[Draft] Standard Average Working Week

[Defwa]

With reference to France as raised by the honourable representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny – this goes further than France and their 35 hour working week. However staying with France let us turn to the representative from Jarish Inyo. When France introduced the 35 hour working week in 2000 it did not result in businesses hiring more workers, it result in increased productivity. Let me repeat that – increased productivity. This is not about forcing employers to do anything accept not force their employees to work more than 30 hours a week, because this proposal allows people to work 40 hours a week but only if they agree to work the overtime.

Perhaps I should add another clause for clarification.

Recognises that this proposal establishes a 30 hour working week norm, and allows 40 hours a week to be worked for the course of the whole year with the agreement of the employee.

I think the representative from Jarish Inyo will discover that business owners often work more hours than anyone else and don’t receive any extra pay for doing so, and that these extra hours are already voluntary.

In answer to the representatives from Jarish Inyo and Normlpeople, I am sure they have the same objections to all proposals that increase Social Justice and increase regulations on employers.

I wonder if some representatives have given this proposal the detailed scrutiny that the dru .., ambassador from Lexitor has. To the representative from Separatist Peoples if your workers wish to work 40 hours a week this proposal allows it. And again I point out if someone works less hours their productivity increases. I know that is hard to believe, but true none the less. Therefore those 4 workers will be producing more than the 3 workers, but the utility costs will have not increased.


OCC I don’t see this as any stronger than the Living Wage resolution that set a minimum income. This is only setting a maximum working week.

This resolution doesn’t need GAR 23 in any way and is not affect if that resolution was repealed. Noting that it just uses the same 30 hour working week to define full time employment would still be true even if it is repealed. If my understanding of House of Cards rule is wrong please can someone point out how this is so?

I have already stated out that Social Justice is the opposite of Free Trade and the Free Trade category is defined to include the removal of regulations on business/industry and this imposes regulations. The regulation of working hours is not a socialist policy and has been done by liberal governments. I couldn’t see a category called “National Economic Freedoms” in the General Assembly Proposal Categories posted by Kryozerkia. I could only see economic freedoms referred to under Free Trade / Social Justice.

Let's all work 1 hour a week and productivity should soar!
Defwa supports a sub 40 hour work week in our borders but we don't force it. It isn't some panacea for all workplace problems. We actually find mandated vacation time to be a superior contributor to work place health and productivity.
OOC: perhaps if you could supply some RL studies that show returns continue to increase as the work week shrinks and to what extent, your claims will get taken more seriously

[Christian Democrats]

I recommend the abandonment of this proposal.

In 2011, 69 percent of this Assembly rejected a 50-hour workweek, so I'm almost certain this would go down in flames.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=145409

[Bears Armed]

Completely OOC as I don't think my Franciscans have that much capitalistic bones in their bodies. Let's assume that we have a 40 hour work week. Now let us assume an employer who has a budget to pay people for 120 hours a week. He hires 3 employees at the current wage.

Now let's assume that he has to give no more than 30 hours to each employee. He now has the budget to pay for 4 employees but each employee only gets 3/4 the amount of money that they would have gotten had they worked the 40 hours.

Where was that one person when everyone was working the 40 hour work week? Well unemployed, of course.

So let's recap.

Before, you had 3 people at a 100% weekly income, and one person at a 0% weekly income.

After you have 4 people at a 75% weekly income.

Unless the weekly income formerly being paid was less than 4/3 of the minimum allowed by GAR#21, in which case ths wages bill does still have to rise with the increased number of employees.

Turning to the point made by the esteemed representative from Bears Armed and supported by a couple of other representatives. I think on closer inspection you will find you are mistaken. I of course refer you to one of the exclusion clauses, so liked and praised by the representative from Lexicor – “Exempts from this requirement: Members of the armed forces and emergency services when their nation is engaged in war or armed conflict.” There will be no need for any extra personnel in the armed forces because there is no limit to the number of hours they can work during a war or armed conflict.

Conceded on that precise detail... although I think that having enough personnel on standby in case of sudden need would still be impacted adversely by this proposal.

Other problems_
1) This presumes that there would be enough unemployed people (@ c.25% of the potential workforce) to fill all of the newly-created vacncies. However some of our nations' economies are strong enough for us to have unemployment rates significantly below those levels... and "No", before you make the suggestion, we wouldn't necessarily be willing to allow the immigration of large numbers of foreigners to fill the vacancies instead: Crowding, strain on the social infrastrcture, cultural differences, etc....
2) This proposal ignores the fact that some jobs predictably involve specific periods of time during which MORE work than normal is needed but bringing in outside help might not be practical: Little things like geting the harvest gathered in by farm-workers, for example...

As to the strength, mild SJ proposals don't have the same healthcare requirement that stronger ones do, so if you're going with Significant you'll have to write in a healthcare component.

OOC; So this still applies even though there's now a separate 'Healthcare' category?

[Ardchoille]

As to the strength, mild SJ proposals don't have the same healthcare requirement that stronger ones do, so if you're going with Significant you'll have to write in a healthcare component.

OOC; So this still applies even though there's now a separate 'Healthcare' category?

Things haven't changed since

On the recurrent query about what happens to the health component of Social Justice proposals, I think that's one of those questions that will answer itself by usage. We won't be removing that component (it's coded, OK?), but perhaps there will be fewer arguments as people direct actual health proposals to their own sub-categories. Social Justice is essentially to do with economic freedoms.

If anyone wants to discuss stats further, please take it to that thread so we don't muscle in on this one.

[Separatist Peoples]

"You claim productivity increases, but I see no evidence but the anecdotes you pedal. I hardly imagine, however, that the productivity is enough to account for no less then 25% costs across ye board in benefits, not counting increases in overhead when you factor in equipment, reimbursed expenses, additional utilities, so on. Sure, allowing employees to take ten hours overtime would preserve our 40 hour workweek...but cost businesses and governments extra, as we pay an additional overtime rate. A 40 hour workweek is perfectly acceptable a requirement in employment. Why the hell can't you leave well enough alone?

"The argument that it will somehow save money is a poor one, as you clearly haven't taken into account to additional costs of more bodies in a building, nor have you considered the natural conclusion businesses will have if you cost them money: they won't just eat the costs and move on, they will cut money somewhere to maintain status-quo. Likely where it hurts the workers.

"So, we have a Social Justice resolution that violates previous law, isn't an international issue, and will actually increase income inequality in many nations. Brilliant. Plenty of amml for a counter campaign, should somebody be so inclined."

[Hirota]

GAR 21 bases the living wage on a 30 hours working week;

No, it doesn't. 30 hours is the minimum working hours for a full time role under #21. Your reliance on #21 as a metric is flimsy at best, and you've made no rational justifcation why member states should be compelled to move to that minimum. I'm not sure you have a particularly coherent reason for 30 hours other than you saw it mentioned in another resolution and thought that was a decent starting point.

You'd get more support if you were to increase this 30 hour margin to a much higher value - say, 50 hours. This would reduce the number of member states affected, reduce the corresponding outcry and opposition, and more likely to gain some traction in terms of support.

In terms of legislating to address the healthcare requirements of a "significant" proposal, you could perhaps make the argument that reduced working hours has been shown to reduce the occurance of stress-related illness, and is linked to less accidents in the workspace.

[Wrapper]

The issue of being adequately compensated has been addressed by the WA Resolution 21 that applies even in Wrapper. Employees in his country get paid 25% above the basic poverty line and if they have a dependent 25% above the dependent poverty line. If we assume a 40 hour week then and please excuse me if I get this wrong a single person receives 58% above the basic poverty line and someone with a dependent 58% above the dependent poverty line.

No, actually, our citizens are actually extremely well paid, thank you, far, far above the poverty line. They have to be well-paid to overcome our 79% tax rate (OOC: Yeah, thanks, issues editors, for such an unrealistic statistic.) The point is, you are doing irreparable harm on our businesses. You cannot limit the pillars of our society -- doctors, teachers, politicians, ambassadors...

Ahume clears his throat. Ari glances sideways at him.

...assistant ambassadors and other lackeys -- to only 30 hours a week and 15 hours overtime. With our unemployment rate so low and our taxes so high, everybody loses. The workers get paid less, our private sector will net losses, our consumers will pay more for goods, and our government will collect less taxes. Of course, more automation could be the answer, but that will just put more people out of work. Why can't you see that such a horrible idea won't work in every nation, including nations like ours?

We find that your resolution would unnecessarily restrict commerce in our nation, ambassador, by increasing the cost of goods while also reducing productivity. Now tell me, as required under GAR #68, what "extreme hazard to national populations" does your proposal abate?

[Louisistan]

Now tell me, as required under GAR #68, what "extreme hazard to national populations" does your proposal abate?

Deputy Ambassador Schulz is now wearing a wide grin on his face.

[Wrapper]

OOC: As much as I abhor this as an international resolution (it will never pass), it is fairly well-composed, and I can see it working for some on a national level. Perhaps you should give some thought to repurposing this and rewriting it as a proposed gameside issue. I don't believe there is one that addresses the work week.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Much as I've come to be wary of blockers, this is one area where I'd consider reviving my old one if needed.

[Louisistan]

Ah, poor Inky would have an aneurism out of frustration if he heard that NEF was being noticed by the powers-that-be again..."

"Yeah... somebody should really send a few paramedics over to the burger joint where he works. Just to make sure..."

[Wrapper]

Ah, poor Inky would have an aneurism out of frustration if he heard that NEF was being noticed by the powers-that-be again..."

"Yeah... somebody should really send a few paramedics over to the burger joint where he works. Just to make sure..."

Ummm... he's... deceased.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Yeah... somebody should really send a few paramedics over to the burger joint where he works. Just to make sure..."

Ummm... he's... deceased.

"Exactly. That's what makes his aneurism so impressive."

[Vazdania]

1st Draft

30 Hour Working Week

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

Description: World Assembly

Noting that:
GAR 21 bases the living wage on a 30 hours working week;
Most WA Nations have laws restricting the working hours of at least some members of their population;
Having the same normal working week in all nations provides a level playing field.

Considers:
It time that the average working week was limited to 30 hours;
That free and fair trade are enhanced when the same employment rights exist in competing economies.

Recognising that:
There are economic costs to reducing the average working week;
Some people have more than one employment.

Suggests that:
Working more than 30 hours in any one week should not be required as a condition of employment (either formally or informally);
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.

Requires that:
Working more than 30 hours in any one week should not be required as a condition of employment (either formally or informally);
Overtime be restricted to an average of 15 hours a week averaged over a three month period.

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

Hereby requires every WA Nation to:

Restrict the amount of overtime a person can work over a 3 month period to an average of 15 hours a week;

Restrict the total amount of overtime a person can work in a year to an average of 10 hours a week;

Begin at once to reduce their average working week to 30 hours a week by reducing it by at least one quarter of the difference between their current average working week and 30 hours and to have reduced it completely within four years of this resolution being passed to 30 hours a week;

Ensure that all forms of paid employment are included when calculating both working hours per week and overtime per week.

Declare void all contracts specifying a greater working week than 30 hours once that nation has reached an average of 30 working hours a week and that the parties shall agree a new contract that has a standard 30 hour working week at that time.

Exempts from this requirement:
Workers in the voluntary sector, who donate their time as they choose;
Members of the armed forces and emergency services when their nation is engaged in war or armed conflict.

I would like to propose this, but I haven’t proposed anything before and so would appreciate all assistance people wish to give.

I'll surely be voting against this. It is no right of the World Assembly or any government of that matter to come in between a worker, his/her Union, and a Company's negotiations.

If the author and those in support of this bill are concerned about workers rights, they should not support this, but instead support legislation that increases the strength of unions and the ability for unions and workers to negotiate with companies,

[Wrapper]

If the author and those in support of this bill are concerned about workers rights, they should not support this, but instead support legislation that increases the strength of unions and the ability for unions and workers to negotiate with companies,

No we shouldn't. This isn't 20th century Earth anymore (at least, not for all of us).

[Vazdania]

If the author and those in support of this bill are concerned about workers rights, they should not support this, but instead support legislation that increases the strength of unions and the ability for unions and workers to negotiate with companies,

No we shouldn't. This isn't 20th century Earth anymore (at least, not for all of us).

You do realize that Unions workers make on average, much more than their non unions coworkers, and non unioners in general, right?

[Wrapper]

No we shouldn't. This isn't 20th century Earth anymore (at least, not for all of us).

You do realize that Unions workers make on average, much more than their non unions coworkers, and non unioners in general, right?

We're straying way off topic, but, why perpetuate an institution that just grabs money and breeds corruption in the name of "workers' rights"? No, unions are not present in Wrapper, not because they're outlawed, but because they're unnecessary, thanks to worker-friendly safety regulations, government-funded arbitration, etc.

[Vazdania]

You do realize that Unions workers make on average, much more than their non unions coworkers, and non unioners in general, right?

We're straying way off topic, but, why perpetuate an institution that just grabs money and breeds corruption in the name of "workers' rights"? No, unions are not present in Wrapper, not because they're outlawed, but because they're unnecessary, thanks to worker-friendly safety regulations, government-funded arbitration, etc.

That sounds terrible. Thank goodness I'm not a citizen of your country.

[Wrapper]

We're straying way off topic, but, why perpetuate an institution that just grabs money and breeds corruption in the name of "workers' rights"? No, unions are not present in Wrapper, not because they're outlawed, but because they're unnecessary, thanks to worker-friendly safety regulations, government-funded arbitration, etc.

That sounds terrible. Thank goodness I'm not a citizen of your country.

Er... safe workplaces and high rates of pay sound terrible? Not to mention zero crime, well-funded education, government-provided internet... ummm, yeah, thank goodness you're not a Wad, that's one thing we can agree on.

Anyway, back to this worthless piece of sh... er, back to this proposal, if you please.

[Louisistan]

"Yeah... somebody should really send a few paramedics over to the burger joint where he works. Just to make sure..."

Ummm... he's... deceased.

Deputy Ambassador Schulz:"Oh, well excuse me. As you might have noticed, I spend most of my time in these chambers and well... Someone..." he glares at an aide standing next to him "... must have forgotten to tell me. In that case an undertaker should look if he's alright."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

National Economic Freedoms is GA Resolution #68, which you can chase up here in the very useful Past Resolutions thread.

I'm leaving it to players to explain how to write your proposal to fit it, if you and they decide that a shorter working week is indeed an attempt to regulate commerce. Some players may want to argue that it is, others that it's not.

OOC: Interesting question. Now which hat would you like me to wear?

(Libertarian Hat) The notion of "regulate" in the original classical legal sense was to make "regular" or in other words to make "free." Generally the notion of regulation of commerce does not concern itself with the production of commerce, but that part of between production and consumption.

(WA Old Nit Pick Hat) Understanding the modern definition of regulation means to control the shit out of something (and ignoring the fact that the definition of commerce in the resolution includes consumption which means that the government could tell me how fast I have to eat my Brussels Sprouts which makes me want to write a repeal post haste) the ability to allow nations to regulate does not really block the WA from imposing additional regulations. (Otherwise it would be a multi-category blocker.)

(Technical hat) 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.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Unless the weekly income formerly being paid was less than 4/3 of the minimum allowed by GAR#21, in which case this wages bill does still have to rise with the increased number of employees.

GAR#21 assumes a 30 hour work week for its calculations.

CONSIDERS a person working on average 30 hours or more per week to be in full-time employment, counting paid holiday as time worked;

Darn, now you have cited WA precedent for a 30 hour work week.

[Shazbotdom]

30 hour workweek?! What is this, France?!

"I have no clue ambassador, but for the honored delegate from Macwick to believe that this is an International Issue is rather laughable. This should be filed under 'crap' and thrown in the fire."

[Macwick]

A number of representatives including the one from Jarish Inyo have said that there is no justification for this resolution and I hope my colleagues will accept my apologises. I would like to state that we recognise that being in employment can increase someone’s well-being. However reducing the number of hours they work does this as well. It improves the work-life balance giving people more time with their families and/or to pursue leisure activities and I believe that this increases life-expectancy (but I haven’t seen any studies to prove it).

Perhaps we should include another clause that states this:

“Recognises that increased leisure time increases a person’s well-being.”

My research assistant tells me that humans (and we recognise this might not apply to all sapient beings but it often applies to those at the top of the food-chain) before industrialisation spent much less time working. It is claimed by Peter Farb “that primitive hunters and collectors of wild fruit, like the Shoshone, are among the most leisured people on earth.” In a study I believe by Yehudi Cohen it was discovered that, “In all, the adults of the Dobe … devote from twelve to nineteen hours a week to getting food.”

I would like to express my thanks to the representative from Christian Democrats for referring us to the archives and the written record of the debate on his proposal to reduce working time for waged employees to only 30% of the number of hours in a week. I recognise that this is higher than the overall maximum of 40 hours this proposal has, but hope he will support this proposal as he said at that time

I believe the optimum statutory workweek is 40 hours.

There seemed to have been three objections to his proposal;
working hours shouldn’t be limited at all;
his particular proposal only applied to wage earners and not to those on a salary
and his particular proposal was confusing.

There were also objections to his recommendation not to buy products from non-WA Nations who didn’t abide by the proposal.

There was also talk of those who are on-call and I think I need to address that issue. With regard to most of the other issues raised during that debate we hope we can successful overcome them. I wonder if the representative from Christian Democrats is prepared to give assistance to help my proposal pass?

We are considering adding:

“Exempts from this requirement hours spent on-call when the employee doesn’t have to be at a particular location:”

We welcome the point made by the esteemed representative from Bears Armed regarding harvest time. As I see it there are three groups of workers involved.

The owner of the farm who is exempt because they can claim all extra hours as voluntary.

Those employed by the farm and those contracted just for harvest time. The information we have received from our ministry of agriculture informs us that nearly all food grown outside is harvested in a period of less than 6 weeks. We are therefore basing our answer on this. Please let us know if there are known harvests lasting longer than this with the relevant references. It is normal that in the period up to the harvest the amount of work needed is less. Therefore for the employed farm worker we suggest they move to a flexi system of employment so they work less hours both before and after the harvest to reduce their average number of hours worked in a week to cover the harvest period. Say during the harvest for six weeks they work 80 hours a week but only 10 in the other seven weeks we have an average of only 23.8 hours per week. It also has to be remembered that this person could work a further 195 hours as overtime during this 13 week period. For the contract worker the situation is similar as long as they average out the work over a thirteen week period they can be contracted to work 390 hours and if willing do 195 hours overtime.

A number of representatives have talked about reducing unemployment and the effects on industry. It should be remember that in that alternative universe in France when the 35 hour week was introduced there was no reduction in unemployment. Also we need to remember that the 30 hours only comes in after four years. So assuming your average working week is 58 hours in the first year it will have to be reduced to 51, then 44, then 37 to get to 30 by year 4. This means that industry will have time to adapt to this measure and if the employee is willing they can work another 15 hours a week for some of the year. For those with an average of 40 hours the effect will be less, 37.5 in the first year, 35, 32.5 and 30 in the fourth year. According to the World Bank France had economic growth of 3.3% in 1999 and 3.7% in 2000 when the 35 hour working week was introduced. This I think is evidence that without reducing unemployment the economy grew and this was the result of increased productivity.

With regard to the representative from the Separatist Peoples, if we were to concede there might be a 25% increase in costs, and we haven’t, this will be spread over a four year period. And of course if some of this was taken up by working overtime, the cost effect could be nil if you just changed your laws to allow the first 10 hours of overtime in a week to be paid at the normal rate.

Again we are only talking about a 2.5 hour reduction per year for Separatist Peoples some of which will be made up with increased productivity. Of course if a company doesn’t decide to bring in a new shift to increase production there could be a reduced production, but business usually innovates to ensure production keeps up with demand. If the production line is kept working longer the fixed unit costs are reduced per item produced.

In response to the representative from Hirota, you are quite right we saw that over 3 years ago the World Assembly defined full time employment as 30 hours and so decided that as it already had accepted 30 hours as full time, it was time everyone’s laws reflected this and employees should no longer have to work more hours than the already defined full time hours of 30. I refer the representative from Hirota to the proposal made by Christian Democrats where they ended up proposing just over 50 hours and it was attacked for both being too high and too low. I am optimistic than there will be few, if any, who attack this proposal for being to high.

As Wrapper already provides a high level of Social Justice I am taken aback by their representative being so opposed to this Social Justice proposal. However he has raised an interest point – taxation. The Basic Poverty Line includes all purchase taxes, and we must assume that income tax is taken into account as well, because the amount someone has to earn to reach the Basic Poverty Line is the amount that gives them enough deposable income to pay for all the items listed under it. He also points out that more automation could take up some of the need for more workers, if such a need occurred, but this is unlikely given the alternative universes French experience.

Having had a brief look at GAR 68 I would not define the hours worked as “the consumption of a service” and therefore they fall outside that resolutions definition of Commerce.

Turning briefly to the issue of Trade Unions as raised by the representative from Vazdania, I would assert that in those nations who are most Capitalist and Libertarian the power of Trade Unions is weak and in those nations that already have high levels of Social Justice the need for Trade Unions is less. Of course those nations that have economies close to those of industrial countries of the Alternative Universe of the twentieth century will have the strongest Trade Unions.

In the Security Council recently I said I wished all nations in the WA turned up for the debates, but I assumed that if they decided to take part in the debate they would provide rational reasons for their positions. I am therefore extremely disappointed in the representative from Shazbotdom. As he hasn’t given any reasons for his position I can’t provide rational arguments against them.



OCC Thank you Ardchoille

I think that the argument for having to have a healthcare affect is a negative argument. It appears that the discussion was that if there is a healthcare affect it can’t be classified as mild. However the opposite does not have to be true i.e. only those proposals that include a healthcare affect can be classified as significant or strong.

When considering if this affects healthcare would affecting the hours worked by doctors, nurses etc. be considered as affecting healthcare as they may increase health costs?

As this proposal increases people’s leisure time and this has beneficial health affects does that meet the healthcare requirement?

[Jarish Inyo]

What works in your fictional nation of France doesn't work in other nations. More leisure time doesn't increase a person's well being. Too much leisure time can have the opposite effect.

Your research is flawed. Hunter gathers spent nearly all daylight hours in search of food. Or making tools needed to survive.

You have yet proven in anyway that this is an international issue. If a 30 hour work week works for the industries in your nation, then adopt that policy. Do not try to force it on other nations where it would not be practical and damaging to production and economy.