[DRAFT] Unemployment Act

[Parti Ouvrier]

Unemployment Act

A resolution to reform unemployment in the short term, with the long term aim of abolishing unemployment.

Description

Unemployment is an inevitable by-product of capitalism within NationStates. This nation believes that currently full
employment is dependent on the temporary phenomenon of a system which reduces people to the mere possessors of the commodity,
labour-power - that is, objects of exploitation.In a period of crisis, millions cannot profitably be employed.

RECOGNIZING: That the unemployed are maintained at the level of subsistence and the need to abolish the system that causes unemployment.

BELIEVING: That as part of the working class, the unemployed must be integrated into the workers' movement.

DEMANDING:

-The right to work at trade union rates of pay or unemployment
benefit at the level of the minimum wage.

-The state must not harass the unemployed. Benefit claims are
a right, not a privilege.

-Cheap labour schemes must be replaced by real training and
education under trade union supervision.

-The unemployed must have the right to remain in or join trade
unions as full members with equal rights.

-The establishment of job sharing schemes.

-To the extent that they operate, unemployed workers’
organisations must be represented in the trade union movement
- from trades councils to the Trade Union Congress.

[Parti Ouvrier]

All comments, suggestions and criticisms welcome.

[Kryozerkia]

First, wise choice to post your proposal to the forum to get reviews.

Secondly, key elements of your proposal are already covered in existing resolutions.

Resolution #21: Living Wage Act

The concept of wages is already covered in resolution #21, which introduced "living wage".

Resolution #43: WA Labor Relations Act

The right to join unions, guilds or other associations was guaranteed in this resolution.

Thirdly, your proposal, if it wasn't already covered by existing resolutions, it would be rendered invalid under the branding rule. You cannot include your nation name in any form in the proposal.

[Parti Ouvrier]

First, wise choice to post your proposal to the forum to get reviews.

Secondly, key elements of your proposal are already covered in existing resolutions.

Resolution #21: Living Wage Act

The concept of wages is already covered in resolution #21, which introduced "living wage".

Resolution #43: WA Labor Relations Act

The right to join unions, guilds or other associations was guaranteed in this resolution.

Thirdly, your proposal, if it wasn't already covered by existing resolutions, it would be rendered invalid under the branding rule. You cannot include your nation name in any form in the proposal.

'URGES nations to ensure that their welfare systems provide at least the equivalent of a weekly wage of 20% over the Poverty Line.'
I want more than this and that is why the unemployment act says and I quote, 'unemployment
benefit at the level of the minimum wage.' This is concrete and not in the abstraction, let me ask you this, what is the poverty line?
I'm afraid your criticisms are weak sauce, you''ll have to do better than this. And to add the living wage is great, but think of it this way, that act cleans the furniture, this Act adds the polish.

Further, to give a RL example, unemployment benefit is about 65 pounds per week, (the established poverty line), 20% above that is hardly any higher than that. Unemployment benefit at the level of the minimum wage is significantly higher than that, I'm sure you'll agree.

[Mousebumples]

'URGES nations to ensure that their welfare systems provide at least the equivalent of a weekly wage of 20% over the Poverty Line.'
I want more than this and that is why the unemployment act says and I quote, 'unemployment
benefit at the level of the minimum wage.' This is concrete and not in the abstraction, let me ask you this, what is the poverty line?
I'm afraid your criticisms are weak sauce, you''ll have to do better than this. And to add the living wage is great, but think of it this way, that act cleans the furniture, this Act adds the polish.

Further, to give a RL example, unemployment benefit is about 65 pounds per week, (the established poverty line), 20% above that is hardly any higher than that. Unemployment benefit at the level of the minimum wage is significantly higher than that, I'm sure you'll agree.

First, Kryo is a mod. As such, the criticisms in question should be taken more seriously.

Second, amendments are illegal, no matter how much you feel they may be needed.

[Parti Ouvrier]

On the WA Labor relations Act : You say the right to join unions is covered, but the Unemployment Act specifically covers unemployed workers', the Labor relations Act does not cover this. And I'll remove the branding.

[Kryozerkia]

On the WA Labor relations Act : You say the right to join unions is covered, but the Unemployment Act specifically covers unemployed workers', the Labor relations Act does not cover this. And I'll remove the branding.

That would then fall under resolution #27: Freedom of Assembly. They would be able to gather and form a group in this way.

[Parti Ouvrier]

'URGES nations to ensure that their welfare systems provide at least the equivalent of a weekly wage of 20% over the Poverty Line.'
I want more than this and that is why the unemployment act says and I quote, 'unemployment
benefit at the level of the minimum wage.' This is concrete and not in the abstraction, let me ask you this, what is the poverty line?
I'm afraid your criticisms are weak sauce, you''ll have to do better than this. And to add the living wage is great, but think of it this way, that act cleans the furniture, this Act adds the polish.

Further, to give a RL example, unemployment benefit is about 65 pounds per week, (the established poverty line), 20% above that is hardly any higher than that. Unemployment benefit at the level of the minimum wage is significantly higher than that, I'm sure you'll agree.

First, Kryo is a mod. As such, the criticisms in question should be taken more seriously.

Second, amendments are illegal, no matter how much you feel they may be needed.

Excuse me, mods are unelected! Secondly, and I quote a comment by a mod in the Zhaucauzian Friendship RMB: 'So you got yelled at for not logging in ... Oooh! That means you were blamed for something you didn't do! That's mod tyranny!!!' Indeed, unless he was joking, in which case, they don't takes themselves seriously then, so why should I.

Kry said in response, 'This whole region must rise up in protest against the m-- ... er, wait ...' , glad to see he is coming round to the revolutionary way of thinking.

And Mosebumples, I know you enjoy your bureaucratic mentality, but I do not concern myself with amendments, too bourgeois. And how is illegality decided, not democratically, nor through vigorous debate. So it is illegal because it establish amendments, as you would say, 'details are your friend', please elaborate.

[Eireann Fae]

So it is illegal because it establish amendments, as you would say, 'details are your friend', please elaborate.

At this, the girl rises from her seat at the behest of Episky, and addresses the Ambassador of Parti Ouvrier.

"Amendments are illegal because they would make our legal system here even more convoluted than it already is. If you wish to change established law, you must get the relevant existing law repealed, modify it, and post it for deliberation again. This keeps things neat."

OOC: Amendments would have to be hard-coded into the game, which the administrators are not willing to do. There are stickies on this board that explain this...

[Parti Ouvrier]

So it is illegal because it establish amendments, as you would say, 'details are your friend', please elaborate.

At this, the girl rises from her seat at the behest of Episky, and addresses the Ambassador of Parti Ouvrier.

"Amendments are illegal because they would make our legal system here even more convoluted than it already is. If you wish to change established law, you must get the relevant existing law repealed, modify it, and post it for deliberation again. This keeps things neat."

OOC: Amendments would have to be hard-coded into the game, which the administrators are not willing to do. There are stickies on this board that explain this...

Noted, but this is mostly aimed at helping the unemployed. Thus, it is significantly different.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

Yet another attempt to impose the communist ideal on the world. Sickening.

[Mousebumples]

Excuse me, mods are unelected! Secondly, and I quote a comment by a mod in the Zhaucauzian Friendship RMB: 'So you got yelled at for not logging in ... Oooh! That means you were blamed for something you didn't do! That's mod tyranny!!!' Indeed, unless he was joking, in which case, they don't takes themselves seriously then, so why should I.

First - mods may be unelected, but they are still the ones who make decisions regarding the legality/illegality of proposals.

Second - there are multiple mods within the ZF region. There were a few mods joking back and forth in the RMB discussion you noted.

And Mosebumples, I know you enjoy your bureaucratic mentality, but I do not concern myself with amendments, too bourgeois. And how is illegality decided, not democratically, nor through vigorous debate. So it is illegal because it establish amendments, as you would say, 'details are your friend', please elaborate.

I'm a bit puzzled over how I have a "bureaucratic mentality." Regardless, amendments are against the GA proposal rules.

Amendments
You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

[Mousebumples]

Noted, but this is mostly aimed at helping the unemployed. Thus, it is significantly different.

Again, it seems that a mod disagrees with your assessment. The rules are the rules, and even though it may have a different aim, it is still seeking to amend already existing legislation.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Noted, but this is mostly aimed at helping the unemployed. Thus, it is significantly different.

Again, it seems that a mod disagrees with your assessment. The rules are the rules, and even though it may have a different aim, it is still seeking to amend already existing legislation.

Firstly, no response from the mod recently, secondly, laws contradict eachother all the time. Are we to assume they are ammendments of each other? I'm sure if we were extra dogmatic we could find many contradictions and overlaps in all of these resolutions. The point is, the decision that they are illegal is undemocratic and decided from above. Thus, the shrill voices that step on the bandwagon to denounce this little problem of illegality. It's a bourgeois deception and let me end with something Slavoj Zizek said, and I'm paraphrasing here when he said that capitalism is an unknown unknown, (remember Rumsfeld's speech on Iraq), people believe in an illusion without even realising it.[1]

Notes

1) Slavoj Zizek: Interview by Sean O' Hagan, 27th June 2010 guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/ ... -end-times

[Mousebumples]

Firstly, no response from the mod recently,

Because they are supposed to be reading your thread constantly to update their opinions on the legality of your proposal?

secondly, laws contradict eachother all the time. Are we to assume they are ammendments of each other? I'm sure if we were extra dogmatic we could find many contradictions and overlaps in all of these resolutions.

WA laws? Please, give me an example.

It's a bourgeois deception and let me end with something Slavoj Zizek said, and I'm paraphrasing here when he said that capitalism is an unknown unknown, (remember Rumsfeld's speech on Iraq), people believe in an illusion without even realising it.

Who is Rumsfeld? What is Iraq? I am not familiar with these individuals or places.

(OOC Note: RL examples will not hold much sway, if any, within the World Assembly.)

[Parti Ouvrier]

Firstly, no response from the mod recently,

Because they are supposed to be reading your thread constantly to update their opinions on the legality of your proposal?

secondly, laws contradict eachother all the time. Are we to assume they are ammendments of each other? I'm sure if we were extra dogmatic we could find many contradictions and overlaps in all of these resolutions.

WA laws? Please, give me an example.

It's a bourgeois deception and let me end with something Slavoj Zizek said, and I'm paraphrasing here when he said that capitalism is an unknown unknown, (remember Rumsfeld's speech on Iraq), people believe in an illusion without even realising it.

Who is Rumsfeld? What is Iraq? I am not familiar with these individuals or places.

(OOC Note: RL examples will not hold much sway, if any, within the World Assembly.)

Good for the World Assembly, I'm not a robot.

[Greenlandic People]

OOC: Go ahead and do what you like then. Just don't come crying to us when nobody wants to debate with you anymore and the big bad bourgeoisie capitalist Mods ban you for repeatedly breaking the rules.

[Parti Ouvrier]

OOC: Go ahead and do what you like then. Just don't come crying to us when nobody wants to debate with you anymore and the big bad bourgeoisie capitalist Mods ban you for repeatedly breaking the rules.

Of course that would be infantilising, as I.Kant said, 'immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance from others.' - I.Kant.

I'm clearly very naughty and require the paternalism of the mods. And by the way I haven't submitted this yet.

[Greenlandic People]

OOC: Go ahead and do what you like then. Just don't come crying to us when nobody wants to debate with you anymore and the big bad bourgeoisie capitalist Mods ban you for repeatedly breaking the rules.

Of course that would be infantilising, as I.Kant said, 'immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance from others.' - I.Kant.

I'm clearly very naughty and require the paternalism of the mods. And by the way I haven't submitted this yet.

There's nothing infantile or paternal about it. It's simple common sense. If you continue to behave rudely, abrasively, and obstinately towards others without provocation, then they will natural not want anything to do with you anymore. In a similar vein, if you ultimately decide that the established rules of the World Assembly are "tyrannical" and "undemocratic" and therefore decide that you don;t need to comply with them, then you shouldn't be surprised if the mods decide to penalize you.

That's all I was trying to say.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

If it is illegal, it is illegal, and no amount of trying to cutely troll is going to change that.

[Kryozerkia]

Firstly, no response from the mod recently, secondly, laws contradict eachother all the time. Are we to assume they are ammendments of each other? I'm sure if we were extra dogmatic we could find many contradictions and overlaps in all of these resolutions. The point is, the decision that they are illegal is undemocratic and decided from above. Thus, the shrill voices that step on the bandwagon to denounce this little problem of illegality. It's a bourgeois deception and let me end with something Slavoj Zizek said, and I'm paraphrasing here when he said that capitalism is an unknown unknown, (remember Rumsfeld's speech on Iraq), people believe in an illusion without even realising it.[1]

Notes

1) Slavoj Zizek: Interview by Sean O' Hagan, 27th June 2010 guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/ ... -end-times

Oh, I'm so sorry for having a life. </sarcasm>

If you actually bothered to read the Rules for GA Proposals (which I doubt given your post), you'd know that contradictions get proposals thrown out; duplication gets proposals thrown out, et cetera.

Everyone is equally subject to the same rules for proposals. Whining about how it's undemocratic, unfair and otherwise not to your liking will accomplish nothing.

It has already been explained that amendments are illegal. Contradiction is also illegal. The chances of resolutions overlapping or contradicting each other is entirely unlikely given the close scrutiny of all proposals by mods and players alike.