Page 1 of 9

[PASSED] Individual Working Freedoms II

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:33 pm
by Gruenberg
Individual Working Freedoms II
Category:
Advancement of Industry | Strength: Labour Deregulation

Description: The World Assembly,

Strongly reaffirming its commitment to individual liberty,

Believing that individuals should be as free as possible from undue government interference in making decisions governing their personal lives,

Convinced that the issues of when, how often, and for how long an individual works should remain an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee,

Dissenting from the view that one standard working week can be determined as a universal diktat, given the diversity of national economies, the particulars of industries working on cyclical, seasonal or other irregular working patterns, and the varying conditions, demographic, environmental, developmental, and otherwise, of member nations,

Considering any attempt to impose a universal manacle of working time restriction to be a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms,

Desirous of reaching a fair compromise on the issue:

  1. Encourages all nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;
  2. Calls upon all nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;
  3. Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty and that do not serve any other purpose;
  4. Reserves the right of all nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest;
  5. Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:42 pm
by Wrapper
OOC: A do-nothing blocker? :lol: But why the "II"? What am I missing?

(Mention the UN and I swear my ambassador will kick you in the balls.)

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:44 pm
by Honor and Glory
Gruenberg wrote:[*]Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;
[*]Reserves the right of nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest, so long as such regulations do not unduly abridge the freedom of individuals in deciding their terms of employment;


"While Honor and Glory approves of most of this we have issues with the two above parts. As part of our rehabilitation programs for convicts we require them to work in their chosen field for a specific amount of time per day, for the length of their incarceration. As the have no say in the matter it would violate this proposal and we would be unable to continue a measure we have found to be beneficial to the rehabilitation of our criminals. While they can renegotiate the terms of employment once their incarceration is over, during the incarceration their hours are negotiated between the employee, our department of labor, and the courts. I exemption for work release programs would give you Honor and Glory's full support of this should it go to vote."

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:47 pm
by Gruenberg
Wrapper wrote:OOC: A do-nothing blocker? :lol: But why the "II"? What am I missing?

OOC: Because it's a rewrite of version I.
Honor and Glory wrote:"While Honor and Glory approves of most of this we have issues with the two above parts. As part of our rehabilitation programs for convicts we require them to work in their chosen field for a specific amount of time per day, for the length of their incarceration. As the have no say in the matter it would violate this proposal and we would be unable to continue a measure we have found to be beneficial to the rehabilitation of our criminals.

But that exactly proves that that restriction wouldn't be affected. It does not "serve only to reduce individual liberty": it also serves to have a rehabilitative effect. Therefore, you could continue to impose such restrictions. There is no need for an exemption for work release programs, because work release programs are not used only to reduce individual liberty, but rather are designed to assist in rehabilitation of convicts back into the workforce.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:51 pm
by Honor and Glory
Gruenberg wrote:But that exactly proves that that restriction wouldn't be affected. It does not "serve only to reduce individual liberty": it also serves to have a rehabilitative effect. Therefore, you could continue to impose such restrictions. There is no need for an exemption for work release programs, because work release programs are not used only to reduce individual liberty, but rather are designed to assist in rehabilitation of convicts back into the workforce.

OOC : I didn't totally miss that word. Nope not at all . <_< >_>

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:58 pm
by Wrapper
Gruenberg wrote:
Wrapper wrote:OOC: A do-nothing blocker? :lol: But why the "II"? What am I missing?

OOC: Because it's a rewrite of version I.

OOC: Mmm hmmm.

IC: Ari enters the room. As he does, for some unknown reason he is suddenly and inexplicably overcome with the overwhelming desire to kick someone in the balls....

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:01 pm
by Gruenberg
OOC: Unless your character is planning on kicking Frisbeeteria, Mousebumples and Flibbleites in their respective balls too, I'm not sure I really get the problem.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:15 pm
by Wrapper
Gruenberg wrote:OOC: Unless your character is planning on kicking Frisbeeteria, Mousebumples and Flibbleites in their respective balls too, I'm not sure I really get the problem.

Just having a bit of fun with you, sir -- you should know by now that my ambassador's a pacifist and won't kick anyone in the nuts, and besides, you didn't mention the UN anyway, so you're safe... for now. 8)

Seriously, though, when the RL UN replaced the League of Nations, they didn't put a "II" on any corresponding resolutions, did they? And neither did Fris, Mouse or Flib.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:30 pm
by Hakio
"So let me get this straight, you're attempting to abolish work time regulations such as forcing companies to give their employees money for overtime, so that these employees are worked like dogs for more hours just to get the extra compensation? If an employee wants to work for more hours than is normally expected, then our government mandates that those companies provide at least a 5% increase in their hourly profit for overtime. Now many conservatives will argue that doing this discourages companies from letting their employees work overtime because they would be forced to pay more and thus the employee earns less money. This is not the case in our country, due to the fact that our private organizations are highly regulated and partially owned by our socialist system. That's right, capitalism within socialism. Private companies are not allowed to deny an individual's right to work overtime for a 5% increase in wage minimum by our law. You do not get to dictate how our country runs our economics and hide it behind 'personal liberties'."

Sia Hedishi sits back down in her seat, irritated, and drinks some whiskey from her flask.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:33 pm
by Gruenberg
Wrapper wrote:
Gruenberg wrote:OOC: Unless your character is planning on kicking Frisbeeteria, Mousebumples and Flibbleites in their respective balls too, I'm not sure I really get the problem.

Just having a bit of fun with you, sir -- you should know by now that my ambassador's a pacifist and won't kick anyone in the nuts, and besides, you didn't mention the UN anyway, so you're safe... for now. 8)

I don't find being threatened for mentioning a part of this game that I played for three years to be "a bit of fun".
Wrapper wrote:Seriously, though, when the RL UN replaced the League of Nations, they didn't put a "II" on any corresponding resolutions, did they? And neither did Fris, Mouse or Flib.

Using numerals in international law convention is fairly common (and ICly, Gruenberg clearly uses Roman numerals, given the various XIs they've fielded in international sports). The Fourth Geneva Convention was not called the Let's Pretend The Previous Geneva Convention Didn't Exist; it was called, funnily enough, the Fourth Geneva Convention.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:42 pm
by Euroslavia
Wrapper wrote:
Gruenberg wrote:OOC: Unless your character is planning on kicking Frisbeeteria, Mousebumples and Flibbleites in their respective balls too, I'm not sure I really get the problem.

Just having a bit of fun with you, sir -- you should know by now that my ambassador's a pacifist and won't kick anyone in the nuts, and besides, you didn't mention the UN anyway, so you're safe... for now. 8)

Seriously, though, when the RL UN replaced the League of Nations, they didn't put a "II" on any corresponding resolutions, did they? And neither did Fris, Mouse or Flib.


Gruen can make his title what he wants. Let's not make this into a big deal and focus on the details of the proposal.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:10 pm
by Normlpeople
Clover sighs "Given the current attempts to micromanage economies into ruin, I have to support this, even if it means agreeing with Gruen. A much better alternative"

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:30 pm
by Hakio
Normlpeople wrote:Clover sighs "Given the current attempts to micromanage economies into ruin, I have to support this, even if it means agreeing with Gruen. A much better alternative"

"What's wrong with micromanaging your economies? If the WA members want it then all you crony capitalists would have to abide by their legislation. If it's unreasonable then it will not be a passed resolution. There's no reason to use a blocker, except to stifle debate and opportunity." Argues Sia Hedishi taking on a populist-international-federalist tone.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:33 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny
Normlpeople wrote:Clover sighs "Given the current attempts to micromanage economies into ruin, I have to support this, even if it means agreeing with Gruen. A much better alternative"

It also means agreeing with the Kennyites, for what it's worth. We have come to the conclusion that a blocker is indeed necessary to halt all the needless debates about workweeks and worker compensation. We congratulate our sometime allies in Flurthwel for coming forth with this responsible and timely legislation to put timecards in the hands of local governments, not the WA, and to that end pledge our full-throated support for its passage.

- Jimmy Baca, Ambassador at Large

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:36 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny
Hakio wrote:"What's wrong with micromanaging your economies? If the WA members want it then all you crony capitalists would have to abide by their legislation. If it's unreasonable then it will not be a passed resolution. There's no reason to use a blocker, except to stifle debate and opportunity." Argues Sia Hedishi taking on a populist-international-federalist tone.

Adopting the tone of freedom-stealers who'd rather toady up to the gnomes than advance national rights is anything but "populist."

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:38 pm
by Hakio
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Normlpeople wrote:Clover sighs "Given the current attempts to micromanage economies into ruin, I have to support this, even if it means agreeing with Gruen. A much better alternative"

It also means agreeing with the Kennyites, for what it's worth. We have come to the conclusion that a blocker is indeed necessary to halt all the needless debates about workweeks and worker compensation. We congratulate our sometime allies in Flurthwel for coming forth with this responsible and timely legislation to put timecards in the hands of local governments, not the WA, and to that end pledge our full-throated support for its passage.

- Jimmy Baca, Ambassador at Large


"I'm sorry, but even if the majority of people feel the way you do, the part of the proposal mandating that the government can't restrict working hours is going to cause this to never pass. I find it odd that everyone here whose in favor is complaining about intrusive proposals when this same proposal is intruding upon our government's right to regulate businesses. I also think that the part I am speaking about was just a tacked on ending to make it so that this blocker isn't technically illegal..." Sia sips her coffee admiringly. "... tricky bastard...."

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:12 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny
Hakio wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:It also means agreeing with the Kennyites, for what it's worth. We have come to the conclusion that a blocker is indeed necessary to halt all the needless debates about workweeks and worker compensation. We congratulate our sometime allies in Flurthwel for coming forth with this responsible and timely legislation to put timecards in the hands of local governments, not the WA, and to that end pledge our full-throated support for its passage.

- Jimmy Baca, Ambassador at Large


"I'm sorry, but even if the majority of people feel the way you do, the part of the proposal mandating that the government can't restrict working hours is going to cause this to never pass.

Yeah, didn't stop the GA from passing this before.

I find it odd that everyone here whose in favor is complaining about intrusive proposals when this same proposal is intruding upon our government's right to regulate businesses.

I really don't think you get it. This is not intruding upon your government's right to regulate business; it is preserving it. Forcing you to regulate business in a certain way via WA fiat would be "intruding."

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:18 pm
by Defwa
An over reacting blocker to two poorly concieved proposal attempts. Not even the socialists want that kind of regulation from the WA. In pretty sure we're safe without this just as poorly planned response

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:14 pm
by Hakio
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Hakio wrote:
"I'm sorry, but even if the majority of people feel the way you do, the part of the proposal mandating that the government can't restrict working hours is going to cause this to never pass.

Yeah, didn't stop the GA from passing this before.

I find it odd that everyone here whose in favor is complaining about intrusive proposals when this same proposal is intruding upon our government's right to regulate businesses.

I really don't think you get it. This is not intruding upon your government's right to regulate business; it is preserving it. Forcing you to regulate business in a certain way via WA fiat would be "intruding."

"No it's right there in the MANDATES clause, clear as crystal, they are abolishing any work hour regulations."

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:52 pm
by Sciongrad
Defwa wrote:An over reacting blocker to two poorly concieved proposal attempts. Not even the socialists want that kind of regulation from the WA. In pretty sure we're safe without this just as poorly planned response

"What makes you think that, your Excellency? The World Assembly has micromanaged more intrusively and more liberally on similar issues in the past (yet another Connopolian shenanigan), so I see no reason to assume the World Assembly couldn't pass intrusive legislation on working hours in the future. As such, Sciongrad offers its full support to the delegation of Gruenberg."

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:03 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny
Hakio wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Yeah, didn't stop the GA from passing this before.


I really don't think you get it. This is not intruding upon your government's right to regulate business; it is preserving it. Forcing you to regulate business in a certain way via WA fiat would be "intruding."

"No it's right there in the MANDATES clause, clear as crystal, they are abolishing any work hour regulations."

:lol:

You conveniently ignore the rest of the clause: "...that serve only to reduce individual liberty, and that unfairly remove decision-making power from the individual level;"

And let's not forget the clause immediately following: "Reserves the right of all nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest."

Yeah...really intrusive language there. You can almost taste the fascism.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:07 pm
by Defwa
Sciongrad wrote:
Defwa wrote:An over reacting blocker to two poorly concieved proposal attempts. Not even the socialists want that kind of regulation from the WA. In pretty sure we're safe without this just as poorly planned response

"What makes you think that, your Excellency? The World Assembly has micromanaged more intrusively and more liberally on similar issues in the past (yet another Connopolian shenanigan), so I see no reason to assume the World Assembly couldn't pass intrusive legislation on working hours in the future. As such, Sciongrad offers its full support to the delegation of Gruenberg."

While your example isn't up to modern standards (since noncompliance became a political ideology and extraterrestrial thinking became a way of life), I don't think they're quite comparable. Invasive but that's the nature of the beast. At least it wasn't based on some faulty extension of some faulty limited interpretation of some theoretical country.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:37 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny
Defwa wrote:While your example isn't up to modern standards (since noncompliance became a political ideology and extraterrestrial thinking became a way of life)

I don't even know what this means.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:41 pm
by Gruenberg
Defwa wrote:An over reacting blocker to two poorly concieved proposal attempts. Not even the socialists want that kind of regulation from the WA. In pretty sure we're safe without this just as poorly planned response

I "planned" this "response" 8 years ago. More resolutions restricting working time have passed than have ever passed banning nuclear weapons, yet no one is advocating a repeal of NAPA.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:04 pm
by Iron Felix
On behalf of the soldiers, the farmers, all the workers' cadres, and the board of directors of FEDMÖG MART™, I offer my support for this legislative effort.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee for State Security