Page 1 of 1
Repeal "Individual Working Freedoms"
Posted:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:27 amby Sciongrad
The General Assembly,
Emphasizing this body's historic commitment to promoting the rights of workers and safeguarding the wellbeing of marginalized people,
Reaffirming its fundamental respect for individual autonomy, yet
Mindful of the disparities in bargaining power which often characterize relations between workers and employers,
Recalling the passage of General Assembly Resolution #302, Individual Working Freedoms,
Troubled that the resolution upsets the delicate balance between respect for the right to contract and the right of workers to seek protection from the government where inequality of bargaining power creates the possibility of exploitation,
Disturbed that the resolution deceptively frames the question of workweek hours as one of right to contract when individual employees often lack the requisite bargaining power to make any meaningful choice in how long they work,
Outraged that the resolution shrouds its purpose — permitting employers in nations indifferent or hostile to the rights of workers to set hours without any constraint — behind the language of individual autonomy,
Resolving to create a legislative framework more sensitive to the needs of workers and the true state of labor markets, as opposed to one which dresses up the obliteration of labor law in the garb of "individual rights in economic decision-making,"
Hereby repeals GA #302 Individual Working Freedoms.
Original Resolution
Posted:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:41 amby Bananaistan
"With respect Ambassador, the right of workers to join unions for the purposes of collective bargaining, and the obligation of employers to negotiate with unions, is already enshrined in international law regardless of the target."
Posted:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:48 amby Sciongrad
Bananaistan wrote:"With respect Ambassador, the right of workers to join unions for the purposes of collective bargaining, and the obligation of employers to negotiate with unions, is already enshrined in international law regardless of the target."
I don't deny that, but, aside from the reality that unions do not completely equalize the playing field and obviate the need for government oversight, not all types of workers will be represented by unions in most countries. To the extent that unions are effective at forcing employers to limit workweeks reasonably, they only do so for their members. For workers in industries without powerful unions or unions at all, the target resolution exposes them to the threat of employer exploitation.
Your point that I maybe overstate the claim (i.e., "obliteration of labor law") is well taken, though.
Posted:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:52 pmby Sierra Lyricalia
OOC: I think the "Outraged..." clause might cross the Honest Mistake
picket line, given the second half of Clause 3 of the target, plus Clause 4:
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;
(emphases added)
The "practical effect" is not a WA mandate that
employers have the full power you describe, but a blocker giving nations the ability to set regulations or not as they see fit (and within the bounds of any existing resolutions regarding labor, public health, etc.).
It shouldn't take a huge change to bring that clause in line, I think.
Posted:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:10 amby Sciongrad
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I think the "Outraged..." clause might cross the Honest Mistake
picket line, given the second half of Clause 3 of the target, plus Clause 4:
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;
(emphases added)
The "practical effect" is not a WA mandate that
employers have the full power you describe, but a blocker giving nations the ability to set regulations or not as they see fit (and within the bounds of any existing resolutions regarding labor, public health, etc.).
It shouldn't take a huge change to bring that clause in line, I think.
I think you're right. How's this:
Outraged by its claims to advance the autonomy of workers to contract freely, when it fact it has the practical effect of permitting employers in nations indifferent or hostile to the rights of workers to set hours without any constraint,
Maybe a little clunky, but I'm open to suggestions!
Posted:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:23 amby Bears Armed
Sciongrad wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I think the "Outraged..." clause might cross the Honest Mistake
picket line, given the second half of Clause 3 of the target, plus Clause 4:
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;
(emphases added)
The "practical effect" is not a WA mandate that
employers have the full power you describe, but a blocker giving nations the ability to set regulations or not as they see fit (and within the bounds of any existing resolutions regarding labor, public health, etc.).
It shouldn't take a huge change to bring that clause in line, I think.
I think you're right. How's this:
Outraged by its claims to advance the autonomy of workers to contract freely, when it fact it has the practical effect of permitting employers in nations indifferent or hostile to the rights of workers to set hours without any constraint,
Maybe a little clunky, but I'm open to suggestions!
GAR#7 'Workplace Safety Standards Act' might limit employers
a bit in that respect. Its clause 11
11) Requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them.
Posted:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:16 amby Sciongrad
I am reviving this effort. All comments are appreciated.
Posted:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:11 pmby Tinfect
OOC:
I would've voted for this all it contained was a picture of a brick being thrown through a union-buster's window; I'm very glad to be able to support it with a decent argument too.
Posted:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:44 pmby The New Sicilian State
OOC: I'm too intimidated to look for anything wrong with it
. Support.
Posted:
Sat Apr 04, 2020 3:01 amby The Notorious Mad Jack
Should I take it to mean that the 'resolving' clause means you're working on a replacement?
Posted:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:16 amby Sciongrad
The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:Should I take it to mean that the 'resolving' clause means you're working on a replacement?
Not at the moment. I would not like to see a "replacement," however. The current resolution is a blocker, and repealing it doesn't create a gap in international labor law. A repeal would purely open up the opportunity for future legislation, and wouldn't create an urgent need to draft a replacement.
Posted:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:32 amby Sancta Romana Ecclesia
I see nothing wrong with the draft as it is - support.
Posted:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 6:14 pmby Rotenbergen
The workers of Rotenbergen will continue to carry out labor as directed by the state for the greater good.
Posted:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:00 pmby Sciongrad
For real, I am submitting this imminently.
Posted:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:14 pmby Flying Eagles
Sciongrad wrote:For real, I am submitting this imminently.
Do not expect our vote. We believe that a free market is important, and employers will compete to offer their employees favourable working conditions.
Posted:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 7:39 pmby Sierra Lyricalia
Flying Eagles wrote:...employers will compete to offer their employees favourable working conditions.
"Wait, you're serious..."
Posted:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:09 amby Aclion
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Flying Eagles wrote:...employers will compete to offer their employees favourable working conditions.
"Wait, you're serious..."
It works quite well went you don't deliberately maintain an underclass of unskilled laborers.
Posted:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:46 amby Ardiveds
Aclion wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote: "Wait, you're serious..."
It works quite well went you don't deliberately maintain an underclass of unskilled laborers.
"Amabassador, as much as we love capitalism, that is just capitalist propaganda...."
Posted:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:08 amby Graintfjall
“The language of the original resolution is mild. Clauses 1, 2, and 5 have no real force. Clause 3 ‘[m]andates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty and that do not serve any other purpose’ (emphasis my interns’); a straightforward legal workaround to this mandate simply requires that the regulation be applied with a justification that it does something more than ‘only’ reduce individual liberty i.e. that it serves ‘any other purpose’: for example, protecting workplace safety or ensuring fair competition. So it does not in any practice pose a drastic legal burden for any nation whose legislators have the most vanishing wink of sense.
“The meat of the resolution lies in Clause 4. It is a ‘blocker’ intended to prevent the WA from regulating workweeks and working time. So far as I can see, then, the only real change that passing this repeal would bring about would be to remove that block, and permit the WA to regulate workweeks and working time.
“As we can see no value in the WA playing that kind of role in domestic economies, we therefore see no value in passing this repeal. If and only if a proposal, which would not be legal to pass with this resolution in force, were to be produced, and which would otherwise be worthy of passing, then and only then will we change our (at this stage entirely notional) position.”
-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir
Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall Observer Mission
Posted:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:10 amby Omigodtheykilledkenny
All the Great Workweek Crisis of 2014 proved is that the General Assembly is nowhere near qualified to legislate on the subject, and that a workable resolution to that end was nearly impossible. Why the author would rather go back to needlessly debating proposal after proposal governing workweek laws in WA nations, when no one can agree as to a universal standard on the length of an hour, a day or a week, is beyond me.