[Draft] Standard Average Working Week

[Jarish Inyo]

[quote="Macwick";p="21523837"]OOC: Jarish Inyo so when I worked a 35 hour week at a higher hourly rate then I had ever had before this is just a figment of my imagination. When my mother worked for years doing a 36 hour week as did all the workers for that manufacturer that is a figment of both her imagination and mine. You may not like the way I present the evidence but I have named examples and periods in history, but what have you come back with – nothing except your own opinion. Is it based on assumptions about the USA that don’t even seem to be true. And certainly are not true for the rest of the world. /quote]

You have presented no evidence at all. You have provided no thing that suipports your belief. While other have pointed out time and time again that the theory doesn't work. People have used your own examples to prove that it doesn't work. Because you have found a job willing to pay you more an hour does not make it the norm. Nor does the manufacturer that your mother works for prove that it is the norm.

Unlike you, I've made no assumptions about the USA. People do work 40 hours. While 30 hours is counted as full time for benefits, none of the average workers can live off a 30 hour a week. Many people work a full time and a part time job or two full time jobs. Many families needs the income from two people working 40 hours to make it. Government employees work 40 hour weeks. If 30 was the perfect amount of hours to work, don't you think the government would cut it's employees to that and save the money? Simple fact is that reality proves you wrong in the real world. You can go out and pick the rare exceptions and ignore the all the evidence that proves you wrong all you like. It doesn't make it true.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I am sorry to have to say that I don’t understand all of what you are saying representative from Sierra Lyricalia. Are you saying that you expect your firefighters to be on-call in the fire station for 30 straight hours or more? I could see that this proposal could cause problems for workers who work shifts and maybe 30 hours is too difficult. However if it we 32 I can’t see there being the same problem. 32 hours would give 4 8 hours shifts and while it doesn’t cover seven days nor does 5 8 hours shifts. I am not sure you would even need to employ more firefighters. If you have three shifts per day then you would need six shifts in total to cover 10 days, now you can have the same six shifts to cover 8 days.

The fault is partly mine; I spoke less than perfectly clearly, though the mistake was small enough that I'd think the point should be plain. While we don't have much of a national policy for emergency workers' specific schedules (as our government has much more pressing issues than nitpicking about non-oppressed workers' particular hours), and syndicates and communities generally set their own policies based on their own needs, it's fairly common to have a one-day-on, two-days-off schedule for firefighters. That works out (with our 24-hour day) to one and one-quarter shifts available before we'd have to forbid workers from being on call again within a single week.

The reasons for this style of scheduling are apparent: forcing emergency workers such as firefighters to work 8-hour night shifts day in and day out wouldn't allow them much family life, and treating the station house like any other workplace would lessen morale and esprit de corps. There's a certain amount of tradition associated with this type of scheduling as well, though that's less an issue than is the fact that this resolution would cause a hell of a lot of upheaval and multiverse-wide re-jiggering for what ultimately amounts to very little (if any!) gain.

[Araraukar]

A social science is not the same as a science.

...do you ever read what you post?

[Defwa]

A social science is not the same as a science.

...do you ever read what you post?

He's trying to say that economics isn't a real science because experiments cant be done in real life getting consistent results from consistent test parameters.

He is of course and as always blindingly wrong.

[Chester Pearson]

A social science is not the same as a science.

...do you ever read what you post?

if the answer to that question is anything but NO, I call bullshit....

...do you ever read what you post?

He's trying to say that economics isn't a real science because experiments cant be done in real life getting consistent results from consistent test parameters.

He is of course and as always blindingly wrong.

By that logic, theoretical science, isn't a science either then....

[Araraukar]

OOC: To make the point clear to the OP:

From Wikipedia, which does have references tagged at the end for those that are interested in fact-checking, says:

Social science is an academic discipline concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It includes anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology. In a wider sense, it may often include some fields in the humanities such as archaeology, history, law, and linguistics.

That's quite a few things that aren't "sciences" according to the OP.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I am sorry to have to say that I don’t understand all of what you are saying representative from Sierra Lyricalia. Are you saying that you expect your firefighters to be on-call in the fire station for 30 straight hours or more? I could see that this proposal could cause problems for workers who work shifts and maybe 30 hours is too difficult. However if it we 32 I can’t see there being the same problem. 32 hours would give 4 8 hours shifts and while it doesn’t cover seven days nor does 5 8 hours shifts. I am not sure you would even need to employ more firefighters. If you have three shifts per day then you would need six shifts in total to cover 10 days, now you can have the same six shifts to cover 8 days.

Here is an example of a real world fire fighting shift schedule. (Humbershide in Northern England)

We operate a 42-hour week four shift system on our wholetime fire stations and in the Control Room. The system operates on a four days on / four days off routine creating an eight day cycle, ensuring that staff progressively work on different days of the week. There are four different ‘coloured’ watches that operate this four shift system: red, white, blue and green. This system ensures fire cover is maintained 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year.

These people seem to use 12 hour shifts.

In LA the shift is 24 hours

Members of the Los Angeles Fire Department working at Neighborhood Fire Stations are assigned to one of three rotating 24-hour long shifts (or "Platoons"). You can identify which Platoon (A, B, or C) is on duty by viewing the color-coded calendar below.

LAFD Firefighters work as a team with members the same Platoon at the same Neighborhood Fire Station for an entire 24-hour period. They are relieved as a group at 6:30 AM each day by the next scheduled Platoon.

That looks like either a 48 hour week or a 72 hour week depending on whether or not your unit gets two or three days out of the week.

Here is an interesting discussion from Canada on the merits of going to a 24 shift from a 10-14 shift.

The 24-hour shift has been the norm in parts of the U.S. for years; indeed, according to a 2006 discussion paper by the Ontario Association of Fire Chief on 24-hour shifts, Minneapolis has used the 24-hour shift for more than 50 years to effectively manage its 56-hour work week operating under a three platoon system.

In Canada, Windsor adopted the 24-hour shift in 1965 as a system for managing its 48-hour work week (rather than the standard 42-hour week) while Woodstock’s suppression division adopted it in 1996 to reduce absenteeism on weekends.

The London Fire Service in Ontario adopted a 24-hour shift in 1997 when the city faced fiscal pressures and would have had to lay off eight firefighters. The London Professional Fire Fighters Association proposed the implementation of a 24-hour shift schedule to avoid layoffs. Since then, Barrie, Kingston, Mississauga, Newmarket, Oakville and Toronto have adopted 24-hour shifts, Kitchener is doing a three-year trial and Peterborough recently adopted the 24-hour rotation to save money on salaries and sick time.

“The problem with the 10-14 hour rotation is that fatigue built up when you were on the night shifts,’ says Steve Jones, president of the Kitchener Professional Fire Fighters Association. “There was no way you could catch up on sleep in the 10-hour periods between shifts. You would be exhausted and your sleep patterns got all mixed up by the time you came in for that last night.”

In contrast, says Wisconsin-based sleep researcher Dr. Linda Glazner, the 24-hour rotation doesn’t fundamentally disrupt human circadian rhythms, the 24-hour biological cycle that governs living things.

Glazner has compared the impact of 10-14 and 24-hour shifts on firefighters in Toronto, California and New Jersey. Her research has convinced many fire departments to move to the 24-hour rotation.

“A healthy person’s circadian rhythms, which can be measured electronically, look like a ‘sine wave’,” says Glazner. “The circadian rhythms of someone who works the 24-hour rotation conforms to this shape. The circadian rhythms of a 10-14 hour worker do not.”

Glazner agrees that 24-hour workers have to sleep heavily the day after a shift to catch up on rest. But she says the scientific evidence is clear: “Twenty-four hour workers do not suffer the sleep disruptions – and potentially the health problems associated with them – that 10-14 hour workers do.”

Some chiefs in departments that have implemented the 24-hour shift say firefighters seem to like the new shift better than the old 10-14.

“I find that when I ask our employees, they feel better and have improved morale,” says Chief Harold Tulk of the Kingston Fire Department. “On balance, I’d say that 80 to 85 per cent are happy with the change.”

[Hakio]

"Wait..." Sia says after smoking on a rather large doobie. "Even if the resolution's usage of words like hours and week are accurately proportioned by the gnomes, that still doesn't account for if the certain species of sentient beings are unable by their biology to perform tasks for that amount of hours. If you can't set a standard that actually works without thousands of hours of gnome calculation then what's the point of their being a standard at all?"



"Sure this illustration of the gnomes makes them seem very athletic but think of how much work will go into reevaluation of work limits for hundreds of millions of sentient species all with billions of their population and different races?!"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Here's an idea: why don't you address the proposal based on the merits of its mandates, and not ridiculous species-wank?

[Araraukar]

Here's an idea: why don't you address the proposal based on the merits of its mandates, and not ridiculous species-wank?

Especially as it seems to be specieswanking just for the purpose of $wanking. At least several ambassadors around here actually come from nations for whom it's relevant.

[Hakio]

Here's an idea: why don't you address the proposal based on the merits of its mandates, and not ridiculous species-wank?

Especially as it seems to be specieswanking just for the purpose of $wanking. At least several ambassadors around here actually come from nations for whom it's relevant.

"I'm not species wanking, I'm not even species lusting. I'm simply concerned about the amount of work we're putting on the backs of the gnomes as I find the multitude of species involved in this task to somehow create a 'standard' is ridiculous." Sia states while pouring whiskey into her coffee. "I mean, there must be a better way of going about protecting persons from overworking than to this arbitrary hour-week interpretations. Perhaps this could be tackled not from a time perspective but from a biological one."

[Araraukar]

I mean, there must be a better way of going about protecting persons from overworking than to this arbitrary hour-week interpretations.

There is. The other proposal's up out there.

[Hakio]

I mean, there must be a better way of going about protecting persons from overworking than to this arbitrary hour-week interpretations.

There is. The other proposal's up out there.

"As a matter of principle I will not be supporting Gruenburg's proposal due to it being a blocker," Sia sips her coffee. "If I have to choose between Gruen's and yours I would choose yours, I'm just worried about the spirit breaking labour we're putting on those poor gnomes."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

There are countless multitudes of gnomes, more than enough to sort a little mathematics. Don't worry about them. Worry about the proposal. The Reasonable Nation Gods have everything well at hand, I assure you, without you needlessly dithering over things you have no control over.

[Araraukar]

There is. The other proposal's up out there.

"As a matter of principle I will not be supporting Gruenburg's proposal due to it being a blocker," Sia sips her coffee. "If I have to choose between Gruen's and yours I would choose yours, I'm just worried about the spirit breaking labour we're putting on those poor gnomes."

I meant the other other proposal.

[Macwick]

We have decided to make some concessions and increase the average standard working week to 32 hours and increase overtime to 16 hours a week, because we recognise that some employers may still wish to use the old fashion 8 hour shift pattern rather than change to 6 hour ones. We have reduced the yearly average of overtime to 8 hours a week to ensure than no one in paid employment will work more than 40 hours per week when averaged over the whole year.

We have drafted a fourth draft and posted it. This fourth draft includes some further changes and while we would like to think this is the final draft we think there might be a need for a fifth draft to reduce the wording.

We have added:

Recognises that this proposal does not set a maximum for the number of hours worked in any one day or one week. This proposal allows anyone to work 168 hours in a week, so long as their contract doesn’t say they have to work more than 416 hours in 13 weeks and they don’t work more than 624 hours in those 13 weeks.

And so wonder if “Recognises that nothing in this proposal stops anyone from working as many hours as they wish in one day or in one week” can be deleted?

We have added:

Recognises that productivity gains are made when business best practice is followed by reducing the average working week.

To make it clear than progressive and forward thinking businesses are already reducing the weekly working time for their employees to get the productivity gains for the business.

We have added “international” and “as some nations refuse to do this” in

Recognises the international need to improve working conditions to protect workers’ health and safety as some nations refuse to do this

“Overtime be restricted to an average of 15 hours a week averaged over a three month period.
The average working week should be calculated over a period of 3 months for those working flexible hours”

has been deleted as we feel it is not really needed as it is covered elsewhere.

We have changed “expected” to “required” in “Believes that no person should be required to work more than 30 hours (in all their paid employment) in any one week counting paid holiday as time worked.”

We have changed the wording to use “the Standard Average Working Week” and inserted “average” in:

"Ensure that all forms of paid employment are included when calculating both the Standard Average Working Week and average overtime per week."

We have added:

Ensure that all new terms of employment (written or verbal) are set at the new Standard Average Working Week that apply for that year during implement and at 32 hours a week once fully implemented.

To make it clear that existing longer hours of work can continue to be used for people already in those roles until the 32 hour Standard Average Working Week comes into force. This increases the flexibility for business to innovate and adapt to the new arrangements.

We have changed “3 month” to “13 week” in:

Restrict the amount of overtime a person can work over a 3 month period to an average of 16 hours a week;

to be consistent.

Some representatives including the one from Sierra Lyricalia have talked about the shift patterns that their workers are now doing. We have recognised this could be a problem which is difficult to solve with a 30 hour working week and so I increased it to 32. A number that can be divided by 8.

If I have understood a firefighter would work 24 hours and then have 48 off. I don’t think I have an answer to that shift pattern – 48 hours in six days. It would need to be reduced to 24 hours in 144 hours, which is 364 hours in 13 weeks rather than the 416 allowed in the proposal. In the alternative universe Canada uses a system of working one 24 period and then having 3 days off. But even here this doesn’t comply with this proposal. However working 364 hours would allow 52 hours in those 13 weeks for training, which is a problem with the Canadian system. They would only be working just less than 16 days in 13 weeks which might reduce the fatigue caused by your original working pattern.


OOC: Jarish Inyo What people have said is that in theory this should not work. Not once has anyone said look this country reduced its working hours and within 5 years their economy had crashed to bottom of the league tables of economies. I on the other hand have said - I accept that this should not work, however it does, I don’t really understand all the necessary individual decisions that are taken to make this happen, but history EVERYTIME and EVERYWHERE says it happens. Economist looking as this haven’t come up with a mathematically based theory as to why it happens they just say, “look this is what happens” and we think these are among the reasons why.

With regard to the USA I think you have made an assumption and it is that the way the USA does it, is the best. If my understanding is correct the minimum wage in the USA has been set at a very low level and doesn’t keep up with inflation. While recently in the UK the minimum wage has only kept up with inflation there is political pressure to increase it higher than this so that it keeps up with the rise in incomes. Just because the USA civil servants work 40 hours a week this doesn’t mean UK ones do. If they haven’t reduced them since I last looked they are 37. Again you assume that employers should cut wages and I have said time and time again they should not. The amount of take home pay should stay the same. This is what has happened in the past. This is what happened when the USA reduced working hours from about 80 per week to 40 over time. So you should be clear there are no exceptions. When working hours are reduced productivity increases, as does business innovation and investment and so bad ineffective business are put out of business just as the market economy is meant to work.

...do you ever read what you post?

He's trying to say that economics isn't a real science because experiments cant be done in real life getting consistent results from consistent test parameters.

He is of course and as always blindingly wrong.

Does macro theory have a better record of this than micro theory?

OOC: To make the point clear to the OP:

From Wikipedia, which does have references tagged at the end for those that are interested in fact-checking, says:

Social science is an academic discipline concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It includes anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology. In a wider sense, it may often include some fields in the humanities such as archaeology, history, law, and linguistics.

That's quite a few things that aren't "sciences" according to the OP.

I have no issue with defining a social science as one that studies societies. I think I have been saying again and again and again, look at what happens in society and do not talk about what you would expect to happen.

The Canadian article was interesting. Thank you Frustrated Franciscans.

Thank you Omigodtheykilledkenny for your supportive comments.


Legality Check

As no-one has responded hopefully this is the correct place to post to get one and hopefully I have done it in the correct manner.

I think there might be four issues with this proposal

1 Strength
I have changed it to Mild and would be happy with the original Significant.
There are health benefits to workers from reducing working hours and specified in the proposal. There might be increased costs for health providers. There will be affects to the economy and all businesses will need to adapt.

2 GAR 68

DEFINES "commerce" to include the sale, production, and consumption of a product or service
...

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

I believe that the way to define Commerce is set out in GAR 68 and this definition does not include labour it is a narrower definition that includes production and service but not labour.
Regulating working hours is not the same as regulating the amount that can be produced.
I believe that production can be defined as “the making or manufacturing from components or raw materials” and this does not include the labour. When someone talks of a company moving their production to another country they do not mean that the company moves its labour force as well.

…
Production is not being regulated; the people doing the production is being regulated. The actual production is the same, merely performed by more people working fewer hours.

It is questionable whether “service” is included in the definition or if only “consumption of a service” is included. If it is a “consumption of a service” it would be difficult to see how labour is consumed by the purchaser. A service could be defined as a “benefit” such as banking or insurance. Again it is not the service that is restricted it is the people who create the service.
For both production and service I believe there are no restrictions in this proposal, it is entirely up to the producers and service providers how they respond to this measure.

Also I have seen this and wonder if it applies here.

Re the legality challenges based on National Economic Freedoms: …

Worth considering is the fact that the Environmental category itself is described as "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry". We're not likely to read "restricting commerce" as so broad that it wipes out an entire category that causes costs to industry.

I therefore believe that this proposal does not restrict commerce as defined in GAR 68.

3 Time to fully implement

Hereby requires every WA Nation to:
Begin at once to reduce their Standard Average Working Week to 32 hours a week, if not already at this level, by reducing it by at least 5% (if required) in the first year and to have reduced it completely within seven years of this resolution being passed to 32 hours a week;
Ensure that all new terms of employment (written or verbal) are set at the new Standard Average Working Week that apply for that year during implement and at 32 hours a week once fully implemented.
Declare void all contracts specifying a greater Standard Average Working Week than 32 hours once that nation has implemented the Standard Average Working Week of 32 working hours a week and that the parties shall agree a new contract that has a Standard Average Working Week of 32 hours at that time.

I believe there is precedent for phased implementation.

4 Length
Is it possible to submit a proposal that is too long? If so please can you say how many characters I need to remove?

Thank you.

[Jarish Inyo]

OOC: Jarish Inyo What people have said is that in theory this should not work. Not once has anyone said look this country reduced its working hours and within 5 years their economy had crashed to bottom of the league tables of economies. I on the other hand have said - I accept that this should not work, however it does, I don’t really understand all the necessary individual decisions that are taken to make this happen, but history EVERYTIME and EVERYWHERE says it happens. Economist looking as this haven’t come up with a mathematically based theory as to why it happens they just say, “look this is what happens” and we think these are among the reasons why.

With regard to the USA I think you have made an assumption and it is that the way the USA does it, is the best. If my understanding is correct the minimum wage in the USA has been set at a very low level and doesn’t keep up with inflation. While recently in the UK the minimum wage has only kept up with inflation there is political pressure to increase it higher than this so that it keeps up with the rise in incomes. Just because the USA civil servants work 40 hours a week this doesn’t mean UK ones do. If they haven’t reduced them since I last looked they are 37. Again you assume that employers should cut wages and I have said time and time again they should not. The amount of take home pay should stay the same. This is what has happened in the past. This is what happened when the USA reduced working hours from about 80 per week to 40 over time. So you should be clear there are no exceptions. When working hours are reduced productivity increases, as does business innovation and investment and so bad ineffective business are put out of business just as the market economy is meant to work.?

And you are still incorrect. History does not EVERYTIME and EVERYWHERE says it happens.You have not proven historically that it has worked at all. You chose one example but could not provide any other. In most cases, the industry either dies or moves to more automotive production processes. Leading to more people unemployed. You've ignored every bit of common sense and evidence that this 30 hour thoery doesn't work.

Again, you assume that I assume that employers should cut wages. I have never stated they would do such a thing. In fact, I've stated that employers would pay the same hourly wage. What you have not gotten through you head that employees would lose 25% of what they would normally have because they would be working 25% less hours. You seem to ignore the stress that this would put on people. Someone being paid hourly can not take home the same amount weekly, like you believe, if they are working less. But you can not accept this simple fact. There are exceptions. Always is. Production falls when you cut hours. It really is that simple. What you can not understand is that many industries do not work 8 hour days.

Again, you are wrong. First, the average worker in the UK works 39.1 hours a week full time and 18.1 for part time. Which is nearly on par with the US and other nations. Something you ave decided to ignore. You assume that inflation will drive up wages and make up the difference. This is not true. If the currency's purchasing power has not changed, then the wages will remain the same.

It is you that has made assumptions of the USA. It is the more common among nations outside of the EU. I do not believe that the US system of minimum wage is the best. I do not believe you any understanding of economics.

Labor is part of production. By not counting labor as a product and regulating the hours does, you do restrict production. Especially in construction, service industries, science, farming, fishing, and first responders.

[Araraukar]

I do not believe you any understanding of economics.

OOC: Considering he doesn't seem to have any understanding of mathematics either, or that he doesn't think archaeology is a science, I've pretty much given up trying to get through to him. It's a fucked-up proposal that's only edited at all, because him pushing this is making everyone but Hakio favour Gruen's blocker proposal. Which is starting to look like it'll be a throw-through case right now...

[Frustrated Franciscans]

We have decided to make some concessions and increase the average standard working week to 32 hours and increase overtime to 16 hours a week, because we recognise that some employers may still wish to use the old fashion 8 hour shift pattern rather than change to 6 hour ones. We have reduced the yearly average of overtime to 8 hours a week to ensure than no one in paid employment will work more than 40 hours per week when averaged over the whole year.

My how ... er ... generous of you.

We have added:

Recognises that this proposal does not set a maximum for the number of hours worked in any one day or one week. This proposal allows anyone to work 168 hours in a week, so long as their contract doesn’t say they have to work more than 416 hours in 13 weeks and they don’t work more than 624 hours in those 13 weeks.

Do you realize that tl;dr is a major reason why many resolutions fail?

With regard to the USA I think you have made an assumption and it is that the way the USA does it, is the best. If my understanding is correct the minimum wage in the USA has been set at a very low level and doesn’t keep up with inflation. While recently in the UK the minimum wage has only kept up with inflation there is political pressure to increase it higher than this so that it keeps up with the rise in incomes.

I don't think you want to go there in a resolution that is about working hours. Traditionally, everyone does it in a generally unscientific way. If you want to get to the United States, the history of the minimum wage is filled with vile bigotry of the kind that deserves nothing but scorn. Basically minority workers were migrating to areas where there was a labor need and were undercutting the majority union workers for jobs in various markets. People would be willing to hire a minority (in spite of general prejudice) because the minority was willing to accept less money in order to overcome the reluctance to hire. So they established a "minimum" which then allowed the normal prejudice to hire the majority over the minority keeping the labor force relatively in place and preserving current economic situation, much to the determent of the future economic situation.

Scientifically it can be argued that when a minimum wage is a certain percentage of a particular demographic's average wage, unemployment increases. The use of multiple levels of minimum wages as occurs in some parts of Europe offsets this, but the flat wage of the US often causes exceptionally high unemployment in certain demographics (young minorities being one of them).

Just because the USA civil servants work 40 hours a week this doesn’t mean UK ones do. If they haven’t reduced them since I last looked they are 37. Again you assume that employers should cut wages and I have said time and time again they should not. The amount of take home pay should stay the same. This is what has happened in the past. This is what happened when the USA reduced working hours from about 80 per week to 40 over time. So you should be clear there are no exceptions. When working hours are reduced productivity increases, as does business innovation and investment and so bad ineffective business are put out of business just as the market economy is meant to work.

You realize that any proper calculation needs to consider holiday time as well. There is a vast different between US and European Holiday allocations, and even among the nations of Europe themselves. However, the idea to magically wave the legal wand and reduce hours while retaining the same wage is economic nonsense. The amount of effort to produce a good is still the same so now you have increased the cost of the good. This results in inflation and inflation effectively means that the actual wage has decreased, even though the "number" remained the same. I suspect that if you go through history you will see that it was a combination of inflation and productivity gains (reducing the "cost" of producing the good in terms of labor) that resulted in the numerical income remaining the same.

[The Pacifican Islands]

Meh. I'll keep my 35.6 hour workweek. It's better for my nation. Opposed.

[Separatist Peoples]

Meh. I'll keep my 35.6 hour workweek. It's better for my nation. Opposed.

"And this is exactly the kind of response voters will have to this should it make it to vote. Thank you, ambassador. I only wish the Mackwickian ambassador would realize this. At any rate, we will be supporting the Gruenberger version with all the political capital we can manage."

[Mateara]

Saludos,

Latinoamerica supports this. The exploitation of workers in some nations are simply shocking.

I must say though, the proposal isn't very reader friendly. I suppose there isn't much one can do about that but I did find it strenuous to read.

[Macwick]

To the representative from Separatist Peoples I would like to ask – would you ever support a proposal that reduced the working week and overtime to a level lower than your existing ones?

Thank you, Christian Fensham for your support. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it more reader friendly?


OOC
Jarish Inyo: I quoted research that stated: “Every reduction of the length of the workweek has been accompanied by an increase in real per-capita income.” (Gapminder Foundation [whose purpose is to provide the facts and it seems to me this is an area where the facts need to be published a lot more to dispel the misconceptions there are regarding the effects of reducing working hours]). As you disagree with this research please provide a study that states that the Gapminder Foundation facts are wrong. I have stated there are no examples in history that prove the Gapminder Foundation wrong. If you believe they are wrong provide an historical example. I have stated that for over a hundred years in European and American economics the average working week was reduced and living conditions improved because of business innovation, happy workers and increases in production. I am still interested to know where there has been an increase in unemployment. Some people have said that reducing working hours will mean there will be a need to employ more people. What I and economists say is that the overall unemployment level does not change significantly because of adjustments in the whole economy. I don’t understand why you wish to protect inefficient businesses and are not willing to let the market sort it out as it did in the nineteenth century?

I have come across this surprising piece of data – “According to the Bureau of Labor statistics the average non-farm private sector employee worked 34.5 hours per week as of June 2012”.

In the USA by 1920 the average working week had been reduced to 49 hours from 60 hours in the late nineteenth century. I have not seen any studies that show this caused economic hardship.

What I am saying is that all evidence is on my side and it is only by looking at it in a theoretical way that anyone would expect different results than those produced in the past.

You have said that employers would pay the same hourly rate when hours are reduced and so real incomes will be cut and I have said that most employers will not, they will increase the hourly rate so that employees takes home the same amount of money. Some employers may cut take home pay and others may increase it. Not all employers do the same thing. However market forces will act in such a way that there will not be a general cut in wages. I have seen no study that shows when working hours were reduced that take home pay was reduced.

Again production does not fall when you reduce working hours. Even you must understand that the amount a person produces at the start of an 8 hour shift is going to be higher than at the end. Again you reject studies that show that productivity falls the more hours you work and so if you reduce the working hours from 80 to 40 the worker produces the same amount of product in half the time.

I would hope that inflation would not drive up wages but I do recognise the inflationary pressure on wages. It is the increased productivity and innovation that results that means wages do not fall.

I do not believe you understand economic either. As I have said economics is about studying what happens in the real world not what you think should happen. I expect there were lots of people who said the same things as you in the nineteenth and early twentieth century when working hours were being reduced, but they were proven wrong.

OOC: Considering he doesn't seem to have any understanding of mathematics either, or that he doesn't think archaeology is a science, I've pretty much given up trying to get through to him.

My understanding of mathematics is above average but I don’t confuse economic theory with what happens in real economies.
You are right I do not consider archaeology a science. I recognise three or maybe four sciences – chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics. I see history as an arts subject. Then there are subjects that wish they were sciences and we call them social sciences – sociology and economics. I would also accept the view that science is often used in the field of history and archaeology but still agree with Wikipedia that they are not sciences. I have a narrow view of what makes a science – a pure science, but this does not mean that I don’t recognise that the word science can be defined to include other subjects.
The Wikipedia article on social science also recognises that some organisations do not accept the same classifications of subjects as others.

We have added:

Recognises that this proposal does not set a maximum for the number of hours worked in any one day or one week. This proposal allows anyone to work 168 hours in a week, so long as their contract doesn’t say they have to work more than 416 hours in 13 weeks and they don’t work more than 624 hours in those 13 weeks.

Do you realize that tl;dr is a major reason why many resolutions fail?

No I didn’t. If you are saying that a three line section is too long then I think there is no hope. If you are saying that resolutions that are close to the limit fail. I would say I think the last one passed was close to the limit.

The minimum wage is an interesting issue. I recall the discussion in the UK before it was introduced with business people and even some economists saying it would create mass unemployment if introduced. It didn’t. The Conservative party opposed it, it doesn’t now. It is even calling for it to be increased by more than the rate of inflation to restore its relative value to average earnings. This again seems to be a case where the theory says one thing but in the real world it doesn’t happen. I agree with you that minimum wages should be set at regional and not national levels. I recently read that it might be possible to have different rates for different industries because some industries could easily afford to pay more than the current minimum. In the UK there are three rates regarding ages and an even lower one for apprentices.

I think the problem with your theory is that you believe productivity is a constant and it isn’t. Not only over the long term (innovation and investment) but even over the short term reducing working hour can increase productivity. Therefore the amount of labour to produce the item will fall even if the cost of that labour is constant. Therefore there is no need to increase prices. I have not seen any studies that talk about the inflation affects aiding in the increased living standards as working hours are reduced. If there were large inflationary effects how can this be true - “Every reduction of the length of the workweek has been accompanied by an increase in real per-capita income” (Gapminder Foundation)? For it to be true there can’t be any large inflationary effects can there?

[Separatist Peoples]

To the representative from Separatist Peoples I would like to ask – would you ever support a proposal that reduced the working week and overtime to a level lower than your existing ones?

"Do you honestly give a damn about what I would support, then? The C.D.S.P. government would oppose anything that alters what is, most commonly, a 40 hour workweek, as it is cheaper to not change all our labor laws. However, of you altered this bill to match the C.D.S.P. system, I would still vote against it. The only reason I'd vote for the Gruenburger version is that it is utterly harmless, and serves to block other ill-conceived attempts such as this. As ambassador, with a powerful voice in determining our vote, I can comfortably say I will vote against any bill that attempts to standardize the workweek. It is not an issue member states are incapable of handling domestically, and, therefore, deserves no such attention from the World Assembly."

[Jarish Inyo]

Quoting one source is not providing evidence. Checking Gapminder Foundation website, I do not find anything that agrees with any of your statements. I've looked for In fact, I found nothing about reducing working hours on their site. Gapminder Foundation doesn't do any of the studies themselves. But since you like to keep quoting them, please provide a link to their "research". As to what I use against your argument is the International Labour Origination. They state that 40 is what is best for business.

As to a historical example, lets look at the automotive industry. With the industry moving to more automated factories, it caused large unemployment. Lets look at the 1920's and 30's when unemployment was everywhere for historical example.

You will want to recheck your facts. In fact many industries have more then 34.4 hours. And that 34.5 hours is the average of all industries, full and part time, before overtime. Including part time into that average brings the average down. So, please do try . Many sources that only show full time employment show that full time employment is 40 hours. Even looking at Europe, other studies show that full time employees still work 40 hours a week.

There is no evidence anywhere that supports your claims. Employers will not raise their rate of pay so employees will take home the same amount of pay. There is no evidence anywhere that shows that they have ever done so. This is a figment of your imagination. Evidence shows that they will not do so.

Production will fall if you cut hours. Without labor, you can not produce as much. Not every industry can go to automated processes. What you do not gasped is that some industries have remain the same for atleast the last hundred years. But to put it simply, one can not build a building at the same rate if the labors hours are cut. Police detectives can not investigate their cases if they have less hours to work. Simple fact is that production falls when you do not have the labor force to keep up or increase production.

As I said, the real world proves you wrong. You are not looking at the real world evidence. You look for what supports your belief and ignore everything else. People are working more then 40 hours a week. Even in nations that you have been holding up as examples. People are still working nearly the same hours as they were in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Some industries require it. We have some industries that can automate and some industries that we didn't have in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Simple fact is that they were not proven wrong. Mining, the lumber industries, construction, and transportation (to name a few) have not changed much in the last hundred years. That includes the working hours.