much as the UN is socialist now, a new player has finally emerged onto the UN stage. The Capitalists are here to stay, and this time we are being organized under an organization called CEO, the Capitalist Economic Organization.

So beware UN.

Beware of what? You're just another group who thinks it has more power and influence than it actually has. Groups threatening to use their influence to override UN decisions are a dime a dozen. We have nothing more to beware of than we did before.

You have to keep in mind the majority of those opposing this are capitalists. They are opposing this because they have the ability to learn from the mistakes of others. In this case, we have an issue where capitalism benefits not from being unregulated, but by being regulated.

The resolution "Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek"" was defeated 10,349 votes to 8,641.


So I think it is safe to say that the UN supports the idea of the limited work week.

Anyways - this was fun. It's been the first debate in a long while that I can remember that hasn't debated in to name calling and so forth.

Cool :}

You have to keep in mind the majority of those opposing this are capitalists. They are opposing this because they have the ability to learn from the mistakes of others. In this case, we have an issue where capitalism benefits not from being unregulated, but by being regulated.

I would certainly consider myself as a capitalist, and like most capitalists (or most sensible ones) I benifit risk against reward. And abusing my workers is not a risk that will lead to any great reward.

So I think it is safe to say that the UN supports the idea of the limited work week.

Anyways - this was fun. It's been the first debate in a long while that I can remember that hasn't debated in to name calling and so forth.

Cool :}

Uh...you're a big meanie poo poo head socialist! ;)

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't allow the thread to totally break the long and respected tradition of name-calling. :D

Uh...you're a big meanie poo poo head socialist! ;)

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't allow the thread to totally break the long and respected tradition of name-calling. :D

(smirk) And I feel the same way about you :}

(smirk) And I feel the same way about you :}

Do you really mean that? :fluffle:

On behalf of the nation of the nation of Free Soviets, and all who fought to oppose this resolution, thank you. You in the UN have chosen to protect the rights of the workers by voting against this repeal, and so thank you.
- DB

Being in a particularly happy mood following this workers' victory, I would like to brighten up the atmosphere with a song:

Debout! les damnés de la terre!
Debout! les forçats de la faim!
La raison tonne en son cratère,
C'est l'éruption de la fin.
Du passé faisons table rase,
Foule esclave, debout! debout!
Le monde va changer de base:
Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout!

C'est la lutte finale:
Groupons-nous, et demain,
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain.

Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes:
Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun,
Producteurs, sauvons-nous nous-mêmes!
Décrétons le salut commun!
Pour que le voleur rende gorge,
Pour tirer l'esprit du cachot,
Soufflons nous-memes notre forge,
Battons le fer quand il est chaud!

C'est la lutte finale:
Groupons-nous, et demain,
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain.

Ouvriers, paysans, nous sommes
Le grand parti des travailleurs;
La terre n'appartient qu'aux hommes,
L'oisif ira loger ailleurs.
Combien de nos chairs se repaissent!
Mais, si les corbeaux, les vautours,
Un de ces matins, disparaissent,
Le soleil brillera toujours!

C'est la lutte finale:
Groupons-nous, et demain,
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v407/EdricO/Red_Flag.jpg

a most excellent victory for the people of this world and a defeat to those who wish to exploit them.

thanks,
Owenarcia

A spectacular victory on behalf of the worker's movement.

http://www.internationalposter.com/pimages/RUL07810.jpg

*notes manditory conscription at 18*
*writes a simple law stating once conscripted, all citizens are thereafter to be considered "military personnel"*

:D

*notes manditory conscription at 18*
*writes a simple law stating once conscripted, all citizens are thereafter to be considered "military personnel"*

:D

conscription, that's great!

I simply declared a national state of emergency (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382019)



(edit: hookt on fonix wurkt fer mi.)

The Secretary-General rises.

It having attained to the hour of 18:55 Universal Coordinated Time on the final day of consideration, on the question of adoption of the motion to repeal there are 8,641 votes in favor and 10,349 votes in opposition. The motion to repeal is thusly rejected.

The Secretary-General bangs down the gavel and takes his seat as the large board behind him that lists all of the Delegate votes flickers out.
Wait a minute, when did we get a Secretary-General? And, who is this mysterious person?

The Secretary-General rises.

It having attained to the hour of 18:55 Universal Coordinated Time on the final day of consideration, on the question of adoption of the motion to repeal there are 8,641 votes in favor and 10,349 votes in opposition. The motion to repeal is thusly rejected.

The Secretary-General bangs down the gavel and takes his seat as the large board behind him that lists all of the Delegate votes flickers out.

Later that night, while sleeping, several soldiers sneak into the room. Wasting no time, they inject the Secretary-General with a sleeping agent and quietly sneak him out into their waiting ship. Ten minutes later, with the ship being in the outermost-part of Earth's atmosphere, the soldiers open the doors and toss the Secretary-General out, having aimed him so he'll fall into atmosphere and whatever remains will land on his car. Then, job done, they head home.

"Secretary-General? No clue what you're talking about," the DLE rep said to the Flibbleites rep.

Also, on a slightly related topic, am I right in thinking that if there is a comma, followed by another comma, that someone has changed their vote?

(eg)

TilEnca, DLE, , Hersfold, GeminiLand

Would that indicate that someone voted one way, then withdrew it to vote another?

Or it could mean that the Delegate lost their status, and that the vote for or against was reduced to just 1 for that nation and transfered to the new Delegate.

That is of course a guess. Not having seen a mod talk about the voting mechanism, I don't know for sure and would love a confirmation of this.