Caymarnia wrote:Aside from the rather amusing detour into metaphysics - I think anybody with a reasonably intelligent mind knows what a "worker" is - we find this a laudable proposal, and Caymarnia votes
for it. The workers are the future, and their welfare is as much the responsibility of the State as it is the individual.
While we agree with the ambassador from Caymarnia that the metaphysical discussion should be unnecessary, unfortunately the resolution we are voting on
does include a -- rather circular, we must say -- definition of "worker" and accordingly we must treat that definition as binding on the rest of its text.
Should the resolution fail and the author subsequently wish to submit an amended version, we would encourage the author to strike the definition in its entirety. While there are nuances in labor law that may require definitions in certain contexts, such as when contractors are hired, we are doubtful that such distinctions are needed here.
[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador