[PASSED] Individual Working Freedoms II

[Equalitria]

I urge everyone to vote "no" on the "Individual Working Freedoms" bill up for vote in the GA right now. How is anybody supposed to know what a line like this actually means?

Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty and that do not serve any other purpose;

"Reduce liberty" can mean pretty much anything one wants it to mean, and is therefore not nearly as scrutable as a GA bill should be if member countries are expected to adhere to it.

Moreover:

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,

Who is trying to establish a "universal diktat"? If there's any relevant GA legislation that needs to be repealed, then the author of this bill should seek a repeal. This bill seems to be conjuring an illusion of the very problem it's been written to deal with. It seems to me that, right now, countries are making their own rules. There is no "universal diktat."

The bill also never mentions any sort of collective bargaining scheme. It defaults to the notion that the "individual" is best left in complete control of his/her employment conditions, when the reality is that a great many workers can achieve better results by bargaining alongside colleagues. To seal "individual vs. employer" as the gold standard premise of workplace negotiation is to, in many cases, legislate the individual's great disadvantage. Using language from the bill, it would be very simple to argue that unions, themselves, "reduce liberty" (because they don't recognize the primacy of the individual as his/her sole bargainer). One can't help but imagine that the author of the bill had this in mind when writing it.

[Annadelle]

"Our nation is a strong proponent of free economies and we allow all negotiations to happen between employers and employees. We do not have a minimum wage and believe healthy economies are protected by the right to work. Thus, in light of this bill's alignment with our own national policies, we shall vote AYE and strongly encourage our fellow World Assembly delegates to do the same."
~Kristoffer Bjorkman, Her Majesty's Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Panait]

Our government is approval of this resolution, given that as far as a "general public interest" arises, we may intervene.

[Communal Ecotopia]

"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.

This is a huge concern of mine, as well. Could companies also mandate more than 40-hour weeks? At first, this like an awesome flex-time bill, but the extra hours concern, overtime or not, is a bill-killer until further notice. STRONGLY OPPOSED until clarification.

[Communal Ecotopia]

"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.

This is a huge concern of mine, as well. Could companies also mandate more than 40-hour weeks? At first, this like an awesome flex-time bill, but the extra hours concern, overtime or not, is a bill-killer until further notice. STRONGLY OPPOSED until clarification.

I am heartened by the second-draft edits but, given that "serve only to reduce individual liberty" is a phrase construable in so many different and contradictory ways, and that you admit it's there solely so this can be a blocker...still strongly opposed.

[Iron Felix]

I am very pleased to vote for this sensible and much needed legislation.

As for those ambassadors voicing opposition, perhaps if they were buried up to their necks and then ran over repeatedly by tanks, they would recognize the error of their ways and consider changing their votes?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee for State Security

[Louisistan]

This thing will never get repealed if it passes. Just think, a proposal named "Repeal "Individual Working Freedoms""? The title-voters will go berzerk (just like with "Repeal "National Economic Freedoms"" and of course "Repeal "Kittens""). No victories for Gatesville in sight on this one.

[United Commonwealths of Lancaster]

So does clause 1 mean that all people can choose what time are they going to arrive and leave? That would be detrimental to the economies of nations as the latter will not have the power to impose national standards of working time in order to synchronize enterprises with one another. Lancaster thinks that working time is necessary, which the proposal wishes to be removed for the sake of personal liberty, in order to synchronize business transaction and facilitate order. One cannot just be late at the supposedly business transaction just because he or she has the personal liberty to do so in expense of the delayed transaction. The proposal, itself, conceded to the fact that national economies are diverse and cannot be universalized. Therefore, let countries decide whether they will have national standards of working time or none--contary to urging countries to remove working time outright. This proposal should fall.

[Equalitria]

The proposal, itself, conceded to the fact that national economies are diverse and cannot be universalized.

This is precisely it.

The bill purports to solve the issue of there being a "universal diktat," when there is no such thing in place. Nations are currently making their own policy. The GA bill in question is the very sort of "universal diktat" it purports to be acting against.

If there is, in fact, a piece of GA legislation that harms individual liberty as it relates to workplace negotiations (a so-called "universal diktat"), then the bill should seek to repeal that legislation. Otherwise, it has no point.

[Ardoki]

I refuse to follow any legislation I don't like. I urge others to vote against this if they want to.

[Louisistan]

The proposal, itself, conceded to the fact that national economies are diverse and cannot be universalized.

If there is, in fact, a piece of GA legislation that harms individual liberty as it relates to workplace negotiations (a so-called "universal diktat"), then the bill should seek to repeal that legislation. Otherwise, it has no point.

Oh yes it does. Although there is currently no such legislation in place, several proposals to establish such a resolution have been debated in the past weeks. This is not seeking to repeal anything (It would be repeal otherwise and you cannot legislate in a repeal), it is seeking to block proposals who wish to establish such a universal diktat from passing. A preemptive strike, so to speak.

[Equalitria]

Oh yes it does. Although there is currently no such legislation in place, several proposals to establish such a resolution have been debated in the past weeks. This is not seeking to repeal anything (It would be repeal otherwise and you cannot legislate in a repeal), it is seeking to block proposals who wish to establish such a universal diktat from passing. A preemptive strike, so to speak.

And in doing so, it becomes the very sort of "universal diktat" it seeks to prevent. There is language in this proposal which could very easily be interpreted such that unions or other collective bargaining units are forbidden (on the basis that they "reduce individual liberty"). How would that not, in itself, be a "universal diktat"? Who is the author of this legislation to tell people in individual nations that they cannot collectively bargain if that is what they'd like to do? Especially when what the legislation purports to do is secure the rights of nations to determine these matters as they will?

[Separatist Peoples]

The proposal, itself, conceded to the fact that national economies are diverse and cannot be universalized.

This is precisely it.

The bill purports to solve the issue of there being a "universal diktat," when there is no such thing in place. Nations are currently making their own policy. The GA bill in question is the very sort of "universal diktat" it purports to be acting against.

If there is, in fact, a piece of GA legislation that harms individual liberty as it relates to workplace negotiations (a so-called "universal diktat"), then the bill should seek to repeal that legislation. Otherwise, it has no point.

"Clearly the ambassador hasn't been here much recently, because a universal diktat is exactly what has been trying to pass, and this is designed to block it."

[Equalitria]

"Clearly the ambassador hasn't been here much recently, because a universal diktat is exactly what has been trying to pass, and this is designed to block it."

Please see my previous comment for a refutation of this point. The legislation can't have it both ways: it can't both forbid collective bargaining strategies (which its language seems to do) and claim that it exists to preserve each nation's right to determine these matters domestically. It can't both object to "universal diktats" and be one itself.

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to craft a piece of legislation which says something to the effect of, "Each nation shall be free to manage its own labor relations as it sees fit"? Why does all of the stuff about "the individual" even have to be in it, if what it's trying to do is preserve the right of nations' self-determination?

[Araraukar]

I refuse to follow any legislation I don't like.

Then you really shouldn't be in the WA.

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to craft a piece of legislation which says something to the effect of, "Each nation shall be free to manage its own labor relations as it sees fit"?

Please, do draft that, if it is so easy. I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath.

[Equalitria]

Please, do draft that, if it is so easy. I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath.

Does it need to be drafted? Again, the WA isn't currently dictating how nations handle labor relations.

What I'm trying to point out is that this bill actually conjures up, out of thin air, the very "problem" it seeks to "solve." If the author were actually trying to accomplish the stated goal, the overall gist of the bill would be what I suggested above, a neutral piece of legislation which affirms the right of WA nations to manage their own labor relations affairs. Instead, it comes pre-loaded with a distinct ideological slant, declaring the primacy of individuals and shooting down collective bargaining options.

Perhaps, at some point, I or somebody else will propose actual legislation that looks something like the alternative I suggested above. What I'm arguing right now is that any nation which believes that unions and other collective bargaining units are valid tools that should remain on the table, must vote "no" in order to prevent them from being removed as possibilities by this dangerous legislation.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Clearly the ambassador hasn't been here much recently, because a universal diktat is exactly what has been trying to pass, and this is designed to block it."

Please see my previous comment for a refutation of this point. The legislation can't have it both ways: it can't both forbid collective bargaining strategies (which its language seems to do) and claim that it exists to preserve each nation's right to determine these matters domestically. It can't both object to "universal diktats" and be one itself.

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to craft a piece of legislation which says something to the effect of, "Each nation shall be free to manage its own labor relations as it sees fit"? Why does all of the stuff about "the individual" even have to be in it, if what it's trying to do is preserve the right of nations' self-determination?

"The difference between a diktat and a proposal that deliberately uses vague language to allow states to work in a wide variety of compliance is pretty obvious. The language in no way forbids collective bargaining of any kind. It requires nations respect the rights of individuals. Since it doesn't expressly ban collective bargaining, the decision is, clearly, left to national governments to decide, it It was a nice try at deliberately obfuscating what was written, ambassador, but not good enough. I suggest you take more time to familiarize yourself with how WA law is interpreted and how it is implemented before spouting off nonsense."

[Araraukar]

Again, the WA isn't currently dictating how nations handle labor relations.

You REALLY haven't been around here, I see. Would you instead like to have your nation's weekly working hours at 30 hours maximum?

[Mousebumples]

As this resolution completely misses the well demonstrated fact that without employment regulation, employers (unsurprisingly) hold the power to enforce excessive work schedules, I have registered my vote Against this resolution, after a 1-5 vote against was tallied on our off-site forum.

While we understand the frustration that many members of this august Assembly have with recent 30-hour work week proposals, we don't feel that passing this resolution results in any net gains to the employee themselves. Any working time regulation, while it may reduce individual liberty on an abstract level, also serves to protect the worker from abuse by an employer forcing them to work more than they desire. As a result, we encourage our fellow Ambassdors to vote against as well.

Yours,

[Equalitria]

The legislation "Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty and that do not serve any other purpose."

How, exactly, is this standard to be determined? Unlike clauses 1, 2, 4, and 5, clause 3 would require strong enforcement (hence the use of the word "mandates"). When you combine this with its startling vagueness, it becomes fairly easy to see how an attack on gains made by unions and other collective bargaining units could be waged, putting those organizations entirely in jeopardy.

After all, if international law forbids some of their most important gains--and I'm sure we can all agree that the standard work week is among the most well-known of these in nations far and wide--their use value for workers is diminished. The threat to unions is that they would, by means of this legislation, lose the ability to effectively represent their members' interests (as would many world governments).

If this legislation were merely a neutral affirmation of each nation's right to determine its own policies on work hours, we would wholeheartedly support it. But clause 3 of the bill holds every nation, in very strong terms, to removing working time policies which "reduce individual liberty." The language is vague enough, and the flavor of the bill so overtly oriented toward individual-business relations, that collectively-bargained working time restrictions could be put in the crosshairs, with no input from the affected nation itself.

[Hakio]

"We vote AGAINST. This proposal mandates the removal of working hour regulations which will be incredibly problematic for our economy!" Argues Sia Hedishi angrily as economic regulators of the country work in the background to try and make this resolution work in their system some how. "It can't be done here. We have overtime and working hour regulations and your vague usage of words only confuses us more! Fuck no!"

[Separatist Peoples]

If this legislation were merely a neutral affirmation of each nation's right to determine its own policies on work hours, we would wholeheartedly support it. But clause 3 of the bill holds every nation, in very strong terms, to removing working time policies which "reduce individual liberty." The language is vague enough, and the flavor of the bill so overtly oriented toward individual-business relations, that collectively-bargained working time restrictions could be put in the crosshairs, with no input from the affected nation itself.

"Again, excellent attempt to obfuscate the true wording of the text, but no. The proposal seeks to remove legislation that ONLY seeks to reduce individual liberty. If such legislation has a compelling, practical need that isn't "oppression", it's legal. That includes the establishment of unions. The law does what the law says. Selective cherry-picking is not a good way to establish an effective opposition."

[Gruenberg]

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to craft a piece of legislation which says something to the effect of, "Each nation shall be free to manage its own labor relations as it sees fit"?

Such a proposal would not be legal.

As this resolution completely misses the well demonstrated fact that without employment regulation, employers (unsurprisingly) hold the power to enforce excessive work schedules, I have registered my vote Against this resolution, after a 1-5 vote against was tallied on our off-site forum.

While we understand the frustration that many members of this august Assembly have with recent 30-hour work week proposals, we don't feel that passing this resolution results in any net gains to the employee themselves. Any working time regulation, while it may reduce individual liberty on an abstract level, also serves to protect the worker from abuse by an employer forcing them to work more than they desire. As a result, we encourage our fellow Ambassdors to vote against as well.

Yours,
-image spam snipped-

The authors of this proposal believe in national sovereignty, a principle I like to call the "freedom to govern".

[Equalitria]

"Again, excellent attempt to obfuscate the true wording of the text, but no. The proposal seeks to remove legislation that ONLY seeks to reduce individual liberty. If such legislation has a compelling, practical need that isn't "oppression", it's legal. That includes the establishment of unions. The law does what the law says. Selective cherry-picking is not a good way to establish an effective opposition."

And again, we insist that the wording is so vague that this provision could be interpreted in any number of ways. How does one establish that legislation "only" seeks to reduce individual liberty? Is the bar high or low? We wouldn't know, because the bill doesn't deal in any of these fine distinctions. And this might be okay, if the force of the wording were not so stringent. But a "mandate" is a very strong provision. Using it as a wrapper for vague language cannot help but invite tragedy.

[Separatist Peoples]

And again, we insist that the wording is so vague that this provision could be interpreted in any number of ways. How does one establish that legislation "only" seeks to reduce individual liberty? Is the bar high or low? We wouldn't know, because the bill doesn't deal in any of these fine distinctions. And this might be okay, if the force of the wording were not so stringent. But a "mandate" is a very strong provision. Using it as a wrapper for vague language cannot help but invite tragedy.

"If your lawyers are so incompetent as to be unable to use this leeway to their advantage, then I humbly suggest keeping C.D.S.P. lawyers on retainer by your government. The law does what the law says here in the GA, and vagueness in law is interpreted, nigh-universally by the ambassadors and lawyers here, to equate to wiggle room. Should Equalitria fail to do so, then all I can say is "too bad, that's rather short-sighted", and remain quite pleased with our own creative compliance division."