NationStates

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:18 pm**

Repeal GAR #4, "Restrictions on Child Labor"
Category: Repeal ~*~ Resolution: GAR #4

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Applauding the efforts of the World Assembly to protect children from harm;

Reaffirming that it is largely inappropriate for children to spend their time working, and that a child's primary responsibility should be to acquire an education;

Recognizing nonetheless that there are substantial flaws in GAR #4, the current law on "Restriction on Child Labor", that render it problematic and greatly in need of an update;

Noting that GAR #4 defines a minor as any person "below the legal age of majority;"

Concerned that this definition draws too hard a line, effectively grouping babies and toddlers with older teens and young adults, and ultimately deprives member nations of much needed authority to recognize the varying levels of maturity, skill, and responsibility that children gain with age, and to tailor their labor laws accordingly;

Noting that GAR #4 bans the employment of minors in jobs that involve "dangerous machinery, dangerous equipment or dangerous tools", regardless of whether the minor has reached a level of maturity where they could be trusted to operate those tools effectively, or whether the minor has adequate supervision, or whether the minor is learning a family business such as farming;

Noting that GAR #4 prohibits minors from "handling heavy loads", regardless of whether the minor is old enough and physically fit enough to handle those loads safely and responsibly;

Convinced that, in general, GAR #4 simply does not allow the level of nuisance and flexibility necessary to appropriately and responsibly regulate the employment of minors, and that this area of law is badly in need of legislation that would allow nations to adopt more reasonable labor standards;

Aware that under the current international legal rules, old resolutions covering a subject matter must be repealed before new resolutions improving on that subject matter may be adopted;

Now, therefore, GAR #4 is hereby REPEALED.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:30 pm**

Looks good. Full support.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:00 pm**

I see little to no reason to repeal this.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:02 pm**

Well, this looks good. But will there be a replacement resolution, or is this just to drop this and then have nothing on child labor?

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:29 pm**

"If there are plans for a replacement resolution in which defines a specific minimum age for one working under a specified wage?"

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:05 pm**

We are opposed to this repeal. There is a reason why the aforementioned legislation defined a minor as below legal age: defining it by levels of maturity enables both governments and industry to create haphazard standards to define 'maturity' and trying to define it in legislation would doom its chances of passage.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:16 pm**

Flawdom wrote:We are opposed to this repeal. There is a reason why the aforementioned legislation defined a minor as below legal age: defining it by levels of maturity enables both governments and industry to create haphazard standards to define 'maturity' and trying to define it in legislation would doom its chances of passage.

"The Government and People of Transoxiana agree with Flawdom and Ambassador Turner. We stand AGAINST."

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:17 pm**

To parrot what Mr. Turner said, I see little to no reason to repeal this. No one in their right mind is going to vote to let kids handle dangerous machinery.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:22 pm**

"The Imperium finds the arguments in this proposal unconvincing, at best. As such, we will not support this repeal."

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:58 pm**

"The Wallenburgian delegation opposes this for aforementioned reasons."

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:48 pm**

"For all of the previous reasons, including the possible interference with education that a repeal and replace ran by you would cause we OPPOSE this repeal."

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:20 pm**

Look, little Timmy is definitely mature enough break rocks with a hammer for eight hours a day for minimum wage... I mean, he is twelve.

He doesn't have any physical disabilities or limitations that would prevent him from being included in the joys of manual labor and he did ace the "I Can Work Too" written test for children. Actually he is a "straight-A-student" at his school.

Of course, if he does get the job then he won't be able to go to school as often as he should... but, hey, we can't just rely on criminals to break all the rocks, can we? Think of the children.

Opposed.

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:07 am**

Opposed.

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:10 am**

The Candlewhisper Administration here observes that the purpose of this repeal is not to remove protection from children, but rather to allow a better piece of legislation to take its place.

We have had some unusual test cases in our country, where as dutiful adherents to the judgments and laws of the World Assembly, we have followed the letter of the law. Clause B(2) has been problematic, as lawyers have found it very easy to define physical locations as being damaging to a child's health. For example, we no longer have paperboys doing rounds after in one case a boy was knocked off his bike by a truck, and in another the ambient air pollution of the city streets caused one child to have an asthma attack. The legal teams for the truck driver managed to argue that a child had no place working in the "busy workplace" of the city streets, and going by these laws the judiciary was forced to agree, even though public opinion was against the idea of a paperboy being subject to improper child labour.

We'd note also that WAR #222 and WAR #300 already provide protection for children against sexual exploitation, stances which even as a nation dedicated to the free transfer of data we are willing and happy to accept as a moral and sensible pieces of legislation.

No-one here is proposing that children be left free to be abused or misused. Rather, this is simply a repeal of a poorly worded and redundant piece of legislation that needs to be proposed again in a better manner.

Candlewhisper supports this resolution, and will present the case to the 10,000 Islands Delegate to do the same.

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:24 am**

Unless there's a solid replacement; I will be voting against.

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:26 am**

"Also, A child working with his family in their farm or restaurant is different than working in a factory not owned by the family. Regardless of Child Labor laws, families still have their children do things such as mow lawns or do jobs around a farm."

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:02 am**

Flawdom wrote:We are opposed to this repeal. There is a reason why the aforementioned legislation defined a minor as below legal age: defining it by levels of maturity enables both governments and industry to create haphazard standards to define 'maturity' and trying to define it in legislation would doom its chances of passage.

I don't understand how a system that allows local lawmakers to take maturity into account is somehow worse than a system that puts in place a blanket ban on minors working regardless of their relative age or maturity level. It seems you're afraid that the governments of member nations would do something absurd if given any flexibility, and so you're in favor of an equally absurd, inflexible WA standard.

Put it this way: the governments and industry that you fear would create "haphazard standards" for minors are probably the same nations that are just avoiding this legislation altogether by abolishing any "age of majority". Put it another way: the target legislation already puts a bunch of faith in national governments by allowing them to define the local age of majority, but then takes an odd turn and deprives national governments of any further authority to regulate work by minors according to maturity.

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:22 am**

Well spoken, by the honourable representative of Losthaven.

The issue here is whether the existing legislation is an adequate and good piece of legislation. It is not, so it should be repealed.

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 11:14 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Well spoken, by the honourable representative of Losthaven.

The issue here is whether the existing legislation is an adequate and good piece of legislation. It is not, so it should be repealed.

The Federation remains opposed to the drafted repeal in it's current state, however that does not mean it shall remain opposed to the idea. Perhaps a careful examination of the presented argument with some editing may result in a change of stance. For now, we find the existing piece of legislation to be acceptable, unless a better suited replacement can be drafted.

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:47 pm**

United Industrial fully opposes this repeal. For a few reasons first off because of the ambiguity of certain sections in RCL bill it gives my nation and many others the ability to set the age within reason and lets be real here the WA is not supposed to take away freedoms from member states. Now United Industrial has passed and implemented laws on this issue that set the legal age to be an adult at 14 years old, but there is also special case where a child between the ages of 8-13 can also work, but they need to fill out paper work and have parental consent and the jobs are limited to jobs that are dangerous or labor intensive and said children will be payed slightly more for there work and hours are limited. I am also a very industrialized state so this tends to be a big issue and for these reasons the fact that the mystic of certain articles of RCL is what makes this bill good and the fact that some including myself have solved and acted on this issue in house makes me opposed because there is no reason for it and a bill with no ambiguity and stricter language would undermine nations individual rights as WA members. So again United industrial is opposed

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 8:04 am**

Support for this resolution depends on the Resolution that will fill GAR#4's place.
Style Nit picking:
Also, the words in bold should be in CAPS (<- like so), and those clauses should end in a comma not a semicolon.

I would suggest that "Now, therefore, GAR #4 is hereby REPEALED" be replaced with something more like "The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#4, "Restrictions on Child Labor."

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:41 pm**

Could you write us a replacement draft?

Posted: **Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:54 pm**

"The Socialist Republic of the Palentinate wholeheartedly supports the repeal net of said resolution as it unfairly undermines the prosperity of working people."

Posted: **Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:56 pm**

Lewis Nightingale wrote:Could you write us a replacement draft?

OOC: Everyone, this guy is Povinski. Povinski, if you could please, put that in your signature.

Posted: **Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:05 pm**

I would like to see the replacement draft before repealing a *good enough* legislation. Otherwise, we shall stand against.

NationStates

[DRAFT] Repeal GAR #4, "Restrictions on Child Labor"

[DRAFT] Repeal GAR #4, "Restrictions on Child Labor"