[DRAFT] Repeal Restrictions on Child Labor

[Lydondom]

Preliminary Text

"The General Assembly,

Understanding that the industry of nations (especially those with less long-lived citizens) could benefit immensely from a younger source of labor;

Further understanding non-laborious jobs such as flipping burgers are often unavailable to underprivileged illiterate children;

Noting that by stating any person "below the legal age of majority" is a minor, General Assembly Resolution #4 prevents 15, 16, 17 and 18 year olds around the world from gainfully providing for themselves or younger citizens;

Realizing that employment in factories or such is a blessed alternative to a young life on the streets, especially when the worker is a resident at the factory, yet such employment is banned under clause (B7) as being "unreasonably confined;"

Further realizing that Clause (B7), which bans work that would prevent "the pursuit of a full-time education" completely prohibits minors from working long enough hours to maintain a decent standard of living

Questioning whether "certain basic protections" "provided to all children" should allow children to starve in the street unable to work at a job;

Empathizing with younger nations that require additional labor if they wish to catch up to more developed nation-states;

Convinced that General Assembly Resolution #4 Restrictions on Child Labor overly legislates against street orphans who could use both a place to live and a way to eat, especially those in the 15-18 year old range (who are often defined as 'minors');

Further convinced that young children of the street, especially young girls, will be unwillingly forced into a life of prostitution in order to survive childhood, whereas the boys will subscribe to a life of petty crime

Taking it as a statement of truth that General Assembly Resolution #4 must be repealed and replaced with a statute that allows older children to provide for themselves and to labor for a benevolent businessman willing to take them off the streets;


Repeals General Assembly Resolution #4, Restrictions on Child Labor"

Suggestions welcome and requested

[Flibbleites]

Preliminary Text

"The General Assembly,

Understanding that the industry of nations (especially those with less long-lived citizens) could benefit immensely from a younger source of labor;

Further understanding non-laborious jobs such as flipping burgers are often unavailable to underprivileged illiterate children;

Hmm, I was always under the impression that giving children the opportunity to go to school (and therefore no longer being illiterate) was kind of the whole point of the resolution.

Noting that by stating any person "below the legal age of majority" is a minor, General Assembly Resolution #4 prevents 15, 16, 17 and 18 year olds around the world from gainfully providing for themselves or younger citizens;

Not true, there is no GA resolution which sets an age of majority, ergo it is left up to the nations to set it wherever they see see fit be it age 2 or age 202.

Realizing that employment in factories or such is a blessed alternative to a young life on the streets, especially when the worker is a resident at the factory, yet such employment is banned under clause (B7) as being "unreasonably confined;"

Whatever you say Mr. Scrooge.

Further realizing that Clause (B7), which bans work that would prevent "the pursuit of a full-time education" completely prohibits minors from working long enough hours to maintain a decent standard of living

And where exactly are these children's parents in all of this?

Questioning whether "certain basic protections" "provided to all children" should allow children to starve in the street unable to work at a job;

Empathizing with younger nations that require additional labor if they wish to catch up to more developed nation-states;

Convinced that General Assembly Resolution #4 Restrictions on Child Labor overly legislates against street orphans who could use both a place to live and a way to eat, especially those in the 15-18 year old range (who are often defined as 'minors');

Further convinced that young children of the street, especially young girls, will be unwillingly forced into a life of prostitution in order to survive childhood,

Did you not read clause D of Restrictions on Child Labor? It's pretty clear that minors are forbidden from performing sexual acts which would include prostitution. Furthermore, isn't it kind of sexist of you to say that only the females will become prostitutes? Surely you've heard of male prostitutes before?

whereas the boys will subscribe to a life of petty crime

Taking it as a statement of truth that General Assembly Resolution #4 must be repealed and replaced with a statute that allows older children to provide for themselves and to labor for a benevolent businessman willing to take them off the streets;

We have one on the books already, it's the one you're trying to repeal. It allows businesses to hire minors provided the jobs meet the very reasonable restrictions laid out in the resolution. Yes it prohibits you from having 10 year olds working in your coal mines for 27 hours a day, yes it stops you from chaining them to the sewing machines of your sweatshops, yes it keeps them out of the front lines of your armed forces (for that matter, the back lines too), and yes it prevents you from producing child pornography and having child brothels. All of these restrictions are perfectly reasonable, unless your name is Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #4, Restrictions on Child Labor"

Suggestions welcome and requested

You do realize the ridiculousness of using a "Think of the children" argument on a resolution that was passed on a "Think of the children" argument, right?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Losthaven]

Repealing Restrictions on Child Labor would not be an awful thing as it would allow for a more moderate replacement.

That said, I mostly agree with Mr. Flibble that the arguments you've advanced are generally unconvincing. Except I've always felt that the prohibition on children working in jobs where "they have to lift heavy loads" or "use potentially dangerous tools" is too draconian. Regardless of where you draw the line of majority, for most nations there will be many children who are not quite at that age but are physically and emotionally fit such that they could ably and safely do jobs that involve tools and heavy loads. 17-year-old football-playing highschool juniors and seniors in my nation would be good examples: why the hell should these strapping young lads be categorically forbidden from hauling hay or working as an understudy to an electrician.

We also wish there would have been an exemption for children who have shown a particular aptitude or skill beyond their years (i.e. prodigies) or children who remain minors but have finished school and are legally emancipated. The current law has no provisions allow exemptions for such children.

We hope that guidance is useful to you.

Sincerely,
Myron Stokov-Mercier, Distinguished Lawyer and Chief WA Counsel for the Losthavenite Delegation

Edit: Heavily edited for punctuation and grammar.

[Lydondom]

Hmm, I was always under the impression that giving children the opportunity to go to school (and therefore no longer being illiterate) was kind of the whole point of the resolution.

That part of the proposition was geared towards parent less children or children otherwise on the streets. I thought it made sense that these children wouldn't be able to go to school and feed themselves. I'll make sure to clarify that, thanks.

Not true, there is no GA resolution which sets an age of majority, ergo it is left up to the nations to set it wherever they see see fit be it age 2 or age 202.

Again, I left things too open, although I think the assumption that the age will generally be around 18 is reasonable.

Whatever you say Mr. Scrooge.

Scrooge wasn't a factory owner.

And where exactly are these children's parents in all of this?

Again, my proposal is geared towards underprivileged urchin (generally, but not necessarily, orphaned) children as I believe the current law does not account for them adequately. It seems I need to argue this more clearly, but I hesitated from specifically saying orphan because not every child without a home is orphaned.

Did you not read clause D of Restrictions on Child Labor? It's pretty clear that minors are forbidden from performing sexual acts which would include prostitution.

My point was that children who are unable to gain legal employment could very well turn to a life of prostitution, as even in countries where prostitution is legal most prostitutes end up in the life between 13 and 15

Furthermore, isn't it kind of sexist of you to say that only the females will become prostitutes? Surely you've heard of male prostitutes before?

I said that young children, especially girls, could become prostitutes. It's pretty well proven more girls are prostitutes than boys. If anything, you're sexist for implying that more guys are prostitutes than really are.

We have one on the books already, it's the one you're trying to repeal. It allows businesses to hire minors provided the jobs meet the very reasonable restrictions laid out in the resolution.

Although I think some of the current law is too strong, my main issue is with the restriction that prevents their job from preventing an education, because especially in low-welfare or no-welfare countries like my own if those children went to school and could not get a job that interfered with that education they would subsequently starve to death without government handouts. The current law doesn't address the fact that not every nation is sissy socialist land. In some countries young children are on the streets and in that case going to school is going to kill them without a long hours job to pay for food and ideally shelter. I also dislike the machinery and such ban because these urchin children are generally illiterate and as such cannot work "flipping burgers" or any other non labor job. I don't mind the armed forces or such but I find these regulations unnecessarily strong.

You do realize the ridiculousness of using a "Think of the children" argument on a resolution that was passed on a "Think of the children" argument, right?

More than that, I recognize the ridiculousness of dismissing my argument just because my "Think of the Children" stance is more realist

Thank you for the comments, whether they were outright snide or actually constructive

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador, this repeal is as dead as the arguments within it."

Understanding that the industry of nations (especially those with less long-lived citizens) could benefit immensely from a younger source of labor;

"Then, perhaps those nations should consider figuring out ways to extend the lives of their citizens, rather than targeting children."

Further understanding non-laborious jobs such as flipping burgers are often unavailable to underprivileged illiterate children;

"Illiterate Children? Perhaps they should be going to Schools, rather than "Flipping Burgers". It is solely the fault of the Government if the children of the Nation are illiterate. The well-being of your citizens should come first, your Industry can wait."

Noting that by stating any person "below the legal age of majority" is a minor, General Assembly Resolution #4 prevents 15, 16, 17 and 18 year olds around the world from gainfully providing for themselves or younger citizens

"I am uncertain of what the Age of Majority is in your nation, however, here in the Imperium, it is 19. Younger than that, they are fully welcome to a host of Minor/Child Protective services that focus on preparation for life as an Imperial Citizen, and provides them with such necessities as decent food, clean water, shelter, and the same Education available to all Imperial Citizens. If your nation does not have something similar, I believe that is quite a statement on the quality of your government, and, I assure you, it is not a good one."

Realizing that employment in factories or such is a blessed alternative to a young life on the streets, especially when the worker is a resident at the factory, yet such employment is banned under clause (B7) as being "unreasonably confined;"

"They have no reason to be on the streets. If they are, that is a failure of your government, and one that is quite easy to fix. They do not need to be preforming jobs in Factories, especially when the primitive ones used in many nations require no small amount of manual labour."

Further realizing that Clause (B7), which bans work that would prevent "the pursuit of a full-time education" completely prohibits minors from working long enough hours to maintain a decent standard of living

"They should not be required to sustain such a thing on their own until the age of majority. Again, if your Nation is unable, or worse, unwilling to provide such things for Minors or children, that is a failing of your government, and again, one that is easily fixed."

Questioning whether "certain basic protections" "provided to all children" should allow children to starve in the street unable to work at a job;

"Ambassador, they should not be starving in the street at all. They should be in a Government, or Privately run, if your nation is willing to trust corporate interests with your children, institution, which provides what they need to become functional members of society. Again, food that one would be willing to serve to a sapient being, clean water, shelter, and an Education. If your public services are even moderately functional, that will be of no issue to provide, and will fully prepare them for the realities of life outside the Institution. However, they most certainly do not need to be working in Industrial Labour jobs, or whatever else it is you would have them do."

Further convinced that young children of the street, especially young girls, will be unwillingly forced into a life of prostitution in order to survive childhood, whereas the boys will subscribe to a life of petty crime

"They should not have to be, if your government is Functional in any manner. However, I find it quite, interesting, to say the least, that you would assume that only Girls would become prostitutes, and the only Boys would commit petty crimes. I am uncertain of why you chose to make that distinction, but I assure you, it is, at the very least, not helpful to your goal, and at worst, outright insulting."

Taking it as a statement of truth that General Assembly Resolution #4 must be repealed and replaced with a statute that allows older children to provide for themselves and to labor for a benevolent businessman willing to take them off the streets;

Overseer Markhov laughs
"The words, "Benevolent" and "Businessman" should not follow one another, Ambassador. "

[Caracasus]

Realizing that employment in factories or such is a blessed alternative to a young life on the streets, especially when the worker is a resident at the factory, yet such employment is banned under clause (B7) as being "unreasonably confined;"

Further realizing that Clause (B7), which bans work that would prevent "the pursuit of a full-time education" completely prohibits minors from working long enough hours to maintain a decent standard of living

We feel that any nation which suffers social problems where children are more likely to be on the streets than in education is precisely the kind of nation that stands to benefit from this legislation.

Given that legislation is already on the books which forbids work in the sex industry, we feel that this repeal is simply not needed.

We feel it is odd that the ambassador wishes to protect the best interests of children and steer them from a life of crime, exploitation and immorality by removing child labor restrictions. We understand that history teaches us that improvement in the rights and lives of children often goes hand in hand with the kind of legislation that restricts child labor.

[Jarish Inyo]

While we do not support the reasoning behind this repeal, we must remember that not every nation in the WA is up to the modern era and most can not meet the requirements of this law. We must remember that some may be at the level of the dark ages or early industrial and do not have the have the ability to have such programs and institutions.

[New Romanian Union]

This is pure capitalism! Everything in the name of the profit! The kids must go to school, they need education they are not materials to be used for the profits of the fat cats!! We need a programme which should take every kid from the street and send that kid to school.

[Separatist Peoples]

This is pure capitalism! Everything in the name of the profit! The kids must go to school, they need education they are not materials to be used for the profits of the fat cats!! We need a programme which should take every kid from the street and send that kid to school.

OOC: this is a pure gravedig. It's been over a month and a half since this was discussed.

[United industrial]

i support this bill completely. child labor may seem barbaric and draconian but look at it this way it gives the kids another alternative other then petty crime. It will teach them to be more responsible citizens in the long run. And the insinuation that those that support this resolution are not modernized is insulting. That being said i support this resolution and encourage my fellow WA members to vote on this resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

i support this bill completely. child labor may seem barbaric and draconian but look at it this way it gives the kids another alternative other then petty crime. It will teach them to be more responsible citizens in the long run. And the insinuation that those that support this resolution are not modernized is insulting. That being said i support this resolution and encourage my fellow WA members to vote on this resolution.

OOC: Heavens! Read the post above the one you made! I'll just repeat him!

OOC: this is a pure gravedig. It's been over a month and a half since this was discussed.

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, if your nation is unwilling to agree that even the least public funds should be put towards the protection and development of your youth, and would rather see this glorious resolution repealed than answer the problems inherent to a society that depends on child labour, I have not one iota of respect for you, and dismiss this effort as yet another piece of capitalist hogwash."

EDIT: This is a gravedig? Huh. Ignore this, then.

[Belrune]

I could support this resolution, provided that a sister-resolution were passed requiring certain safety and health protections, and limiting what type of labor workers under a certain age were allowed to do.

I could tolerate child labor for things like janitorial work (mopping floors), or deliveries, or door to door sales, picking fruit, and other generally safe labor, but more dangerous work, such as factory work, or mining, etc should be left up to adults.

[Caracasus]

I could support this resolution, provided that a sister-resolution were passed requiring certain safety and health protections, and limiting what type of labor workers under a certain age were allowed to do.

I could tolerate child labor for things like janitorial work (mopping floors), or deliveries, or door to door sales, picking fruit, and other generally safe labor, but more dangerous work, such as factory work, or mining, etc should be left up to adults.

Ambassador, we feel you are a little late to the meeting on this. The original ambassador and author of this resolution has not been seen in the debating chamber for several months - ever since he popped out to use the toilet. We are a little surprised that so many ambassadors are in here, we only came in to see if there was any office supplies we could thieve umm... we had left any important documents behind.

OOC - This is a gravedig thread. Check the date of the OP

[Flibbleites]

Ok, this gravedig has gone on long enough. If the OP comes back and wishes to continue pursuing this they can request an unlock.